instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondents, Loren Tyler and Robert Tompkins, were convicted in a Michigan trial court of conspiracy to burn real property in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157a (1970). Various pieces of physical evidence and testimony based on personal observation, all obtained through unconsented and warrantless entries by police and fire officials onto the burned premises, were admitted into evidence at the respondents’ trial. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that “the warrantless searches were unconstitutional and that the evidence obtained was therefore inadmissible.” 399 Mich. 564, 584, 250 N. W. 2d 467, 477 (1977). We granted certiorari to consider the applicability of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to official entries onto fire-damaged premises. 434 U. S. 814.
I
Shortly before midnight on January 21, 1970, a fire broke out at Tyler’s Auction, a furniture store in Oakland County, Mich. The building was leased to respondent Loren Tyler, who conducted the business in association with respondent Robert Tompkins. According to the trial testimony of various witnesses, the fire department responded to the fire and was “just watering down smoldering embers” when Fire Chief See arrived on the scene around 2 a. m. It was Chief See’s responsibility “to determine the cause and make out all reports.” Chief See was met by Lt. Lawson, who informed him that two plastic containers of flammable liquid had been found in the building. Using portable lights, they entered the gutted store, which was filled with smoke and steam, to examine the containers. Concluding that the fire “could possibly have been an arson,” Chief See called Police Detective Webb, who arrived around 3:30 a. m. Detective Webb took several pictures of the containers and of the interior of the store, but finally abandoned his efforts because of the smoke and steam. Chief See briefly “[l]ooked throughout the rest of the building to see if there was any further evidence, to determine what the cause of the fire was.” By 4 a. m. the fire had been extinguished and the firefighters departed. See and Webb took the two containers to the fire station, where they were turned over to Webb for safekeeping. There was neither consent nor a warrant for any of these entries into the building, nor for the removal of the containers. The respondents challenged the introduction of these containers at trial, but abandoned their objection in the State Supreme Court. 399 Mich., at 570, 250 N. W. 2d, at 470.
Four hours after he had left Tyler’s Auction, Chief See returned with Assistant Chief Somerville, whose job was to determine the “origin of all fires that occur within the Township.” The fire had been extinguished and the building was empty. After a cursory examination they left, and Somerville returned with Detective Webb around 9 a. m. In Webb’s words, they discovered suspicious “burn marks in the carpet, which '[Webb] could not see earlier that morning, because of the heat, steam, and the darkness.” They also found “pieces of tape, with burn marks, on the stairway.” After leaving the building to obtain tools, they returned and removed pieces of the carpet and sections of the stairs to preserve these bits of evidence suggestive of a fuse trail. Somerville also searched through the rubble “looking for any other signs or evidence that showed how this fire was caused.” Again, there was neither consent nor a warrant for these entries and seizures. Both at trial and on appeal, the respondents objected to the introduction of evidence thereby obtained.
On February 16 Sergeant Hoffman of the Michigan State Police Arson Section returned to Tyler’s Auction to take photographs. During this visit or during another at about the same time, he checked the circuit breakers, had someone inspect the furnace, and had a television repairman examine the remains of several television sets found in the ashes. He also found a piece of fuse. Over the course of his several visits, Hoffman secured physical evidence and formed opinions that played a substantial role at trial in establishing arson as the cause of the fire and in refuting the respondents’ testimony about what furniture had been lost. His entries into the building were without warrants or Tyler’s consent, and were for the sole purpose “of making an investigation and seizing evidence.” At the trial, respondents’ attorney objected to the admission of physical evidence obtained during these visits, and also moved to strike all of Hoffman’s testimony “because it was got in an illegal manner.”
The Michigan Supreme Court held that with only a few exceptions, any entry onto fire-damaged private property by fire or police officials is subject to the warrant requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. “[Once] the blaze [has been] extinguished and the firefighters have left the premises, a warrant is required to reenter and search the premises, unless there is consent or the premises have been abandoned.” 399 Mich., at 583, 250 N. W. 2d, at 477. Applying this principle, the court ruled that the series of warrantless entries that began after the blaze had been extinguished at 4 a. m. on January 22 violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. It found that the “record does not factually support a conclusion that Tyler had abandoned the fire-damaged premises” and accepted the lower court’s finding that “ '[c]onsent for the numerous searches was never obtained from defendant Tyler.’ ” Id., at 583, 570-571, 250 N. W. 2d, at 476, 470. Accordingly, the court reversed the respondents’ convictions and ordered a new trial.
II
The decisions of this Court firmly establish that the Fourth Amendment extends beyond the paradigmatic entry into a private dwelling by a law enforcement officer in search of the fruits or instrumentalities of crime. As this Court stated in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 528, the “basic purpose of this Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.” The officials may be health, fire, or building inspectors. Their purpose may be to locate and abate a suspected public nuisance, or simply to perform a routine periodic inspection. The privacy that is invaded may be sheltered by the walls of a warehouse or other commercial establishment not open to the public. See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., ante, at 311-313. These deviations from the typical police search are thus clearly within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
The petitioner argues, however, that an entry to investigate the cause of a recent fire is outside that protection because no individual privacy interests are threatened. If the occupant of the premises set the blaze, then, in the words of the petitioner’s brief, his “actions show that he has no expectation of privacy” because “he has abandoned those premises within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” And if the fire had other causes, “the occupants of the premises are treated as victims by police and fire officials.” In the petitioner’s view, “[t]he likelihood that they will be aggrieved by a possible intrusion into what little remains of their privacy in badly burned premises is negligible.”
This argument is not persuasive. For even if the petitioner’s contention that arson establishes abandonment be accepted, its second proposition — that innocent fire victims inevitably have no protectible expectations of privacy in whatever remains of their property — is contrary to common experience. People may go on living in their homes or working in their offices after a fire. Even when that is impossible, private effects often remain on the fire-damaged premises. The petitioner may be correct in the view that most innocent fire victims are treated courteously and welcome inspections of their property to ascertain the origin of the blaze, but “even if true, [this contention] is irrelevant to the question whether the . . . inspection is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Camara, supra, at 536. Once it is recognized that innocent fire victims retain the protection of the Fourth Amendment, the rest of the petitioner’s argument unravels. For it is, of course, impossible to justify a warrantless search on the ground of abandonment by arson when, that arson has not yet been proved, and a conviction cannot be used ex post facto to validate the introduction of evidence used to secure that same conviction.
Thus, there is no diminution in a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy nor in the protection of the Fourth Amendment simply because the official conducting the search wears the uniform of a firefighter rather than a policeman, or because his purpose is to ascertain the cause of a fire rather than to look for evidence of a crime, or because the fire might have been started deliberately. Searches for administrative purposes, like searches for evidence of crime, are encompassed by the Fourth Amendment. And under that Amendment, “one governing principle, justified by history and by current experience, has consistently been followed: except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is 'unreasonable’ unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.” Camara, supra, at 528-529. The showing of probable cause necessary to secure a warrant may vary with the object and intrusiveness of the search, but the necessity for the warrant persists.
The petitioner argues that no purpose would be served by requiring warrants to investigate the cause of a fire. This argument is grounded on the premise that the only fact that need be shown to justify an investigatory search is that a fire of undetermined origin has occurred on those premises. The petitioner contends that this consideration distinguishes this case from Camara, which concerned the necessity for warrants to conduct routine building inspections. Whereas the occupant of premises subjected to an unexpected building inspection may have no way of knowing the purpose or lawfulness of the entry, it is argued that the occupant of burned premises can hardly question the factual basis for fire officials’ wanting access to his property. And whereas a magistrate performs the significant function of assuring that an agency’s decision to conduct a routine inspection of a particular dwelling conforms with reasonable legislative or administrative standards, he can do little more than rubberstamp an application to search fire-damaged premises for the cause of the blaze. In short, where the justification for the search is as simple and as obvious to everyone as the fact of a recent fire, a magistrate’s review would be a time-consuming formality of negligible protection to the occupant.
The petitioner’s argument fails primarily because it is built on a faulty premise. To secure a warrant to investigate the cause of a fire, an official must show more than the bare fact that a fire has occurred. The magistrate’s duty is to assure that the proposed search will be reasonable, a determination that requires inquiry into the need for the intrusion on the one hand, and the threat of disruption to the occupant on the other. For routine building inspections, a reasonable balance between these competing concerns is usually achieved by broad legislative or administrative guidelines specifying the purpose, frequency, scope, and manner of conducting the inspections. In the context of investigatory fire searches, which are not programmatic but are responsive to individual events, a more particularized inquiry may be necessary. The number of prior entries, the scope of the search, the time of day when it is proposed to be made, the lapse of time since the fire, the continued use of the building, and the owner’s efforts to secure it against intruders might all be relevant factors. Even though a fire victim’s privacy must normally yield to the vital social objective of ascertaining the cause of the fire, the magistrate can perform the important function of preventing harassment by keeping that invasion to a minimum. See See v. Seattle, 387 U. S., at 544-545; United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 9; Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., ante, at 323.
In addition, even if fire victims can be deemed aware of the factual justification for investigatory searches, it does not follow that they will also recognize the legal authority for such searches. As the Court stated in Camara, “when the inspector demands entry [without a warrant], the occupant has no way of knowing whether enforcement of the municipal code involved requires inspection of his premises, no way of knowing the lawful limits of the inspector’s power to search, and no way of knowing whether the inspector himself is acting under proper authorization.” 387 U. S., at 532. Thus, a major function of the warrant is to provide the property owner with sufficient information to reassure him of the entry’s legality. See United States v. Chadwick, supra, at 9.
In short, the warrant requirement provides significant protection for fire victims in this context, just as it does for property owners faced with routine building inspections. As a general matter, then, official entries to investigate the cause of a fire must adhere to the warrant procedures of the Fourth Amendment. In the words of the Michigan Supreme Court: “Where the cause [of the fire] is undetermined, and the purpose of the investigation is to determine the cause and to prevent such fires from occurring or recurring, a . . . search may be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued in accordance with reasonable legislative or administrative standards or, absent their promulgation, judicially prescribed standards; if evidence of wrongdoing is discovered, it may, of course, be used to establish probable cause for the issuance of a criminal investigative search warrant or in prosecution.” But “[i]f the authorities are seeking evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution, the usual standard [of probable cause] will apply.” 399 Mich., at 584, 250 N. W. 2d, at 477. Since all the entries in this case were “without proper consent” and were not “authorized by a valid search warrant,” each one is illegal unless it falls within one of the “certain carefully defined classes of cases” for which warrants are not mandatory. Camara, 387 U. S., at 528-529.
Ill
Our decisions have recognized that a warrantless entry by criminal law enforcement officials may be legal when there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (warrantless entry of house by police in hot pursuit of. armed robber) ; Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 (warrantless and unannounced entry of dwelling by police to prevent imminent destruction of evidence). Similarly, in the regulatory field, our cases have recognized the importance of “prompt inspections, even without a warrant, ... in emergency situations.” Camara, supra, at 539, citing North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306 (seizure of unwholesome food); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (compulsory smallpox vaccination) ; Compagnie Francaise v. Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380 (health quarantine).
A burning building clearly presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry “reasonable.” Indeed, it would defy reason to suppose that firemen must secure a warrant or consent before entering a burning structure to put out the blaze. And once in a building for this purpose, firefighters may seize evidence of arson that is in plain view. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 465-466. Thus, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were not violated by the entry of the firemen to extinguish the fire at Tyler’s Auction, nor by Chief See’s removal of the two plastic containers of flammable liquid found on the floor of one of the showrooms.
Although the Michigan Supreme Court appears to have accepted this principle, its opinion may be read as holding that the exigency justifying a warrantless entry to fight a fire ends, and the need to get a warrant begins, with the dousing of the last flame. 399 Mich., at 579, 250 N. W. 2d, at 475. We think this view of the firefighting function is unrealistically narrow, however. Fire officials are charged not only with extinguishing fires, but with finding their causes. Prompt determination of the fire’s origin may be necessary to prevent its recurrence, as through the detection of continuing dangers such as faulty wiring or a defective furnace. Immediate investigation may also be necessary to preserve evidence from intentional or accidental destruction. And, of course, the sooner the officials complete their duties, the less will be their subsequent interference with the privacy and the recovery efforts of the victims. For these reasons, officials need no warrant to remain in a building for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of a blaze after it has been extinguished. And if the warrantless entry to put out the fire and determine its cause is constitutional, the warrantless seizure of evidence while inspecting the premises for these purposes also is constitutional.
IV
A
The respondents argue, however, that the Michigan Supreme Court was correct in holding that the departure by the fire officials from Tyler’s Auction at 4 a. m. ended any license they might have had to conduct a warrantless search. Hence, they say that even if the firemen might have been entitled to remain in the building without a warrant to investigate the cause of the fire, their re-entry four hours after their departure required a warrant.
On the facts of this case, we do not believe that a warrant was necessary for the early morning re-entries on January 22. As the fire was being extinguished, Chief See and his assistants began their investigation, but visibility was severely hindered by darkness, steam, and smoke. Thus they departed at 4 a. m. and returned shortly after daylight to continue their investigation. Little purpose would have been served by their remaining in the building, except to remove any doubt about the legality of the warrantless search and seizure later that same morning. Under these circumstances, we find that the morning entries were no more than an actual continuation of the first, and the lack of a warrant thus did not invalidate the resulting seizure of evidence.
B
The entries occurring after January 22, however, were clearly detached from the initial exigency and warrantless entry. Since all of these searches were conducted without valid warrants and without consent, they were invalid under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and any evidence obtained as a result of those entries must, therefore, be excluded at the respondents’ retrial.
V
In summation, we hold that an entry to fight a fire requires no warrant, and that once in the building, officials may remain there for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of the blaze. Thereafter, additional entries to investigate the cause of the fire must be made pursuant to the warrant procedures governing administrative searches. See Camara, 387 U. S., at 534-539; See v. Seattle, 387 U. S., at 544-545; Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., ante, at 320-321. Evidence of arson discovered in the course of such investigations is admissible at trial, but if the investigating officials find probable cause to believe that arson has occurred and require further access to gather evidence for a possible prosecution, they may obtain a warrant only upon a traditional showing of probable cause applicable to searches for evidence of crime. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102.
These principles require that we affirm the judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court ordering a new trial.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun joins the judgment of the Court and Parts I, III, and IV-A of its opinion.
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In addition, Tyler was convicted of the substantive offenses of burning real property, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.73 (1970), and burning insured property with intent to defraud, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.75 (1970).
Sergeant Hoffman had entered the premises with other officials at least twice before, on January 26 and 29. No physical evidence was obtained as a result of these warrantless entries.
The State’s case was substantially buttressed by the testimony of Oscar Frisch, a former employee of the respondents. He described helping Tyler and Tompkins move valuable items from the store and old furniture into the store a few days before the fire. He also related that the respondents had told him there would be a fire on January 21, and had instructed him to place mattresses on top of other objects so that they would bum better.
Having concluded that warrants should have been secured for the post-fire searches, the court explained that different standards of probable cause governed searches to determine the cause of a fire and searches to gather evidence of crime. It then described what standard of probable cause should govern all the searches in this case:
“While it may be no easy task under some circumstances to distinguish as a factual matter between an administrative inspection and a criminal investigation, in the instant case the Court is not faced with that task. Having lawfully discovered the plastic containers of flammable liquid and other evidence of arson before the fire was extinguished, Fire Chief See focused his attention on assembling proof of arson and began a criminal investigation. At that point there was probable cause for issuance of a criminal investigative search warrant.” 399 Mich., at 577, 250 N. W. 2d, at 474 (citations omitted).
For administrative searches conducted to enforce local building, health, or fire codes, “ ‘probable cause’ to issue a warrant to inspect . . . exist [s] if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling. Such standards, which will vary with the municipal program being enforced, may be based upon the passage of time, the nature of the building (e. g., a multi-family apartment house), or the condition of the entire area, but they will not necessarily depend upon specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling.” Camara, 387 U. S., at 538; Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., ante, at 320-321. See LaFave, Administrative Searches and the Fourth Amendment: The Camara and See Cases, 1967 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 18-20.
The circumstances of particular fires and the role of firemen and investigating officials will vary widely. A fire in a single-family dwelling that clearly is extinguished at some identifiable time presents fewer complexities than those likely to attend a fire that spreads through a large apartment complex or that engulfs numerous buildings. In the latter situations, it may be necessary for officials — pursuing their duty both to extinguish the fire and to ascertain its origin' — to remain on the scene for an extended period of time repeatedly entering or re-entering the building or buildings, or portions thereof. In determining what constitutes a “reasonable time to investigate,” appropriate recognition must be given to the exigencies that confront officials serving under these conditions, as well as to individuals' reasonable expectations of privacy.
The petitioner alleges that respondent Tompkins lacks standing to object to the unconstitutional searches and seizures. The Michigan Supreme Court refused to consider the State’s argument, however, because the prosecutor failed to raise the issue in the trial court or in the Michigan Court of Appeals. 399 Mich., at 571, 250 N. W. 2d, at 470-471. We read the state court’s opinion to mean that in the absence of a timely objection by the State, a defendant will be presumed to have standing. Failure to present a federal question in conformance with state procedure constitutes an adequate and independent ground of decision barring review in this Court, so long as the State has a legitimate interest in enforcing its procedural rule. Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443, 447. See Safeway Stores v. Oklahoma Grocers, 360 U. S. 334, 342 n. 7; Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 438. The petitioner does not claim that Michigan’s procedural rule serves no legitimate purpose. Accordingly, we do not entertain the petitioner’s standing claim which the state court refused to consider because of procedural default.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, requires that when a State or political subdivision covered by the Act adopts or seeks to administer any change in its standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting, it must obtain a preclearance either from the Attorney General of the United States or by obtaining a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed change has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971), held that changes in the boundary lines of a city by annexations that enlarge the number of eligible voters are events covered by §5. The question in this case is whether the District Court for the District of Columbia correctly held that the electoral plan for the Port Arthur, Tex., City Council could not be approved under § 5 because it insufficiently neutralized the adverse impact upon minority voting strength that resulted from the expansion of the city’s borders by two consolidations and an annexation.
H — (
In December 1977, the city of Port Arthur, Tex., consolidated with the neighboring cities of Pear Ridge and Lake View. Six months later, the city annexed Sabine Pass, an incorporated area. As a result of these expansions of the city's borders, the percentage of the black population in Port Arthur decreased from 45.21% to 40.56%. Blacks of voting age constituted 35% of the population of the enlarged city.
Prior to the expansions, the city was governed by a seven-member Council, including a mayor, each member being elected at large by majority vote. Each member except the mayor was required to reside in a specific district of the city. Members were elected for staggered terms. Following the two consolidations, the City Council passed an ordinance adding an eighth member to the Council, while retaining the at-large system with residency requirements. After the annexation of Sabine Pass, the city further proposed that the Council be expanded to nine members, with at-large elections as before. The two consolidations and the annexation, together with the proposed changes in the governing system, were submitted to the Attorney General for preclearance pursuant to §5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Attorney General refused preclearance, suggesting, however, that he would reconsider if the Council members were elected from fairly drawn single-member districts.
As §5 permitted it to do, the city then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment that the expansions and the nine-member plan did not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of color or race within the meaning of § 5. While that suit was pending, the city approved by referendum the “4-4-1” plan, calling for four members to be elected from single-member districts, four to be elected at large from residency districts identical to the single-member districts, and the ninth member, the mayor, to be elected at large without any residency requirement. That plan, like the previous plans, required a majority vote to elect each Council member. The city then moved to amend its complaint so as to seek a declaratory judgment as to the legality of the 4-4r-l plan.
The District Court concluded that because there were legitimate purposes behind the annexation and the consolidations, those actions, under City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358 (1975), could not be denied preclearance as discriminatory in purpose. 517 F. Supp. 987 (1981). Because the expansions had substantially reduced the relative political strength of the black population, however, it was necessary for preclearance that the postexpansion electoral system be found to satisfy the requirements of § 5. The District Court held that neither the first nine-member plan nor the 4-4-1 plan measured up, not only because each was adopted, with a discriminatory purpose, but also because in the context of the severe racial bloc voting characteristic of the recent past in the city neither plan adequately reflected the minority’s potential political strength in the enlarged community as required under City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156 (1980); City of Richmond v. United States, supra; and City of Petersburg v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021 (DC 1972), summarily aff’d, 410 U. S. 962 (1973).
Soon after this decision, the city and the United States jointly submitted to the court for approval the “4-2-3” electoral plan. Under this scheme, the city would be divided into four single-member districts, Districts 1 through 4. District 5, comprising Districts 1 and 4 would elect another member, as would District 6, which combined Districts 2 and 3. Three additional members would be elected at large, one each from Districts 5 and 6, the third at-large seat to be occupied by the mayor and to have no residency requirement. All Council seats would be governed by the majority-vote rule, that is, runoffs would be required if none of the candidates voted on received a majority of the votes cast. Blacks constituted a majority in Districts 1 and 4, 79% and 62.78% respectively, as well as a 70.83% majority of the fifth district combining the two majority black districts. The sixth district was 10.98% black. Although the United States expressed reservations about the at-large and majority-vote features, its position was that neither of these aspects of the plan warranted a denial of preclearance.
After response to and oral argument upon the submission, the District Court concluded “that the proposed plan insufficiently neutralizes the adverse impact upon minority voting strength which resulted from the expansion of Port Arthur’s borders.” App. 87a. The court added, however, that if the plan were modified to eliminate the majority-vote requirement with respect to the two nonmayoral, at-large candidates, and to permit election to these two seats to be made by a plurality vote, the court “would consider the defect remedied and offer our approval.” Id., at 87a-88a. This appeal followed, the basic submission being that under § 5 and the controlling cases the District Court exceeded its authority in conditioning clearance of the 4-2-3 plan on the elimination of the majority-vote requirement. We noted probable jurisdiction. 455 U. S. 917 (1982).
M HH
Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971), held that annexations by a city are subject to § 5 preclearance because increasing the number of eligible voters dilutes the weight of the votes of those to whom the franchise was limited before the annexation and because the right to vote may be denied by dilution or debasement just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the franchise. It soon became clear, however, that § 5 was not intended to forbid all expansions of municipal borders that could be said to have diluted the voting power of particular groups in the community. In City of Petersburg v. United States, supra, the annexation of an area with a heavy white majority resulted in reducing the black community from majority to minority status. The District Court held that the annexation could nevertheless be approved but “only on the condition that modifications [in the electoral plan] calculated to neutralize to the extent possible any adverse effect upon the political participation of black voters are adopted, i. e., that the [city] shift from an at-large to a ward system of electing its city councilmen.” 354 F. Supp., at 1031. We affirmed summarily. 410 U. S. 962 (1973).
Later, in City of Richmond v. United States, supra, we expressly reaffirmed Petersburg, recognizing that the Peters-burg annexation enhanced the power of the white majority to exclude Negroes from the city council but stating that such a consequence “would be satisfactorily obviated if at-large elections were replaced by a ward system of choosing councilmen.” 422 U. S., at 370. It was our view that a fairly designed ward plan “would not only prevent the total exclusion of Negroes from membership on the council but would afford them representation reasonably equivalent to their political strength in the enlarged community.” Ibid. We applied these principles in City of Richmond. There, the annexation of a heavily white area reduced the black population of the city from 52% to 42%, and the electoral proposal submitted for preclearance replaced the prior system of at-large elections with a single-member plan under which blacks would be in a substantial majority in four of the nine councilmanic districts. We held that as long as the ward system fairly reflected the strength of the Negro community as it existed after the annexation, preclearance under §5 should be granted. Under such a plan, “Negro power in the new city [would not be] undervalued, and Negroes [would] not be underrepresented on the council.” Id., at 371. The annexation could not, therefore, be said to have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race within the meaning of § 5.
In the case before us, Port Arthur was a party to two consolidations and an annexation. Because the areas taken into the city were predominantly white, the relative percentage of blacks in the enlarged city was substantially less than it was before the expansions. The District Court refused preclearance because in its view the postexpansion electoral system did not sufficiently dispel the adverse impact of the expansions on the relative political strength of the black community in Port Arthur. The city submits that this judgment was in error under Petersburg and Richmond.
Richmond, however, involved a fairly drawn, single-member district system that adequately reflected the political strength of the black community in the enlarged city. The plan was consequently an acceptable response to the annexation’s adverse impact on minority voting potential. It does not necessarily follow that the mixed single-member and at-large system at issue in this case sufficiently dispelled the impact of Port Arthur’s expansions on the relative political strength of the black community. The District Court concluded that although the 4-2-3 system provided a black majority in three councilmanic districts, it was necessary also to eliminate the majority-vote requirement with respect to the two nonmayoral at-large council positions. For several reasons, we cannot say that the District Court erred in this respect.
First, whether the 4-2-3 plan adequately reflected the political strength of the black minority in the enlarged city is not an issue that is determinable with mathematical precision. Because reasonable minds could differ on the question and because the District Court was sitting as a court of equity seeking to devise a remedy for what otherwise might be a statutory violation, we should not rush to overturn its judgment. Cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 15 (1971).
Second, the 4-2-3 plan undervalued to some extent the political strength of the black community: one-third of the Council seats was to be elected from black majority districts, but blacks constituted 40.56% of the population of the enlarged city and 35% of the voting age population. In light of this fact, eliminating the majority-vote requirement was an understandable adjustment. As the District Court well understood, the majority-vote rule, which forbade election by a plurality, would always require the black candidate in an at-large election, if he survived the initial round, to run against one white candidate. In the context of racial bloc voting prevalent in Port Arthur, the rule would permanently foreclose a black candidate from being elected to an at-large seat. Removal of the requirement, on the other hand, might enhance the chances of blacks to be elected to the two at-large seats affected by the District Court’s conditional order but surely would not guarantee that result. Only if there were two or more white candidates running in a district would a black have any chance of winning election under a plurality system. We cannot say that insisting on eliminating the majority-vote rule in the two at-large districts would either overvalue black voting strength in Port Arthur or be inconsistent with Richmond.
Third, even if the 4-2-3 electoral scheme might otherwise be said to reflect the political strength of the minority community, the plan would nevertheless be invalid if adopted for racially discriminatory purposes, i.e., if the majority-vote requirement in the two at-large districts had been imposed for the purpose of excluding blacks from any realistic opportunity to represent those districts or to exercise any influence on Council members elected to those positions. City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S., at 378-379. The District Court made no finding that the 4-2-3 plan was tainted by an impermissible purpose; but it had found that the two preceding plans, the first nine-member plan and the 4r-4r-1 plan, had been adopted for the illicit purpose of preventing black candidates from winning election. The court had also found that the majority-vote requirement was a major means of effectuating this discriminatory end. When it was then presented with the 4-2-3 plan retaining the requirement for the two nonmayoral at-large seats, the Court conditioned approval on eliminating the majority-vote element. It seems to us that in light of the prior findings of discriminatory purpose such action was a reasonable hedge against the possibility that the 4-2-3 scheme contained a purposefully discriminatory element. On balance, we cannot fault the judgment of the District Court.
The judgment of the District Court is accordingly
Affirmed.
It is undisputed that the city of Port Arthur is a political subdivision to which § 5 is applicable. See 28 CFR, p. 461, Appendix (1982).
Section 5, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, in relevant part provides 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. . . 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, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, 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, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate tate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made.”
The preannexation and postannexation percentages are based on the 1980 census. The figure for the percentage of blacks in the voting age population is an estimate, which the District Court derived by extrapolating from the 1970 census data. The 1970 census showed that at that time 34.6% of the voting age population was black while 40.01% of the general population was black. The District Court itself noted the dangers of extrapolation, but explained that both parties had suggested the procedure for determining the percentage of the current voting age population that is black. Port Arthur also has a Hispanic community, which comprises 6.30% of the enlarged city’s population.
The United States unsuccessfully sought to enjoin the referendum election before a three-judge court in the Eastern District of Texas. United States v. City of Port Arthur, No. B-80-216-CA (Sept. 5, 1980).
The city argues that the District Court was required to approve a plan jointly submitted by the city and the Attorney General. The Voting Rights Act, however, assigns primary responsibility to the District Court to determine whether a change in voting procedures violates § 5. Pre-clearance by the Attorney General may obviate a court suit, but here the Attorney General was acting in the capacity of a litigant when he joined the city in submitting a plan for the court’s consideration. In that posture, neither the Attorney General, the city, nor both of them together could dictate the court’s conclusion as to the acceptability of the plan under § 5.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Powell dissent.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in light of No. 331, Jones v. United States, ante, p. 493, decided this day.
Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in No. 331, decided this day.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 1965 the voters of Philadelphia approved a public education supplement to their city charter establishing the present structure of the Philadelphia Board of Education (the School Board or Board). The supplement, which appears as Art. XII of the city charter, vests in the Mayor a double appointment power with regard to the School Board. The Mayor appoints the nine members of the Board, but he is assisted in that task by another entity that he also appoints, the Educational Nominating Panel (the Nominating Panel or Panel). The function of the Panel is to seek out qualified candidates for service on the School Board by polling civic organizations and the citizenry at large, to interview those candidates, to deliberate on their qualifications, and to submit selected nominees to the Mayor. The Panel submits three nominees for every vacancy on the Board. In his discretion, the Mayor may request an additional three nominees per vacancy. The Mayor must then make appointments to the School Board from among the nominees submitted by the Panel.
The Nominating Panel consists of 13 members. Under the terms of the city charter, the Mayor appoints four members of the Panel from the citizenry at large. Each of the remaining members must be the highest ranking officer of one of nine categories of citywide organizations or institutions, such as a labor union council, a commerce organization, a public school parent-teachers association, a degree-granting institution of higher learning, and the like. Although the city charter describes with substantial specificity the nine categories of organizations or institutions whose leaders may serve on the Nominating Panel, the charter does not designate any particular organization or institution by name. Accordingly, it is possible for more than one such citywide entity to qualify under any given category.
The members of the Nominating Panel serve two-year terms. A new Panel is appointed and convened in every odd-numbered year, when, in the ordinary course, three vacancies occur on the School Board. Thus, since 1965 there have been five Panels. Mayor James J. H. Tate, whose term expired in 1972, appointed the 1965, 1967, 1969, and 1971 Panels. The present Mayor, Frank Rizzo, appointed the 1973 Panel.
Respondents include the Educational Equality League, the president of the League, another citizen of Philadelphia, and two students attending the city’s public schools. Shortly after Mayor Tate’s appointment of the 1971 Nominating Panel, respondents filed this suit as a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, relying on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). The gravamen of their complaint, which named the Mayor of Philadelphia and the Nominating Panel as defendants, was that Mayor Tate had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against Negroes in his appointments to the 1971 Panel. Respondents sought an injunction barring the 1971 Panel from submitting nominees for the Board to the Mayor and a declaratory judgment that Mayor Tate had violated the Constitution. They also requested an order directing the Mayor to appoint a Nominating Panel “fairly representative of the racial composition of the school community.”
Respondents did not challenge the racial composition of the School Board, which consisted of two Negroes and seven whites when respondents filed their complaint and which now consists of three Negroes and six whites. They did not allege that the 1971 Panel discriminated in its submission of School Board nominees to the Mayor. Such an attack would have been difficult to mount in any event. Of the nine nominees submitted to the Mayor by the 1971 Panel, four were Negroes and five were whites. Moreover, respondents did not dispute the validity of the qualifications set forth in the city charter with regard to the Nominating Panel. Finally, despite the prayer in their complaint for an order directing the appointment of a Panel “fairly representative of the racial composition of the school community...,” respondents disclaimed any effort to impose a racial quota on the Mayor in his appointments to the Panel. Respondents sought solely to establish that the Mayor unconstitutionally excluded qualified Negroes from consideration for membership on the Nominating Panel and to remedy that alleged defect prospectively as well as retrospectively.
Following two days of hearings, the District Court dismissed respondents’ complaint. Educational Equality League v. Tate, 333 F. Supp. 1202 (ED Pa. 1971). In its findings of fact, the court noted that approximately 34% of the population of Philadelphia and approximately 60% of the students attending the city’s various schools were Negroes. Id., at 1202-1204. The court found the following racial composition of the Nominating Panels from 1965 to 1971: the 1965 Panel had 10 whites and three Negroes; the 1967 Panel had 11 whites and two Negroes; the 1969 Panel had 12 whites and one Negro; and the 1971 Panel had 11 whites and two Negroes. Id., at 1204. The court further found that “several organizations reflecting the views and participation of the black community” could qualify as organizations whose highest ranking officers might serve on the Nominating Panel. Ibid. The court also found that Deputy Mayor Zecca, the person assigned by Mayor Tate to assist in selecting qualifying organizations and institutions, at the time of the hearing was unaware of the existence of many of these “black organizations.” Ibid.
On the basis of its finding of fact, the District Court concluded that respondents had failed to prove that the 1971 Panel was appointed in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that differences between the percentage of Negroes in the city's population (34%) or in the student body of the public school system (60%) and the percentage of Negroes on the 1971 Nominating Panel (15%) had no significance. Id., at 1205-1207. In large part this was because the number of positions on the Panel was too small to provide a reliable sample; the addition or subtraction of a single Negro meant an 8% change in racial composition. Id., at 1206. The court also rejected as unreliable data submitted by respondents in an effort to show that Mayor Tate’s appointments to various positions in the city government other than the Panel reflected a disproportionately low percentage of Negroes and a pattern of discrimination. Ibid. Moreover, the court dismissed as inadmissible hearsay a 1969 newspaper account of an alleged statement by Mayor Tate that at that time he would appoint no more Negroes to the School Board. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. Educational Equality League v. Tate, 472 F. 2d 612 (1973). Relying on statistical data about the Panel rejected by the District Court and going outside that court’s findings of fact in other respects, the Court of Appeals concluded that respondents had established an unrebutted prima facie case of unlawful exclusion of Negroes from consideration for service on the 1971 Panel. Id., at 618. Moreover, although the Mayor’s office had changed hands while the case was sub judice and although there was nothing in the record addressed to the appointment practices of the new Mayor with regard to the Nominating Panel, the Court of Appeals directed the issuance of extensive injunctive relief against the new Mayor. Id., at 619. In particular, the Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to undertake an ongoing supervision of the new Mayor’s appointments to the 1973 Panel and future Panels. Ibid?
We granted the Mayor’s petition for certiorari. 411 U. S. 964 (1973). We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in overturning the District Court’s findings and conclusions. We also hold that it erred in ordering prospective injunctive relief against the new Mayor in a case devoted exclusively to the personal appointment policies of his predecessor.
I
The Mayor’s principal contention is that judicial review of the discretionary appointments of an executive officer contravenes basic separation-of-powers principles. The Mayor cites cases concerning discretionary appointments in the Federal Executive Branch, such as Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), and Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926). He notes that Pennsylvania, like the Federal Government, has a tripartite governmental structure, and he argues that the principles shaping the appropriate scope of judicial review are the same at the state level as at the federal level.
Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed this argument at length. The District Court expressed its “reservations” about exerting control over “an elected chief executive in the exercise of his discretionary appointive power...,” 333 F. Supp., at 1206, but that court based its dismissal of respondents’ complaint on the absence of proof of discrimination. The Court of Appeals brushed aside the “reservations” of the District Court, concluding that the Nominating Panel was not intended to operate as part of the Mayor’s staff and thus that the appointments were not discretionary. 472 F. 2d, at 617. And, although nine of the seats on the Panel are subject to restrictive qualifications embodied in the city charter, which are not challenged by respondents, the Court of Appeals proceeded as though this were a case where access to participation in a governmental or other entity or function is open to all citizens equally. Drawing by analogy from cases dealing with such incidents of citizenship as jury service and the right to nondiscrimination in employment, e. g., Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346 (1970), and Smith v. Yeager, 465 F. 2d 272 (CA3), cert. denied, sub nom. New Jersey v. Smith, 409 U. S. 1076 (1972), the court declared that “a prima facie case is established by a demonstration that blacks were under-represented [on the Panel] and that there was an opportunity for racial discrimination.” 472 F. 2d, at 618.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the appointments at issue are not discretionary. The court’s view that the Panel is not a part of the staff of the mayor is not self-evident, as we understand the functions of the Panel. But in any event this is irrelevant to whether the Mayor’s power to appoint the Panel is discretionary. Executive officers are often vested with discretionary appointment powers over officials who by no stretch of the imagination are members of the staff of the appointing officer. The appointment of judges is a familiar example. Likewise, the appointments to the Panel are discretionary by any reasonable measure. With regard to the four seats on the Panel devoted to the citizenry at large, the city charter holds the Mayor accountable only at the polls. And, although the charter narrows the Mayor’s range of choice in filling the other nine seats, it remains true that the final selection of the membership of the Panel rests with the Mayor, subject always to the oversight of the voters.
It is also our view that the Court of Appeals did not assign appropriate weight to the constitutional considerations raised by the Mayor. To be sure, the Mayor’s reliance on federal separation-of-powers precedents is in part misplaced, because this case, unlike those authorities, has nothing to do with the tripartite arrangement of the Federal Constitution. But, to the degree that the principles cited by the Mayor reflect concern that judicial oversight of discretionary appointments may interfere with the ability of an elected official to respond to the mandate of his constituency, they are in point. There are also delicate issues of federal-state relationships underlying this case. The federalism questions are made particularly complex by the interplay of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with its special regard for the status of the rights of minority groups and for the role of the Federal Government in protecting those rights. The difficulty of the issues at stake has been alluded to by the Court, without elaboration, as recently as in Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene County, 396 U. S. 320 (1970). Carter concerned a state governor’s alleged discriminatory exclusion of Negroes in his discretionary appointments to a county jury commission. The Court found on the record an absence of proof of discrimination, but it nevertheless recognized “the problems that would be involved in a federal court’s ordering the Governor of a State to exercise his discretion in a particular way....” Id., at 338.
Were we to conclude that respondents had established racial discrimination in the selection process for the Panel, we would be compelled to address the “problems” noted in Carter, supra, and raised by the Mayor. We need not go so far, however, because we find that this case founders on an absence of proof, even under the approach taken by the Court of Appeals.
II
The Court of Appeals bottomed its conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated on three indicia, only one of which was based on a finding by the District Court. Whether taken singly or in combination, these factors provide no adequate basis for the court’s conclusion that respondents had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
First, the Court of Appeals relied on an alleged statement by Mayor Tate in 1969 that in filling the vacancies then open on the School Board he would appoint no Negroes in addition to the two already on it. 472 F. 2d, at 615-616. Respondents presented two items as evidence of this statement. During cross-examination of Deputy Mayor Zecca, counsel for respondents directed Mr. Zecca’s attention to a 1969 newspaper article dealing with the alleged statement. Deputy Mayor Zecca denied the accuracy of the newspaper account; the District Court ruled that the newspaper account was inadmissible hearsay. The Court of Appeals made no mention of this newspaper account. Rather, although noting that the District Court had made no finding on the subject, the court focused on the testimony of one of respondents’ witnesses that Mayor Tate had made the 1969 statement. The court apparently assumed the truth of the statement, for it declared that the testimony was made “without contradiction or objection...
In our view, the Court of Appeals’ reliance on the alleged 1969 statement was misplaced. Assuming the admissibility and reliability of such double hearsay, we are unable to conclude that an ambiguous statement purportedly made in 1969 with regard to the racial composition of the then School Board proves anything with regard to the Mayor’s motives two years later in appointing the 1971 Nominating Panel. The Court of Appeals noted that if the Mayor had in 1969 decided to exclude Negro nominees from appointment to the Board, “an inference may be drawn that the Mayor in similar manner excluded blacks from consideration as members of the 1971 Panel.” 472 F. 2d, at 616 n. 9. That inference is supposition. It cannot be viewed as probative of a future intent to discriminate on the basis of race with regard to a different governmental entity. Furthermore, it is refuted by the fact that the Mayor later appointed Negroes to the 1971 Panel and, for that matter, to the School Board itself.
Second, the Court of Appeals cited the District Court’s finding that Deputy Mayor Zecca had been unaware of many “black-oriented organizations” that could qualify under the categories of organizations and institutions set out in the city charter. Id., at 616. The court thought that, given Mr. Zecca’s important position in the appointment process in 1971, his ignorance would “support an inference that the selection process had a discriminatory effect.” Id., at n. 13. This is another speculative inference. Deputy Mayor Zecca did not make the appointments to the Panels. That task belonged to Mayor Tate. It is unlikely that an elected mayor would be ignorant of any viable citywide organization or institution, particularly if he had held office for a number of years. Thus Deputy Mayor Zecca’s unfamiliarity with certain organizations may not be imputed automatically to the official holding the appointment power. Moreover, there has been no showing in this record that Mr. Zecca’s unawareness of organizations or institutions was restricted to what the Court of Appeals referred to as “black-oriented organizations.” Id-., at 616. The Deputy Mayor may well have been equally uninformed of the existence of many other Philadelphia organizations and groups.
As a third indicator of the exclusion of Negroes, the Court of Appeals again went outside the District Court’s findings. As noted earlier, the District Court rejected as unreliable, percentage comparisons of the racial composition of the Panel and of the population of Philadelphia. 333 F. Supp., at 1206, 1207. The Court of Appeals thought it unfortunate that “the parties did not introduce the expert testimony of a statistician on whether the frequency of black appointments to the 13-member Panel fell outside the range to be expected were race not a factor...,” 472 F. 2d, at 618, but nevertheless found the small proportion of Negroes on the Panel “significant.” Ibid. This led the court to conclude that “the small proportion of blacks on the Panel points toward the possibility of discrimination.” Ibid.
Statistical analyses have served and will continue to serve an important role as one indirect indicator of racial discrimination in access to service on governmental bodies, particularly where, as in the case of jury service, the duty to serve falls equally on all citizens. E. g., Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene County, 396 U. S. 320 (1970); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954); Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559 (1953). See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 805 (1973) (employment discrimination). But the simplistic percentage comparisons undertaken by the Court of Appeals lack real meaning in the context of this case. Respondents do not challenge the qualifications for service on the Panel set out in the charter, whereby nine of the 13 seats are restricted to the highest ranking officers of designated categories of citywide organizations and institutions. Accordingly, this is not a case in which it can be assumed that all citizens are fungible for purposes of determining whether members of a particular class have been unlawfully excluded. At least with regard to nine seats on the Panel and assuming, arguendo, that percentage comparisons are meaningful in a case involving discretionary appointments, the relevant universe for comparison purposes consists of the highest ranking officers of the categories of organizations and institutions specified in the city charter, not the population at large. The Court of Appeals overlooked this distinction. Furthermore, the District Court’s concern for the smallness of the sample presented by the 13-member Panel was also well founded. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to recognize the importance of this flaw in straight percentage comparisons.
In sum, the Court of Appeals’ finding of racial discrimination rests on ambiguous testimony as to an alleged statement in 1969 by then Mayor Tate with regard to the 1969 School Board, not the 1971 Panel; the unawareness of certain organizations on the part of a city official who did not have final authority over or responsibility for the challenged appointments; and racial-composition percentage comparisons that we think were correctly rejected by the District Court as meaningless. In our view, this type of proof is too fragmentary and speculative to support a serious charge in a judicial proceeding.
Ill
The Court of Appeals prefaced its discussion of appropriate relief by noting that it would be “the district court’s function to determine the precise nature of the relief to which [respondents] are entitled.” 472 F. 2d, at 618. Nevertheless, the court held, in part, that the District Court “should enjoin the present Mayor from discriminating in regard to the 1973 or future Panels and should require that before the 1973 Panel is selected, the Mayor or his staff submit to the court evidence that organizations in the black community... have received proper consideration.” Id., at 619. (Footnote omitted.)
Mayor Tate was succeeded by Mayor Rizzo on January 3, 1972. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on January 11, 1973. Accordingly, the injunctive orders mandated by the court with regard to the 1973 and future Panels would have run against Mayor Rizzo, not Mayor Tate. As its sole reason for directing such relief against Mayor Rizzo, the Court of Appeals noted that Mr. Zecca continued as Deputy Mayor under the Rizzo administration. Id., at 619 n. 21. But petitioner alleges, and respondents do not deny, that under Mayor Rizzo's stewardship, Mr. Zecca no longer has any responsibility with regard to Panel appointments. Moreover, the entire case has been focused on the appointments made by Mayor Tate. Nothing in the record speaks to the appointment policies of Mayor Rizzo with regard to the Panel. Thus, the record does not support the premise that Mayor Rizzo's appointment record for the Panel will track that of his predecessor.
Where there have been prior patterns of discrimination by the occupant of a state executive office but an intervening change in administration, the issuance of prospective coercive relief against the successor to the office must rest, at a minimum, on supplemental findings of fact indicating that the new officer will continue the practices of his predecessor. E. g., Sportier v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 514 (1974). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of such findings at the time it instructed the District Court to enter injunctive relief against Mayor Rizzo with regard to future Panels. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in its decision on remedies, as well as in concluding that respondents had established a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
IV
We turn, finally, to the dissent's argument that this case should be remanded to the District Court for resolution of state law issues under the court's pendent jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for abstention so that the case may be tried from scratch in state court. This approach ignores what the parties have briefed and argued before us, espouses on behalf of respondents state law claims of barely colorable relevance to the instant suit, and would produce a result inconsistent with a commonsense application of the pendent jurisdiction and abstention doctrines.
As the dissent concedes, post, at 642, its state law arguments were neither raised in the petition, argued in the briefs, nor articulated in oral argument before this Court. To address them would require us to disregard the admonition of Supreme Court Rule 23.1 (c) that “[ojnly the questions set forth in the petition or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court.” See also, e. g., Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 206 n. 5 (1954); National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U. S. 350, 357 n. 2 (1940); General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U. S. 175, 177-178 (1938). Moreover, the assertion that pendent jurisdiction is appropriate and that pendent state claims should be decided first presumes that the state claims have color and make it possible for the case to be “decided without reference to questions arising under the Federal Constitution....” Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175, 193 (1909). That is not true here. In their complaint, respondents set out the following four points of state law and no others: that the 1971 Panel was convened on May 28, whereas the Charter required May 25; that the Mayor appointed the chairman of the Panel, although the Charter allegedly restricts that appointment responsibility to the Panel itself; that one of the Mayor’s appointees was not the highest ranking officer of the organization he represented; and that the Mayor appointed certain city officials to the Panel, in alleged contravention of the Charter. A decision for respondents on all of these issues would not have approached resolving the case nor would it have provided a basis for granting the relief to which respondents laid claim. These state law claims were wholly tangential to the principal theme of respondents’ lawsuit — an alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is hardly surprising that respondents have not pursued these claims at either stage of appellate review. In fact, respondents scarcely addressed them in the District Court.
At the opening of the evidentiary hearings, the District Court asked counsel for respondents to describe the basis of the suit. Counsel responded that “the single issue in the case, as we have presented it, is whether there has been racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the composition of the Nominating Panel.” Tr., Aug. 25, 1971, p. 4. There could be no clearer statement that a litigant’s case turns on federal, rather than state, law. And respondents presented their case, as they had drafted their complaint, essentially as an exposition of federal law. To ignore all of this and to compel the District Court now to decide nondispositive state law questions would require a unique reading of the pendent jurisdiction doctrine.
Despite the language of the complaint, respondents’ counsel’s characterization of the suit before the District Court, and the almost exclusively federal character of the record, the dissent attributes to respondents an independent state law argument that the charter requires “a balanced racial composition on the Panel as a whole... (Emphasis added.) Post, at 638. In our view, this is a misreading of the record. Midway through the hearing, the District Court asked respondents whether they were asserting a claim under the language of the charter. Respondents’ counsel replied in a manner that makes clear that he viewed the charter as merely supportive of the federal law claim and as a part only of a general “picture” or “image” of racial discrimination, not as an independent requirement of racial balance on the Panel as a whole.
A reluctance by respondents to assert an independent claim that the charter requires racial balance on the whole Panel is not surprising if one focuses on the language of the charter itself. The only conceivably pertinent provision is § 12-206 (c):
“In order to represent adequately the entire community, the four other members of the Educational Nominating Panel shall be appointed by the Mayor from the citizenry at large.” (Emphasis added.)
As should be immediately apparent, the emphasized phrase, on which the dissent relies and which it apparently views as a requirement of racial balance, speaks only to the jour at-large seats. The phrase does not address the nine seats restricted to the head of designated categories of citywide organizations and thus plainly does not address the Panel “as a whole.” Thus, assuming the language is capable of carrying the meaning that the dissent would import to it and overlooking the fact that respondents did not set it out as an independent ground in their complaint or elsewhere, the provision is simply incapable of resolving a lawsuit addressed at all 13 seats on the Panel. As the District Court noted, “failing to appoint at-large members to adequately represent the entire community [is] not relevant in determining whether racial discrimination was involved with the appointments [to the Panel]....” 333 F. Supp., at 1207.
We also believe that the dissent’s view of pendent jurisdiction as something akin to subject matter jurisdiction that may be raised sua sponte at any stage and that is capable of aborting prior federal court proceedings is a misreading of the law. “It has consistently been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 726 (1966). See 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 813 (1971). To argue that the doctrine requires us to wipe out three levels of federal court litigation of a federal law issue on the off chance that a peripheral state law claim might have merit ignores the Court’s recognition that the doctrine’s “justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants....” Gibbs, supra, at 726.
The dissent suggests in the alternative that the District Court be directed to abstain while the parties start this case all over again in state courts. This proposal comes nearly three years after the filing of the complaint and would produce delay attributable to abstention that the Court in recent years has sought to minimize. See, e. g., England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 425-426 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring). And abstention would be pointless since the state issues put forward by the dissent are plainly insufficient to merit such treatment. Moreover, the dissent’s theme of the “paramount concern of avoiding constitutional questions, where possible...” strikes a particularly jarring note in a civil rights case in which the plaintiffs asserted that “the single issue... is whether there has been racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....” Although we have no occasion to decide the issue here, there is substantial authority for the proposition that abstention is not favored in an equal protection, civil rights case brought as was this one under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343.
We are in general accord, of course, with the dissent’s view of the importance of the constitutional decision-avoidance principles articulated by Mr. Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 345-348 (1936). But those standards are susceptible of misuse. And we think that to commence relitigation of this case on an insubstantial state issue abandoned by the parties would be a serious abuse of the Ashwander standards. There simply is not “present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” Id., at 347.
The judgment is reversed.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
Philadelphia Home Rule Charter
ARTICLE XII PUBLIC EDUCATION
CHAPTER 1
THE HOME RULE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Section 12-100. The Home Rule School District.
A separate and independent home rule school district is hereby established and created to be known as “The School District of Philadelphia.”
Section 12-101. The New District to Take Over All Assets and Assume All Liabilities of the Predecessor School District.
The home rule school district shall
(a) succeed directly the now existing school district for all purposes, including, but not limited to, receipt of all grants, gifts, appropriations, subsidies or other payments;
(b) take over from the now existing school district all assets, property, real and personal, tangible and intangible, all easements and all evidences of ownership in part or in whole, and all records, and other evidences pertaining thereto; and
(c) assume all debt and other contractual obligations of the now existing school district, any long term debt to be issued, secured and retired in the manner now provided by law.
CHAPTER 2
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Section 12-200. The Board Created; Its Function.
There shall be a Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia which shall be charged with the administration, management and operation of the home rule school district.
Section 12-201. Members of the Board; Method of Selection.
There shall be nine members of the Board of Education who shall be appointed by the Mayor from lists of names submitted to him by the Educational Nominating Panel....
Section 12-202. Eligibility for Board Membership.
Members of the Board of Education shall be registered voters of the City. No person shall be eligible to be appointed... to more than two full six-year terms.
Section 12-203. Terms of Board Members.
The terms of members of the Board of Education shall begin on the first Monday in December and shall be six years except that (1) of the first members of the Board appointed..., 'three shall be appointed... for terms of two years, three for terms of four years, and three for terms of six years....
Section 12-204. Removal of Members of the Board.
Members of the Board of Education may be removed as provided by law.
Section 12-205. Vacancies on the Board.
A vacancy in the office of member of the Board of Education shall be filled for the balance of the unexpired term in the same manner in which the member was selected who died or resigned. If a member of the Board is removed from office, the resulting vacancy shall be filled as provided by law.
Section 12-206. Educational Nominating Panel; Method of Selection.
(a) The Mayor shall appoint an Educational Nominating Panel consisting of thirteen (13) members. Members of the Panel shall be registered voters of the City and shall serve for terms of two years from the dates of their appointment.
(b) Nine members of the Educational Nominating Panel shall be the highest ranking officers of City-wide organizations or institutions which are, respectively:
(1) a labor union council or other organization of unions of workers and employes organized and operated for the benefit of such workers and employes,
(2) a council, chamber, or other organization established for the purpose of general improvement and benefit of commerce and industry,
(3) a public school parent-teachers association,
(4) a community organization of citizens established for the purpose of improvement of public education,
(5) a federation, council, or other organization of non-partisan neighborhood or community associations,
(6) a league, association, or other organization established for the purpose of improvement of human and inter-group relations,
(7) a non-partisan committee, league, council, or other organization established for the purpose of improvement of governmental, political, social, or economic conditions,
(8) a degree-granting institution of higher education whose principal educational facilities are located within Philadelphia, and
(9) a council, association, or other organization dedicated to community planning of health and welfare services or of the physical resources and environment of the City.
(c) In order to represent adequately the entire community, the four other members of the Educational Nominating Panel shall be appointed by the Mayor from the citizenry at large.
(d) In the event no organization as described in one of the clauses (1) through (9) of subsection (b) exists within the City, or in the event there is no such organization any one of whose officers is a registered voter of the City, the Mayor shall appoint the highest ranking officer who is a registered voter of the City from another organization or institution which qualifies under another clause of the subsection.
(e) A vacancy in the office of member of the Educational Nominating Panel shall be filled for the balance of the unexpired term in the same manner in which the member was selected who died, resigned, or was removed.
(f) The Educational Nominating Panel shall elect its own officers and adopt rules of procedure.
Section 12-207. The Educational Nominating Panel; Duties and Procedure.
(a) The Mayor shall appoint and convene the Educational Nominating Panel (1) not later than May twenty-fifth of every odd-numbered year, and (2) whenever a vacancy occurs in the membership of the Board of Education.
(b) The Panel shall within forty (40) days submit to the Mayor three names of qualified persons for every place on the Board of Education which is to be filled. If the Mayor wishes an additional list of names, he shall so notify the Panel within twenty (20) days. Thereupon the Panel shall within thirty (30) days send to the Mayor an additional list of three qualified persons for each place to be filled. The Mayor shall within twenty (20) days make an appointment....
(d) The Educational Nominating Panel shall invite business, civic, professional, labor, and other organizations, as well as individuals, situated or resident within the City to submit for consideration by the Panel the names of persons qualified to serve as members of the Board of Education.
(e) Nothing herein provided shall preclude the Panel from recommending and the Mayor from appointing or nominating persons who have previously served on any board of public education other than the Board of Education created by these charter provisions.
The relevant provisions of Aft. XII of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter are set forth as an appendix, infra, p. 629 et seq.
Section 12-206 (b) of Art. XII of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Respondent, a former Immigration inspector, was convicted by a jury in the District Court of numerous counts under a multiple-count indictment; the conviction covered 20 counts of improperly receiving gratuities for official acts, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 201 (g), and one of perjury before the grand jury, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1623, arising out of a scheme to defraud nonresident aliens and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Court of Appeals reversed respondent’s conviction and remanded the case for retrial. 479 F. 2d 290 (CA2 1973). Respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pau-peris in this Court, and the petition for a writ of certi-orari, are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for reinstatement of the judgment of conviction.
At respondent’s arraignment, counsel was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U. S. C. § 3006A (b), to represent him after he requested the appointment and stated that he was without funds. In response to a direct question as to whether he had funds to employ an attorney, he failed to disclose that he had access to and control of four savings. accounts in which he had deposited approximately $27,000 during 1970 and 1971/ and from, which he made frequent withdrawals immediately subsequent to the arraignment. The accounts were apparently established by respondent in so-called “Totten trusts” for his children as the intended donees; under New York law these trusts were revocable at respondent’s will. In re Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748 (1904). The deposits to these undisclosed accounts aggregated more than the $25,000 which respondent reported as his total legitimate income on his tax returns for 1970 and 1971, and evidence of the deposits was admitted at trial as supporting the inference that he improperly received the gratuities as was charged. As part of the Government’s case in chief the District Court admitted evidence of respondent’s statements to the court as to his lack of funds. The statements were admitted as false exculpatory statements evincing respondent’s consciousness that the bank deposits were incriminating, and as evidence of willfulness in making statements before the grand jury with knowledge of their falsity.
The Court of Appeals held that the admission of respondent’s false statements violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because in its view the "ultimate truth of the matter asserted in the pretrial request for appointed counsel is of no moment. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377.” 479 F. 2d, at 292. The Court of Appeals cited United States v. Branker, 418 F. 2d 378 (CA2 1969), for its application of Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968), to the assertion of the Sixth Amendment right. The Court of Appeals’ reliance on Simmons misconceives the thrust of that holding.
In Simmons one of the defendants, in an attempt to establish standing to move for suppression of a suitcase containing incriminating evidence seized by the police, testified at the pretrial suppression hearing that the suitcase was similar to one he owned. The motion to suppress was denied, and the Government used the defendant’s testimony against him in its case in chief. Viewing the testimony as an “integral part” of the claim for exclusion, the Court held its use impermissible because it conditioned the exercise of what the defendant “believed ... to be a valid Fourth Amendment claim” on a waiver of the constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Id., at 391, 394.
To establish standing to move for suppression of evidence assertedly illegally seized, the claimant must show the kind of interest in that evidence set forth in Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223, 229-230 (1973), which would necessarily be incriminating should the motion fail and the defendant’s interest therein be introduced. The need to choose between waiving the Fifth Amendment privilege and asserting an incriminating interest in evidence sought to be suppressed, or invoking the privilege but thereby forsaking the claim for exclusion, creates what the Court characterized as an “intolerable” need to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another. Simmons, 390 U. S., at 394.
Even assuming that the Simmons principle was appropriately extended to Sixth Amendment claims for appointed counsel by the Branker holding, a question which we do not now decide, cf. McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 210-213 (1971), that principle cannot be applied to protect respondent here. Simmons barred the use of pretrial testimony at trial to prove its incriminating content. Here, by contrast, the incriminating component of respondent’s pretrial statements derives not from their content, but from respondent’s knowledge of their falsity. The truth of the matter was that respondent was not indigent, and did not have a right to appointment of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. We are not dealing, as was the Court in Simmons, with what was “believed” by the claimant to be a “valid” constitutional claim, see n. 2, supra. Respondent was not, therefore, faced with the type of intolerable choice Simmons sought to relieve. The protective shield of Simmons is not to be converted into a license for false representations on the issue of indigency free from the risk that the claimant will be held accountable for his falsehood. Cf. Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, 226 (1971).
Reversed and remanded.
The transcript of the colloquy at arraignment reads in part as follows:
“The Court: Your name, sir?
“The Defendant: I am Norbert Kahan, sir.
“The Court: Have you an attorney?
“The Defendant: No, sir.
“The Court: Have you any money to hire an attorney?
“The Defendant: I do, sir, but it’s blocked by my wife from whom
I am divorced.
“The Court: Do you want a week to try and straighten that out?
“The Defendant: There is a suit coming up sometime early next year.
“The Court: We can’t wait until next year.
“The Defendant: Then if it pleases the Court I would like to have the Court assign me an attorney.
“The Court: You have no current funds?
“The Defendant: I beg your pardon?
“The Court: You have no current funds at all?
“The Defendant: No, sir.
“The Court: Are you working?
“The Defendant: No, sir.
“The Court: I’m going to assign Mr. Jesse Berman at this point.” At trial it was determined that respondent never made these aver-ments under oath, either orally or by presentment of written affidavit.
Respondent contended at trial that he understood himself to be merely the custodian of the four “Totten trusts,” which he said belonged to his children. The trial judge ruled, out of the jury’s presence, that there was sufficient proof of falsity to warrant the admission of his statements, that the false statements were relevant to issues on trial, and that the prejudicial effect of the statements did not outweigh their probative value. The jury was ultimately instructed that it should consider respondent’s false statements only for the limited purposes, as set forth in text, for which they were introduced.
The grounds for admitting respondent's false statements, supra, at 241, make it clear by necessary implication that the trial judge— who alone decides the question of relevancy — thought respondent had willfully made false representations. Respondent’s withdrawals from the aforementioned accounts shortly after he denied having current funds lend support to that view.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
18 U. S. C. § 401 (2) empowers a court of the United States to punish as contempt “Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions . ...” Petitioner, a lawyer, sent a questionnaire to a District of Columbia grand jury. For this, the District Court found petitioner guilty of contempt and fined him $100. 122 F. Supp. 388. In so doing the court held that within the meaning of the statute petitioner was one “of its officers” and that sending the questionnaire was “misbehavior” in an “official transaction.” The Court of Appeals affirmed, Circuit Judge Fahy dissenting. 96 U. S. App. D. C. 30, 223 F. 2d 322. The construction of the statute raised such important questions that we granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 817. A rather detailed statement of the facts, which are not in dispute, will point up the broad scope given the statute in sustaining this conviction.
A District of Columbia grand jury returned an indictment against Ben Gold, charging him with having filed a false non-Communist affidavit in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1001. Petitioner promptly appeared as his attorney. Shortly thereafter the same grand jury summoned two of Mr. Gold’s associates, commanding them to appear and produce documents. Petitioner appeared for them and moved to quash and vacate the subpoenas. On the same day or the next, petitioner mailed from New York identical letters and questionnaires to all members of the grand jury who were employees of the Federal Government. In the letters petitioner told the grand jurors that as Mr. Gold’s attorney he was trying to learn the effect of the Government’s loyalty program on federal employee jurors. Explaining that he wanted no information concerning proceedings or deliberations of the grand jury, he asked the jurors to answer his questions on the ground that it was their duty as citizens “to help enlighten the court on an issue which affects the liberty of a citizen on trial in a criminal case.” All of the questions were directed toward learning whether the government employee jurors might be influenced by bias or fear to indict persons charged with having had some association with the Com- . munist Party. On the basis of these facts, the District Court ordered petitioner to appear and show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt under 18 U. S. C. §401 (2).
Petitioner appeared and answered the charges. He admitted the facts just stated but denied that his conduct constituted contempt within the meaning of the statute. His answer set out the following additional facts which are not disputed:
Prior to the return of the indictment against Mr. Gold in the District of Columbia, two federal grand juries in New York had investigated this same alleged offense but returned no indictment. Immediately after Mr. Gold was arraigned in the District of Columbia Court, petitioner learned from a roster of the grand jury obtained from the clerk that 13 members of the grand jury — a majority — were government employees. Petitioner decided to make a motion challenging the legal qualifications of the government employee jurors. He concluded that this could be done under Rule 6 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, relying in part on this Court’s statement in Dennis v. United States, 339 U. S. 162, 171-172, that “Preservation of the opportunity to prove actual bias is a guarantee of a defendant’s right to an impartial jury.”
Petitioner was also led to believe that it would be necessary to obtain statements from the grand jurors because of the Government’s brief and the court’s holding in Emspak v. United States, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 378, 203 F. 2d 54. There the Government successfully contested Emspak’s efforts to show that federal employee grand jurors were biased and should not have served by arguing that “there is not the slightest indication in the long motion and offer of proof that an attempt has been made to interview a single one of the persons.” The Government also argued there that it was the defendant’s duty to make his own investigation of bias instead of calling on the court to make it for him. The petitioner was also influenced by what had taken place in connection with an investigation of bias of government employees in another case in the District of Columbia. There a district judge had held that the defendant Weinberg was not entitled to a hearing as to bias of government employees as grand jurors unless the defendant had himself first undertaken to contact the jurors to ascertain from them the existence of bias. The district judge had stated that there was “nothing to prevent counsel, if he sees fit, contacting those 15 members [of the grand jury] and inquiring only of one subject, whether or not they had any personal bias toward” the defendant. After this statement counsel for Weinberg had sent a letter and questionnaire to all the government employee members of the grand jury. Petitioner consulted with Weinberg’s lawyers who told him they had sent the letters and questionnaires without the prior knowledge or authority of the district judge, that their action was later made known to him, and that no suggestion of criticism was made either by the judge or by the Government. Petitioner then mailed substantially the same letter and questionnaire sent by Weinberg’s counsel to the government employees on the grand jury that had indicted his client, Gold.
On the basis of the foregoing undisputed facts the district judge found petitioner guilty of contempt. He concluded that petitioner’s act in sending the questionnaires was an impropriety but went on to say: “There seems to be reason to believe respondent may have misconceived the proprieties. What he did was open. There was no opprobrious personal approach to jurors. There is indication respondent may have believed he had a right to propound the questions at the time he did, notwithstanding this Court is of opinion he had not.” 122 F. Supp., at 389.
The contempt section here relied on derives from the Contempt Act of March 2, 1831. 4 Stat. 487. In Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, we reviewed the history of the 1831 Act and found that its purpose was greatly to limit the contempt power of federal courts. For this reason we gave the provision of the Contempt Act then under consideration a narrow construction. Even though we recognized that Nye was guilty of “highly reprehensible” conduct, we held that he could not be punished summarily for contempt but must be “afforded the normal safeguards surrounding criminal prosecutions.” Id., at 52, 53. Some time after the Nye case we considered In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224. There a trustee in bankruptcy had been adjudged guilty of contempt. The Gov-eminent argued that he was guilty of misbehavior as an officer of the court in an official transaction under the same section involved here. Again we pointed out that the 1831 Act “represented a deliberate Congressional purpose drastically to curtail the range of conduct which courts could punish as contempt.” We there construed the Act as embodying a congressional plan to limit the contempt power to “the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.” See Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231. We added, “The exercise by federal courts of any broader contempt power than this would permit too great inroads on the procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights, since contempts are summary in their nature, and leave determination of guilt to a judge rather than a jury. It is in this Constitutional setting that we must resolve the issues here raised.” 326 U. S., at 227. We consider the judicial power here in that same setting. Cf. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 15-16.
Petitioner contends that his conduct was not “misbehavior” within the meaning of the Act, but was a good faith attempt to discharge his duties as counsel for a defendant in a criminal case. We find it unnecessary to decide this but it is not out of place to say that no statute or rule of court specifically prohibits conduct such as petitioner’s. Petitioner also contends that sending the questionnaire was not an “official transaction” within the meaning of the Act. However, if we assumed that a lawyer in ordinary practice is an “official” or “officer” of the court it would be hard to draw any line between “official” and “unofficial” transactions. Indeed there is plausibility in the implication of the Court of Appeals that if lawyers are covered by this section of the Act they are engaged in official transactions whenever engaged in the “practice of the profession.” But we find it unnecessary to decide when a lawyer is engaged in an “official transaction” for we hold that a lawyer is not a court “officer” within the meaning of § 401 (2).
It has been stated many times that lawyers are “officers of the court.” One of the most frequently repeated statements to this effect appears in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 378. The Court pointed out there, however, that an attorney was not an “officer” within the ordinary meaning of that term. Certainly nothing that was said in Ex parte Garland or in any other case decided by this Court places attorneys in the same category as marshals, bailiffs, court clerks or judges. Unlike these officials a lawyer is engaged in a private profession, important though it be to our system of justice. In general he makes his own decisions, follows his own best judgment, collects his own fees and runs his own business. The word “officer” as it has always been applied to lawyers conveys quite a different meaning from the word “officer” as applied to people serving as officers within the conventional meaning of that term. Cf. Labor Board v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 350 U. S. 264. We see no reason why the category of “officers” subject to summary jurisdiction of a court under § 401 (2) should be expanded beyond the group of persons who serve as conventional court officers and are regularly treated as such in the laws. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 601-963.
There are strong reasons why attorneys should not be considered “officers” under § 401 (2). As we pointed out in the Nye case, the 1831 Act was promptly passed by the Congress after the impeachment proceedings against Judge Peck failed by a senatorial vote of 22 to 21. Judge Peck had sent a lawyer to jail and had taken away his right to practice as punishment for an alleged contempt. The contempt consisted of published criticism of Judge Peck’s opinion in a case in which the convicted lawyer had appeared as counsel; he was also counsel in other pending cases involving similar issues. Those directing the impeachment proceedings, who later brought about the passage of the 1831 Act, expressed deep concern lest lawyers continue to be subjected to summary trials by judges without the safeguards of juries and regular court procedure. Congressman James Buchanan who made the last argument against Judge Peck stated:
“But what is the process in the case of contempts? Without either an information or an indictment, but merely on a simple rule to show cause, drawn up in any form the judge may think proper, a man is put upon his trial for an infamous offence, involving in its punishment the loss both of liberty and property. He is deprived both of petit jury and grand jury, and is tried by an angry adversary prepared to sacrifice him and his rights on the altar of his own vengeance.
“I may be wrong, but I hold it to be the imperative duty of an attorney to protect the interests of his client out of court as well as in court.”
Again Mr. Buchanan said:
“I believe that I have as good a right to the exercise of my profession, as the mechanic has to follow his trade, or the merchant to engage in the pursuits of commerce. . . . The public have almost as deep an interest in the independence of the bar as of the bench.”
Such statements by the same man who reported the 1831 Act to the House of Representatives almost immediately after Judge Peck’s acquittal are completely inconsistent with a purpose to treat lawyers as “officers of the court” subject to summary punishment. We cannot hold that lawyers are subject to the precise kind of summary contempt power that the Act was designedly drawn to bar judges from exercising. Section 2 of that Act made ample provision for punishing corrupt efforts to influence, intimidate or impede juries. And Congress expressly provided that prosecution therefor be by indictment. Substantially the same provision has been a part of our law-ever since. 18 U. S. C. § 1503. See also Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7 (a). Of course it does not cover this case because there is no charge that petitioner attempted improperly to influence the jury or violate § 1503 in any other way. Had there been such a charge petitioner would have been entitled to a trial by jury after indictment by grand jury. We hold that a lawyer is not the kind of “officer” who can be summarily tried for contempt under 18 TJ. S. C. § 401 (2). The judgment of the Court of Appeals must therefore be reversed.
Reversed.
Section 401 in its entirety provides:
“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
“(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
“(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
"(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”
For a discussion of the 1831 Act and the narrow limits of the contempt power in general, see Frankfurter and Landis, Power of Congress over Procedure in Criminal Contempts in “Inferior” Federal Courts — A Study in Separation of Powers, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 1010; Nelles and King, Contempt by Publication in the United States, 28 Col. L. Rev. 401, 525. See also Stansbury, Report of the Trial of James H. Peck (1833).
Illustrations of the confusion and difficulty of courts in explaining what is meant when a lawyer is called an officer of the court may be found in the following cases: Langen v. Borkowski, 188 Wis. 277, 301, 206 N. W. 181, 190; In re Galusha, 184 Cal. 697, 698, 195 P. 406; Sowers v. Wells, 150 Kan. 630, 635, 95 P. 2d 281, 284-285; Bergeron, Petitioner, 220 Mass. 472, 476, 107 N. E. 1007, 1008.
Stansbury, Report of the Trial of James H. Peck (1833), 445, 455.
Id., at 450.
“And be it jurther enacted, That if any person or persons shall, corruptly, or by threats or force, endeavour to influence, intimidate, or impede any juror, witness, or officer, in any court of the United States, in the discharge of his duty, or shall, corruptly, or by threats or force, obstruct, or impede, or endeavour to obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice therein, every person or persons, so offending, shall be liable to prosecution therefor, by indictment, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished, by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment, not exceeding three months, or both, according to the nature and aggravation of the offence.” 4 Stat. 488.
Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364, requires no different result. The Court there held that an attorney could not be disbarred solely on a showing of a contempt committed before another court. The Court did use broad language there as to the power of courts to punish attorneys as officers of courts for misbehavior in the practice of the profession. The statements in Ex parte Bradley went so far as to say that lawyers became subject to the summary jurisdiction of courts “for the commission of any other act of official or personal dishonesty and oppression.” Id., at 374. However questionable those statements may be, they were not made, as the Court pointed out, with respect to a court’s power to punish contempts. The Court was referring to the generally exercised powers of courts in that day to discipline attorneys. As said by the Court later in Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 512, “The power to disbar an attorney proceeds upon very different grounds” from those which support a court’s power to punish for contempt.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Certain benefits under the Social Security Act, as amended in 1972, are payable only to residents of the United States, defined as the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held in these cases that this geographic limitation is unconstitutional as applied to persons who upon moving to Puerto Rico lost the benefits to which they were entitled while residing in the United States. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act, has appealed.
I
One of the 1972 amendments to the Social Security Act created a uniform program, known as the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, for aid to qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons. 86 Stat. 1465, 42 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V). This federally administered program replaced the federal-state programs of Old Age Assistance, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U. S. C. § 301 et seq.; Aid to the Blind, 49 Stat. 645, 42 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq.; Aid to the Disabled, 64 Stat. 555, 42 U. S. C. § 1351 et seq.; and Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled, 42 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq.
The exclusion of Puerto Rico in the amended program is apparent in the definitional section. Section 1611 (f) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 1382 (f) (1970 ed., Supp. V), states that no individual is eligible for benefits during any month in which he or she is outside the United States. The Act defines “the United States” as “the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” § 1614 (e), as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 1382c (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V). The repeal of the pre-existing programs did not apply to Puerto Rico. Thus persons in Puerto Rico are not eligible to receive SSI benefits, but are eligible to receive benefits under the pre-existing programs.
Appellee Torres received SSI benefits while residing in Connecticut; the benefits were discontinued when he moved to Puerto Rico. Similarly, appellees Colon and Vega received benefits as residents of Massachusetts and New Jersey, respectively, but lost them on moving to Puerto Rico.
Torres filed a complaint in the District Court of Puerto Rico claiming that the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the SSI program was unconstitutional, and a three-judge court was convened to adjudicate the suit. Viewing the geographic limitations in the law as an interference with the constitutional right of residents of the 50 States and the District of Columbia to travel, the court searched for a compelling governmental interest to justify such interference. Finding none, the court held §§ 1611 (f) and 1614 (e) unconstitutional as applied to Torres. Torres v. Mathews, 426 F. Supp. 1106. Soon after that decision appellees Colon and Vega also sued in the Puerto' Rico District Court. Relying on the Torres decision, a single judge enjoined the Social Security Administration from discontinuing their SSI benefits on the basis of their change of residency to Puerto Rico.
II
In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969), and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250 (1974), this Court held that laws prohibiting newly arrived residents in a State or county from receiving the same vital benefits as other residents unconstitutionally burdened the right of interstate travel. As the Court said in Memorial Hospital, “the right of interstate travel must be seen as insuring new residents the same right to vital governmental benefits and privileges in the States to which they migrate as are enjoyed by other residents.” Id., at 261.
In the present cases the District Court altogether transposed that proposition. It held that the Constitution requires that a person who travels to Puerto Rico must be given benefits superior to those enjoyed by other residents of Puerto Rico if the newcomer enjoyed those benefits in the State from which he came. This Court has never held that the constitutional right to travel embraces any such doctrine, and we decline to do so now. Such a doctrine would apply with equal force to any benefits a State might provide for its residents, and would require a State to continue to pay those benefits indefinitely to any persons who had once resided there. And the broader implications of such a doctrine in other areas of substantive law would bid fair to destroy the independent power of each State under our Constitution to enact laws uniformly applicable to all of its residents.
If there ever could be a case where a person who has moved from one State to another might be entitled to invoke the law of the State from which he came as a corollary of his constitutional right to travel, this is surely not it. For we deal here with a constitutional attack upon a law providing for governmental payments of monetary benefits. Such a statute “is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality.” Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181, 185 (1976). “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 straitjacket.” Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546 (1972). See also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 53-54; Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 210 (1977); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 640 (1937).
The judgments are reversed.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan would affirm.
Mr. Justice Marshall would note probable jurisdiction and set these cases for oral argument.
This Court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U. S. C. § 1252.
The SSI benefits are significantly larger.
The record does not show whether the appellees applied for benefits under the pre-existing programs while in Puerto Rico.
The complaint had also relied on the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in attacking the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the SSI program. Acceptance of that claim would have meant that all otherwise qualified persons in Puerto Rico are entitled to SSI benefits, not just those who received such benefits before moving to Puerto Rico. But the District Court apparently acknowledged that Congress has the power to treat Puerto Rico differently, and that every federal program does not have to be extended to it. Puerto Rico has a relationship to the United States “that has no parallel in our history.” Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 596 (1976). Cf. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298 (1922); Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138 (1904); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901). See Leibowitz, The Applicability of Federal Law to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 56 Geo. L. J. 219 (1967); Hector, Puerto Rico: Colony or Commonwealth?, 6 N. Y. U. J, Int’l L. & Pol. 115 (1973).
The opinion of the District Court is unreported.
The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified. United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-758 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, 105-106 (1971). By contrast the “right” of international travel has been considered to be no more than an aspect of the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 125 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 505-506 (1964). As such this “right,” the Court has held, can be regulated within the bounds of due process. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1 (1965). For purposes of this opinion we may assume that there is a virtually unqualified constitutional right to travel between Puerto Rico and any of the 50 States of the Union.
At least three reasons have been advanced to explain the exclusion of persons in Puerto Rico from the SSI program. First, because of the unique tax status of Puerto Rico, its residents do not contribute to the public treasury. Second, the cost of including Puerto Rico would be extremely great — an estimated $300 million per year. Third, inclusion in the SSI program might seriously disrupt the Puerto Rican economy. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Report of the Undersecretary’s Advisory Group on Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands 6 (Oct. 1976).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In a criminal trial, defense counsel sought to impeach the credibility of key prosecution witnesses by testimony of a defense investigator regarding statements previously obtained from- the witnesses by the investigator. The question presented here is whether in these circumstances a federal trial court may compel the defense to reveal the relevant portions of the investigator’s report for the prosecution’s use in cross-examining him. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that it cannot. 501 F. 2d 146. We granted certiorari, 419 U. S. 1120 (1975), and now reverse.
I
Respondent was tried and convicted on charges arising from an armed robbery of a federally insured bank. The only significant evidence linking him to the crime was the identification testimony of two witnesses, a bank teller and a salesman who was in the bank during the robbery. Respondent offered an alibi but, as the Court of Appeals recognized, 501 F. 2d, at 150, his strongest defense centered around attempts to discredit these eyewitnesses. Defense efforts to impeach them gave rise to the events that led to this decision.
In the course of preparing respondent’s defense, an investigator for the defense interviewed both witnesses and preserved the essence of those conversations in a written report. When the witnesses testified for the prosecution, respondent’s counsel relied on the report in conducting their cross-examination. Counsel asked the bank teller whether he recalled having told the investigator that he had seen only the back of the man he identified as respondent. The witness replied that he did not remember making such a statement. He was allowed, despite defense counsel’s initial objection, to refresh his recollection by referring to a portion of the investigator’s report. The prosecutor also was allowed to see briefly the relevant portion of the report. The witness thereafter testified that although the report indicated that he told the investigator he had seen only respondent’s back, he in fact had seen more than that and continued to insist that respondent was the bank robber.
The other witness acknowledged on cross-examination that he too had spoken to the defense investigator. Respondent’s counsel twice inquired whether he told the investigator that “all blacks looked alike” to him, and in each instance the witness denied having made such a statement. The prosecution again sought inspection of the relevant portion of the investigator’s report, and respondent’s counsel again objected. The court declined to order disclosure at that time, but ruled that it would be required if the investigator testified as to the witnesses’ alleged statements from the witness stand. The court further advised that it would examine the investigator’s report in camera and would excise all reference to matters not relevant to the precise statements at issue.
After the prosecution completed its case, respondent called the investigator as a defense witness. The court reiterated that a copy of the report, inspected and edited in camera, would have to be submitted to Government counsel at the completion of the investigator’s impeachment testimony. When respondent’s counsel stated that he did not intend to produce the report, the court ruled that the investigator would not be allowed to testify about his interviews with the witnesses.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, while acknowledging that the trial court’s ruling constituted a “very limited and seemingly judicious restriction,” 501 F. 2d, at 151, nevertheless considered it reversible error. Citing United States v. Wright, 160 U. S. App. D. C. 57, 68, 489 F. 2d 1181, 1192 (1973), the court found that the Fifth Amendment prohibited the disclosure condition imposed in this case. The court further held that Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16, while framed exclusively in terms of pretrial discovery, precluded prosecutorial discovery at trial as well. 501 F. 2d, at 157; accord, United States v. Wright, supra, at 66-67, 489 F. 2d, at 1190-1191. In each respect, we think the court erred.
II
The dual aim of our criminal justice system is “that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer,” Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88 (1935). To this end, we have placed our confidence in the adversary system, entrusting to it the primary responsibility for developing relevant facts on which a determination of guilt or innocence can be made. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 709 (1974); Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 82 (1970); Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 234 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
While the adversary system depends primarily on the parties for the presentation and exploration of relevant facts, the judiciary is not limited to the role of a referee or supervisor. Its compulsory processes stand available to require the presentation of evidence in court or before a grand jury. United States v. Nixon, supra; Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 443-444 (1972) ; Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 93-94 (1964) (White, J., concurring). As we recently observed in United States v. Nixon, supra, at 709:
“We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.”
Decisions of this Court repeatedly have recognized the federal judiciary’s inherent power to require the prosecution to produce the previously recorded statements of its witnesses so that the defense may get the full benefit of cross-examination and the truth-finding process may be enhanced. See, e. g., Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657 (1957); Gordon v. United States, 344 U. S. 414 (1953); Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129 (1942); Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343, 361 (1959) (Brennan, J., concurring in result). At issue here is whether, in a proper case, the prosecution can call upon that same power for production of witness statements that facilitate “full disclosure of all the [relevant] facts.” United States v. Nixon, supra, at 709.
In this case, the defense proposed to call its investigator to impeach the identification testimony of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses. It was evident from cross-examination that the investigator would testify that each witness’ recollection of the appearance of the individual identified as respondent was considerably less clear at an earlier time than it was at trial. It also appeared that the investigator and one witness differed even as to what the witness told him during the interview. The investigator’s contemporaneous report might provide critical insight into the issues of credibility that the investigator’s testimony would raise. It could assist the jury in determining the extent to which the investigator’s testimony actually discredited the prosecution’s witnesses. If, for example, the report failed to mention the purported statement of one witness that “all blacks looked alike,” the jury might disregard the investigator’s version altogether. On the other hand, if this statement appeared in the contemporaneously recorded report, it would tend strongly to corroborate the investigator’s version of the interview and to diminish substantially the reliability of that witness’ identification.
It was therefore apparent to the trial judge that the investigator’s report was highly relevant to the critical issue of credibility. In this context, production of the report might substantially enhance “the search for truth,” Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S., at 82. We must determine whether compelling its production was precluded by some privilege available to the defense in the circumstances of this case.
III
A
The Court of Appeals concluded that the Fifth Amendment renders criminal discovery “basically a one-way street.” 501 F. 2d, at 154. Like many generalizations in constitutional law, this one is too broad. The relationship between the accused’s Fifth Amendment rights and the prosecution’s ability to discover materials at trial must be identified in a more discriminating manner.
The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is an “intimate and personal one,” which protects “a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract self-condemnation.” Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322, 327 (1973); see also Beilis v. United States, 417 U. S. 85, 90-91 (1974); United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 698 (1944). As we noted in Couch, supra, at 328, the “privilege is a personal privilege: it adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him.”
In this instance disclosure of the relevant portions of the defense investigator’s report would not impinge on the fundamental values protected by the Fifth Amendment. The court’s order was limited to statements allegedly made by third parties who were available as witnesses to both the prosecution and the defense. Respondent did not prepare the report, and there is no suggestion that the portions subject to the disclosure order reflected any information that he conveyed to the investigator. The fact that these statements of third parties were elicited by a defense investigator on respondent’s behalf does not convert them into respondent’s personal communications. Requiring their production from the investigator therefore would not in any sense compel respondent to be a witness against himself or extort communications from him.
We thus conclude that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, being personal to the defendant, does not extend to the testimony or statements of third parties called as witnesses at trial. The Court of Appeals’ reliance on this constitutional guarantee as a bar to the disclosure here ordered was misplaced.
B
The Court of Appeals also held that Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16 deprived the trial court of the power to order disclosure of the relevant portions of the investigator’s report. Acknowledging that the Rule appears to control pretrial discovery only, the court nonetheless determined that its reference to the Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3500, signaled an intention that Rule 16 should control trial practice as well. We do not agree.
Both the language and history of Rule 16 indicate that it addresses only pretrial discovery. Rule 16 (f) requires that a motion for discovery be filed “within 10 days after arraignment or . . . such reasonable later time as the court may permit,” and further commands that it include all relief sought by the movant. When this provision is viewed in light of the Advisory Committee’s admonition that it is designed to encourage promptness in filing and to enable the district court to avoid unnecessary delay or multiplication of motions, see Advisory Committee’s Notes on Rule 16, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 4494, the pretrial focus of the Rule becomes apparent. The Government’s right of discovery arises only after the defendant has successfully sought discovery under subsections (a) (2) or (b) and is confined to matters “which the defendant intends to produce at the trial.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16 (c). This hardly suggests any intention that the Rule would limit the court’s power to order production once trial has begun. Finally, the Advisory Committee’s Notes emphasize its pretrial character. Those notes repeatedly characterize the Rule as a provision governing pretrial disclosure, never once suggesting that it was intended to constrict a district court’s control over evidentiary questions arising at trial. 18 U. S. C. App., pp. 4493-4495.
The incorporation of the Jencks Act limitation on the pretrial right of discovery provided by Rule 16 does not express a contrary intent. It only restricts the defendant’s right of pretrial discovery in a manner that reconciles that provision with the Jencks Act limitation on the trial court’s discretion over evidentiary matters. It certainly does not convert Rule 16 into a general limitation on the trial court’s broad discretion as to evidentiary questions at trial. Cf. Giles v. Maryland, 386 U. S. 66, 101 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring in judgment). We conclude, therefore, that Rule 16 imposes no constraint on the District Court’s power to condition the impeachment testimony of respondent’s witness on the production of the relevant portions of his investigative report. In extending the Rule into the trial context, the Court of Appeals erred.
IV
Respondent contends further that the work-product doctrine exempts the investigator’s report from disclosure at trial. While we agree that this doctrine applies to criminal litigation as well as civil, we find its protection unavailable in this case.
The work-product doctrine, recognized by this Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495 (1947), reflects the strong “public policy underlying the orderly prosecution and defense of legal claims.” Id., at 510; see also id., at 514U515 (Jackson, J., concurring). As the Court there observed:
“Historically, a lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound to work for the advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients. In performing his various duties, however, it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation of a client’s case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference. That is the historical and the necessary way in which lawyers act within the framework of our system of jurisprudence to promote justice and to protect their clients’ interests. This work is reflected, of course, in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways — aptly though roughly termed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case as the ‘work product of the lawyer.’ Were such materials open to opposing counsel on mere demand, much of what is now put down in writing would remain unwritten. An attorney’s thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own. Inefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial. The effect on the legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served.” Id., at 510-511.
The Court therefore recognized a qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney “acting for his client in anticipation of litigation.” Id., at 508. See generally 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.63 (2d ed. 1974); E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 204-209 (2d ed. 1972); Note, Developments in the Law — Discovery, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 940,1027-1046 (1961).
Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital. The interests of society and the accused in obtaining a fair and accurate resolution of the question of guilt or innocence demand that adequate safeguards assure the thorough preparation and presentation of each side of the case.
At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client's case. But the doctrine is an intensely practical one, grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system. One of those realities is that attorneys often must rely on the assistance of investigators and other agents in the compilation of materials in preparation for trial. It is therefore necessary that the doctrine protect material prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. Moreover, the concerns reflected in the work-product doctrine do not disappear once trial has begun. Disclosure of an attorney’s efforts at trial, as surely as disclosure during pretrial discovery, could disrupt the orderly development and presentation of his case. We need not, however, undertake here to delineate the scope of the doctrine at trial, for in this instance it is clear that the defense waived such right as may have existed to invoke its protections.
The privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute. Like other qualified privileges, it may be waived. Here respondent sought to adduce the testimony of the investigator and contrast his recollection of the contested statements with that of the prosecution’s witnesses. Respondent, by electing to present the investigator as a witness, waived the privilege with respect to matters covered in his testimony. Respondent can no more advance the work-product doctrine to sustain a unilateral testimonial use of work-product materials than he could elect to testify in his own behalf and thereafter assert his Fifth Amendment privilege to resist cross-examination on matters reasonably related to those brought out in direct examination. See, e. g., McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 215 (1971).
V
Finally, our examination of the record persuades us that the District Court properly exercised its discretion in this instance. The court authorized no general “fishing expedition” into the defense files or indeed even into the defense investigator’s report. Cf. United States v. Wright, 160 U. S. App. D. C. 57, 489 F. 2d 1181 (1973). Rather, its considered ruling was quite limited in scope, opening to prosecution scrutiny only the portion of the report that related to the testimony the investigator would offer to discredit the witnesses’ identification testimony. The court further afforded respondent the maximum opportunity to assist in avoiding unwarranted disclosure or to exercise an informed choice to call for the investigator’s testimony and thereby open his report to examination.
The court’s preclusion sanction was an entirely proper method of assuring compliance with its order. Respondent’s argument that this ruling deprived him of the Sixth Amendment rights to compulsory process and cross-examination misconceives the issue. The District Court did not bar the investigator’s testimony. Cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 19 (1967). It merely prevented respondent from presenting to the jury a partial view of the credibility issue by adducing the investigator’s testimony and thereafter refusing to disclose the contemporaneous report that might offer further critical insights. The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth. Deciding, as we do, that it was within the court’s discretion to assure that the jury would hear the full testimony of the investigator rather than a truncated portion favorable to respondent, we think it would be artificial indeed to deprive the court of the power to effectuate that judgment. Nor do we find constitutional significance in the fact that the court in this instance was able to exclude the testimony in advance rather than receive it in evidence and thereafter charge the jury to disregard it when respondent’s counsel refused, as he said he would, to produce the report.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The only other evidence introduced against respondent was a statement made at the time of arrest in which he denied that he was Robert Nobles and subsequently stated that he knew that the FBI had been looking for him.
Counsel for the Government complained that the portion of the report produced at this time was illegible. The witness’ testimony indicates, however, that he had no difficulty reading it.
The essence of the District Court’s order was as follows:
“[If the investigator] is allowed to testify it would be necessary that those portions of [the] investigative report which contain the statements of the impeached witness will have to be turned over to the prosecution; nothing else in that report.
“If he testifies in any way about impeaching statements made by either of the two witnesses, then it is the Court’s view that the government is entitled to look at his report and only those portions of that report which contain the alleged impeaching statements . . . of the witnesses.” App. 31.
Athough the portion of the report containing the bank teller’s alleged statement previously was revealed and marked for identification, it was not introduced into evidence. When the discussion of the investigator’s testimony subsequently arose, counsel for the Government noted that he had only a limited opportunity to glance at the statement, and he then requested disclosure of that portion of the report as well as the statement purportedly made by the salesman.
As indicated above, the bank teller did not deny having made the statement recorded in the investigator’s report. It is thus possible that the investigator’s testimony on that point would not have constituted an impeachment of the statements of that witness within the contemplation of the court’s order and would not have given rise to a duty of disclosure. Counsel did not pursue this point, however, and did not seek further clarification of the issue. Respondent does not, and in view of the failure to develop the issue at trial could not, urge this as a ground for reversal. Nor does respondent maintain that the initial disclosure of the bank teller’s statement sufficed to satisfy the court’s order. We therefore consider each of the two alleged statements in the report to be impeaching statements that would have been subject to disclosure if the investigator had testified about them.
The discretion recognized by the Court in Jencks subsequently was circumscribed by Congress in the so-called Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3500. See generally Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343 (1959).
Rule 612 of the new Federal Rules of Evidence entitles an adverse party to inspect a writing relied on to refresh the recollection of a witness while testifying. The Rule also authorizes disclosure of writings relied on to refresh recollection before testifying if the court deems it necessary in the interests of justice. The party obtaining the writing thereafter can use it in cross-examining the witness and can introduce into evidence those portions that relate to the witness' testimony. As the Federal Rules of Evidence were not in effect at the time of respondent's trial, we have no occasion to consider them or their applicability to the situation here presented.
“The purpose of the relevant part of the Fifth Amendment is to prevent compelled self-incrimination, not to protect private information. Testimony demanded of a witness may be very private indeed, but unless it is incriminating and protected by the Amendment or unless protected by one of the evidentiary privileges, it must be disclosed.” Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449, 473-474 (1975) (White, J., concurring in result). Moreover, the constitutional guarantee protects only against forced individual disclosure of a “testimonial or communicative nature,” Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 761 (1966); see also United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 222 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 (1967).
Rule 16 (c), which establishes the Government’s reciprocal right of pretrial discovery, excepts “reports, memoranda, or other internal defense documents made by the defendant, or his attorneys or agents in connection with the investigation or defense of the case, or of statements made by the defendant, or by government or defense witnesses, or by prospective government or defense witnesses, to the defendant, his agents or attorneys.” That Rule therefore would not authorize pretrial discovery of the investigator’s report. The proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure leave this subsection substantially unchanged. See Proposed Rule 16 of Criminal Procedure, 62 F. R. D. 271, 305-306 (1974).
Rule 16 (g) imposes a duty to notify opposing counsel or the court of the additional materials previously requested or inspected that are subject to discovery or inspection under the Rule, and it contemplates that this obligation will continue during trial. The obligation under Rule 16 (g) depends, however, on a previous request for or order of discovery. The fact that this provision may have some effect on the parties’ conduct during trial does not convert the Rule into a general limitation on the court’s inherent power to control evidentiary matters.
We note also that the commentators who have considered Rule 16 have not suggested that it is directed to the court’s control of evidentiary questions arising at trial. See, e. g., Nakell, Criminal Discovery for the Defense and the Prosecution — the Developing Constitutional Considerations, 50 N. C. L. Rev. 437, 494-514 (1972); Rezneck, The New Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 54 Geo. L. J. 1276, 1279, 1282 n. 19 (1966); Note, Prosecutorial Discovery Under Proposed Rule 16, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 994 (1972).
As the Court recognized in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S., at 508, the work-product doctrine is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege.
A number of state and federal decisions have recognized the role of the work-product doctrine in the criminal law, and have applied its protections to the files of the prosecution and the accused alike. See, e. g., State v. Bowen, 104 Ariz. 138, 449 P. 2d 603, cert. denied, 396 U. S. 912 (1969); State ex rel. Polley v. Superior Ct. of Santa Cruz County, 81 Ariz. 127, 302 P. 2d 263 (1956); Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (Fla. App. 1963); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Duffy v. United States), 473 F. 2d 840 (CA8 1973); In re Terkeltoub, 256 F. Supp. 683 (SDNY 1966).
The sole issue in Hickman related to materials prepared by an attorney, and courts thereafter disagreed over whether the doctrine applied as well to materials prepared on his behalf. See Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Relating to Discovery, 48 F. R. D. 487, 501 (1970); 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.63 [8] (2d ed. 1974). Necessarily, it must. This view is reflected in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Rule 26 (b) (3), and in Rule 16 of the Criminal Rules as well, see Rules 16 (b) and (c); cf. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 208 (2d ed. 1972).
What constitutes a waiver with respect to work-product materials depends, of course, upon the circumstances. Counsel necessarily makes use throughout trial of the notes, documents, and other internal materials prepared to present adequately his client’s ease, and often relies on them in examining witnesses. When so used, there normally is no waiver. But where, as here, counsel attempts to make a testimonial use of these materials the normal rules of evidence come into play with respect to cross-examination and production of documents.
We cannot accept respondent’s contention that the disclosure order violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. This claim is predicated on the assumption that disclosure of a defense investigator’s notes in this and similar cases will compromise counsel’s ability to investigate and prepare the defense case thoroughly. Respondent maintains that even the limited disclosure required in this case will impair the relationship of trust and confidence between client and attorney and will inhibit other members of the “defense team” from gathering information essential to the effective preparation of the case. See American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Defense Function §3.1 (a) (App. Draft 1971). The short answer is that the disclosure order resulted from respondent’s voluntary election to make testimonial use of his investigator’s report. Moreover, apart from this waiver, we think that the concern voiced by respondent fails to recognize the limited and conditional nature of the court’s order.
Respondent additionally argues that certain statements by the prosecution and the District Court’s exclusion of purported expert testimony justify reversal of the verdict, and that the Court of Appeals’ decision should be affirmed on those grounds. The Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s challenge to the exclusion of the testimoney of the proffered expert, 501 F. 2d, at 150-151. Respondent did not present this issue or the question involving the challenged prosecutorial statements to this Court in a cross-petition for certiorari. Without questioning our jurisdiction to consider these alternative grounds for affirmance of the decision below, cf. Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 538 (1931); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475-476, n. 6 (1970); see generally Stern, When to Cross-Appeal or Cross-Petition — Certainty or Confusion?, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 763 (1974), we do not consider these contentions worthy of consideration. Each involves an issue that is committed to the trial court’s discretion. In the absence of a strong suggestion of an abuse of that discretion or an indication that the issues are of sufficient general importance to justify the grant of certiorari we decline to entertain them.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The narrow question presented by this case is whether jurisdiction to review the denial of a stay of deportation, if the pertinent order has not been entered in the course of a proceeding conducted under § 242 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 209, 8 U. S. C. § 1252 (b), is, under § 106 (a) of the Act, 75 Stat. 651, 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a), vested exclusively in the courts of appeals. The question arises from the following circumstances.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, evidently entered the United States in 1965 as a seaman. The terms of his entry permitted him to remain in this country for the period during which his vessel was in port, provided that this did not exceed 29 days. See 8 U. S. C. § 1282 (a). He deserted his vessel, and remained unlawfully in the United States. After petitioner’s eventual apprehension, deportation proceedings were conducted by a special inquiry officer under the authority of § 242 (b). Petitioner conceded his deportability, but sought and obtained permission to depart the United States voluntarily. Despite his protestations of good faith, petitioner did not voluntarily depart, and was ultimately ordered to surrender for deportation. He then requested a stay of deportation from a district director of immigration, pending the submission and disposition of an application for adjustment of status under 8 U. S. C. § 1153 (a) (7) (1964 ed., Supp. II). The district director concluded that petitioner is ineligible for such an adjustment of status, and. denied a stay of deportation.
Petitioner thereupon commenced these proceedings in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, petitioning for review of the denial of a stay. The Court of Appeals held that the provisions of § 106 (a), under which it would otherwise have exclusive jurisdiction to review the district director’s order, are inapplicable to orders denying ancillary relief unless those orders either are entered in the course of a proceeding conducted under § 242 (b), or are denials of motions to reopen such proceedings. The court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. 381 F. 2d 542. We granted certiorari because the courts of appeals have disagreed as to the proper construction of the pertinent statutory provisions. 390 U. S. 918. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
I.
It is useful first to summarize the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and of the regulations promulgated under the Act’s authority. Section 242 (b) provides a detailed administrative procedure for determining whether an alien may be deported. It permits the entry of an order of deportation only upon the basis of a record made in a proceeding before a special inquiry officer, at which the alien is assured rights to counsel, to a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against him, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence in his own behalf. By regulation, various forms of discretionary relief may also be sought from the special inquiry officer in the course of the deportation proceeding; an alien may, for example, request that his deportation be temporarily withheld, on the ground that he might, in the country to which he is to be deported, “be subject to persecution . . . See 8 U. S. C. § 1253 (h) (1964 ed., Supp. II); 8 CFR § 242.8 (a).
Other forms of discretionary relief may be requested after termination of the deportation proceeding. The regulations thus provide that an alien “under a final administrative order of deportation” may apply to the district director “having jurisdiction over the place where the alien is at the time of filing” for a stay of deportation. 8 CFR § 243.4. The stay may be granted by the district director “in his discretion.” Ibid. If the stay is denied, the denial “is not appealable” to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Ibid.
Section 106 (a) provides that the procedures for judicial review prescribed by the Hobbs Act, 64 Stat. 1129, 68 Stat. 961, “shall apply to, and shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for, the judicial review of all final orders of deportation heretofore or hereafter made against aliens . . . pursuant to administrative proceedings under section 242 (b) of this Act . . . .” These procedures vest in the courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders issued by specified federal agencies. In situations to which the provisions of § 106 (a) are inapplicable, the alien’s remedies would, of course, ordinarily lie first in an action brought in an appropriate district court.
The positions of the various parties may be summarized as follows. We are urged by both petitioner and the Immigration Service to hold that the provisions of § 106 (a) are applicable to the circumstances presented by this case, and that judicial review thus is available only in the courts of appeals. The Immigration Service contends that § 106 (a) should be understood to embrace all determinations "directly affecting the execution of the basic deportation order,” whether those determinations have been reached prior to, during, or subsequent to the deportation proceeding. In contrast, amicus urges, as the Court of Appeals held, that § 106 (a) encompasses only those orders made in the course of a proceeding conducted under § 242 (b) or issued upon motions to reopen such proceedings.
II.
This is the third case in which we have had occasion to examine the effect of § 106 (a). In the first, Foti v. Immigration Service, 375 U. S. 217, the petitioner, in the course of a proceeding conducted under § 242 (b), conceded his deportability but requested a suspension of deportation under § 244 (a)(5). The special inquiry officer denied such a suspension, and petitioner’s appeal from the denial was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitioner commenced an action in the district court, but the action was dismissed on the ground that, under § 106 (a), his exclusive remedy lay in the courts of appeals. He then petitioned for review to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but it dismissed for want of jurisdiction. A divided court held en banc that the procedures of § 106 (a) were inapplicable to denials of discretionary relief under § 244 (a)(5). 308 F. 2d 779. On certiorari, we reversed, holding that “all determinations made during and incident to the administrative proceeding conducted by a special inquiry officer, and reviewable together by the Board of Immigration Appeals . . . are . . . included within the ambit of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under § 106 (a).” 375 U. S., at 229.
In the second case, Giova v. Rosenberg, 379 U. S. 18, petitioner moved before the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen proceedings, previously conducted under § 242 (b), that had terminated in an order for his deportation. The Board denied relief. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Board’s denial was not embraced by § 106 (a), and dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. 308 F. 2d 347. On cer-tiorari, this Court held, in a brief per curiam opinion, that such orders were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of appeals.
Although Foti strongly suggests the result that we reach today, neither it nor Giova can properly be regarded as controlling in this situation. Unlike the order in Foti, the order in this case was not entered in the course of a proceeding conducted by a special inquiry officer under §242 (b); unlike the order in Giova, the order here did not deny a motion to reopen such a proceeding. We regard the issue of statutory construction involved here as markedly closer than the questions pre-sen ted in those cases; at the least, it is plainly an isssue upon which differing views may readily be entertained. In these circumstances, it is imperative, if we are accurately to implement Congress' purposes, to “seiz[e] every thing from which aid can be derived.” Fisher v. Blight, 2 Cranch 358, 386.
It is important, first, to emphasize the character of the statute with which we are concerned. Section 106 (a) is intended exclusively to prescribe and regulate a portion of the jurisdiction of the federal courts. As a jurisdictional statute, it must be construed both with precision and with fidelity to the terms by which Congress has expressed its wishes. Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U. S. 39, 44. Further, as a statute addressed entirely to “specialists,” it must, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed, “be read by judges with the minds of . . . specialists.”
We cannot, upon close reading, easily reconcile the position urged by the Immigration Service with the terms of § 106 (a). A denial by a district director of a stay of deportation is not literally a “final order of deportation,” nor is it, as was the order in Foti, entered in the course of administrative proceedings conducted under § 242 (b) . Thus, the order in this case was issued more than three months after the entry of the final order of deportation, in proceedings entirely distinct from those conducted under § 242 (b), by an officer other than the special inquiry officer who, as required by § 242 (b), presided over the deportation proceeding. The order here did not involve the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings conducted under § 242 (b), or to reconsider any final order of deportation. Concededly, the application for a stay assumed the prior existence of an order of deportation, but petitioner did not “attack the deportation order itself but instead [sought] relief not inconsistent with it.” Mui v. Esperdy, 371 F. 2d 772, 777. If, as the Immigration Service urges, § 106 (a) embraces all determinations “directly affecting the execution of” a final deportation order, Congress has selected language remarkably inapposite for its purpose. As Judge Friendly observed in a similar case, if “Congress had wanted to go that far, presumably it would have known how to say so.” Ibid.
The legislative history of § 106 (a) does not strengthen the position of the Immigration Service. The “basic purpose” of the procedural portions of the 1961 legislation was, as we stated in Foti, evidently “to expedite the deportation of undesirable aliens by preventing successive dilatory appeals to various federal courts . . . .” 375 U. S., at 226. Congress prescribed for this purpose several procedural innovations, among them the device of direct petitions for review to the courts of appeals. Although, as the Immigration Service has emphasized, the broad purposes of the legislation might have been expected to encompass orders denying discretionary relief entered outside § 242 (b) proceedings, there is evidence that Congress deliberately restricted the application of § 106 (a) to orders made in the course of proceedings conducted under § 242 (b).
Thus, during a colloquy on the floor of the House of Representatives, to which we referred in Foti, Representative Moore, co-sponsor of the bill then under discussion, suggested that any difficulties resulting from the separate consideration of deportability and of discretionary relief could be overcome by “a change in the present administrative practice of considering the issues . . . piecemeal. There is no reason why the Immigration Service could not change its regulations to permit contemporaneous court consideration of deportability and administrative application for relief.” 105 Cong. Rec. 12728. In the same colloquy, Representative Walter, the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the pertinent hearings, recognized that certain forms of discretionary relief may be requested in the course of a deportation proceeding, and stated that § 106 (a) would apply to the disposition of such requests, “just as it would apply to any other issue brought up in deportation proceedings.” 105 Cong. Rec. 12728 (emphasis added). Similarly, Representative Walter, in a subsequent debate, responded to a charge that judicial review under § 106 (a) would prove inadequate because of the absence of a suitable record, by inviting “the gentleman’s attention to the law in section 242, in which the procedure for the examiner is set forth in detail.” 107 Cong. Rec. 12179.
We believe that, in combination with the terms of § 106 (a) itself, these statements lead to the inference that Congress quite deliberately restricted the application of § 106 (a) to orders entered during proceedings conducted under § 242 (b), or directly challenging deportation orders themselves. This is concededly “a choice between uncertainties,” but we are “content to choose the lesser.” Burnet v. Guggenheim, 288 U. S. 280, 288.
We need not speculate as to Congress’ purposes. Quite possibly, as Judge Browning has persuasively suggested, “Congress visualized a single administrative proceeding in which all questions relating to an alien’s deportation would be raised and-resolved, followed by a single petition in a court of appeals for judicial review . . . .” Yamada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 384 F. 2d 214, 218. It may therefore be that Congress expected the Immigration Service to include within the § 242 (b) proceeding “all issues which might affect deportation.” Ibid. Possibly, as amicus cogently urges, Congress wished to limit petitions to the courts of appeals to situations in which quasi-judicial hearings had been conducted. It is enough to emphasize that neither of these purposes would be in any fashion impeded by the result we reach today. We hold that the judicial review provisions of § 106 (a) embrace only those determinations made during a proceeding conducted under § 242 (b), including those determinations made incident to a motion to reopen such proceedings.
This result is entirely consistent with our opinion in Foti. There, it was repeatedly stated in the opinion of The Chief Justice that the order held reviewable under § 106 (a) had, as the regulations required, been entered in the course of a proceeding conducted under § 242 (b). 375 U. S., at 218, 222-223, 224, 226, 228, 229, 232. It. was emphasized that “the administrative discretion to grant a suspension of deportation,” the determination involved in Foti, “has historically been consistently exercised as an integral part of the proceedings which have led to the issuance of a final deportation order.” Id., at 223. A suspension of deportation “must be requested prior to or during the deportation hearing.” Ibid. Moreover, it was explicitly recognized that, although modification of the pertinent regulations might “effectively broaden or narrow the scope of review available in the Courts of Appeals,” this was “nothing anomalous.” Id., at 229-230. An essential premise of Foti was thus that the application of § 106 (a) had been limited to orders “made during the same proceedings in which deportability is determined . . . Id., at 224.
The per curiam opinion in Giova did not take a wider view of § 106 (a). The denial of an application to reopen a deportation proceeding is readily distinguishable from a denial of a stay of deportation, in which there is no attack upon the deportation order or upon the proceeding in which it was entered. Petitions to reopen, like motions for rehearing or reconsideration, are, as the Immigration Service urged in Foti, “intimately and immediately associated” with the final orders they seek to challenge. Thus, petitions to reopen deportation proceedings are governed by the regulations applicable to the deportation proceeding itself, and, indeed, are ordinarily presented for disposition to the special inquiry officer who entered the deportation order. The result in Giova was thus a logical concomitant of the construction of § 106 (a) reached in Foti; it did not, explicitly or by implication, broaden that construction in any fashion that encompasses this situation.
The result we reach today will doubtless mean that, on occasion, the review of denials of discretionary relief will be conducted separately from the review of an order of deportation involving the same alien. Nonetheless, this does not seem an onerous burden, nor is it one that cannot be avoided, at least in large part, by appropriate action of the Immigration Service itself. More important, although “there is no table of logarithms for statutory construction,” it is the result that we believe most consistent both with Congress’ intentions and with the terms by which it has chosen to express those intentions.
Affirmed.
We emphasize that no questions are presented as to petitioner’s deportability or as to the propriety in his situation of any discretionary relief. We intimate no views on any such questions.
The facts concerning petitioner’s entry into, and subsequent stay in, the United States appear to have been conceded in the proceeding before the special inquiry officer.
Section 1282 (a) provides in relevant part that “(a) No alien crewman shall be permitted to land temporarily in the United States except ... for a period of time, in any event, not to exceed— (1) the period of time (not exceeding twenty-nine days) during which the vessel . . . remains in port
We note, as we did in Foti v. Immigration Service, 375 U. S. 217, that the “granting of voluntary departure relief does not result in the alien’s not being subject to an outstanding final order of deportation.” Id., at 219, n. 1.
Section 1153 (a) (7) (1964 ed., Supp. II) provides in part that “ [c] onditional entries shall next be made available ... to aliens who satisfy an Immigration and Naturalization Service officer . . . that (i) because of persecution or fear of persecution . . . they have fled . . . from any Communist or Communist-dominated country . . . .” Conditional entries are available only to refugees, and, like the parole system, grant “temporary harborage in this country for humane considerations or for reasons rooted in public interest." C. Gordon & R. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 2.54 (1967). See also id., at § 2.27h.
Compare the following: Skiftos v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 332 F. 2d 203 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Talavera v. Pederson, 334 F. 2d 52 (C. A. 6th Cir.); Samala v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 336 F. 2d 7 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Mendez v. Major, 340 F. 2d 128 (C. A. 8th Cir.); Melone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 355 F. 2d 533 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Mui v. Esperdy, 371 F. 2d 772 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Yamada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 384 F. 2d 214 (C. A. 9th Cir.); De Lucia v. Attorney General, - U. S. App. D. C. -, - F. 2d -.
Section 106 (a), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a), was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by § 5 (a) of Public Law 87-301, approved September 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 651.
Brief for Respondent 28.
Since the Immigration Service had aligned itself with petitioner on this question, the Court invited William H. Dempsey, Jr., Esquire, a member of the Bar of this Court, to appear and present oral argument as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. 390 U. S. 918.
Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 2 Record of N. Y. C. B. A. 213, 225.
We find the emphasis placed in dissent upon the word “pursuant" in § 106 (a) unpersuasive. First, § 106 (a) was evidently limited to those final orders of deportation made “pursuant to administrative proceedings under section 242 fb)” simply because Congress preferred to exclude from it those deportation orders entered without a § 242 (b) proceeding. This would, for example, place orders issued under 8 U. S. C. § 1282 (b), by which the Immigration Service may revoke a seaman’s conditional permit to land and deport him, outside the judicial review procedures of § 106 (a). See generally C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 5.11 (1967). Perhaps this suggests, as amicus urges, that § 106 (a) was intended to be limited to situations in which quasi-judicial proceedings, such as those under §242 (b), have been conducted. It certainly indicates that the reference in § 106 (a) to § 242 (b) proceedings was intended to limit, and not to broaden, the classes of orders to which § 106 (a) may be applied. Second, it must be reiterated that § 106 (a) does not, as the dissenting opinion suggests, encompass “all orders” entered pursuant to §242 (b) proceedings; it is limited to “final orders of deportation.” The textual difficulty, with which the dissenting opinion does not deal, is that the order in question here neither is a final order of deportation, nor is it, as was the order in Foti, “made during the same proceedings” in which a final order of deportation has been issued. 375 U. S., at 224. This cannot be overcome merely by examination of the meaning of the word “pursuant.”
The special inquiry officer's decision, which established deport-ability and granted voluntary departure, was issued on March 3, 1966. Petitioner filed his application for a stay on June 20, 1966. The application was evidently denied on the same day.
See 375 U. S., at 223-224.
The Immigration Service has argued that the limiting language in § 106 (a) may be explained by Congress’ wish to restrict its application to deportation cases, preventing its application to questions arising from exclusion proceedings. We have found nothing in the pertinent legislative history that offers meaningful support to this view.
Note, e. g., the apparent exclusion from § 106 (a) of orders entered under 8 U. S. C. § 1282 (b). See generally supra, n. 11.
We intimate no views on the possibility that a court of appeals might have “pendent jurisdiction” over denials of discretionary relief, where it already has before it a petition for review from a proceeding conducted under §242 (b). See Foti v. Immigration Service, supra, at 227, n. 14.
The opinion of the Court emphasized, in addition, that “[c]learly, changes in administrative procedures may affect the scope and content of various types of agency orders and thus the subject matter embraced in a judicial proceeding to review such orders.” Id., at 230, n. 16.
Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, supra, at 234.
Brief for Respondent, No. 28, October Term 1963, at 53.
See 8 CFR § 242.22. If, however, the order of the special inquiry officer is appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, a subsequent motion to reopen or reconsider is presented to the Board for disposition. Ibid. The motion in Giova was presented to the Board and decided by it.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 484-485 (1981), we held that a suspect who has “expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” In this case Arizona asks us to craft an exception to that rule for cases in which the police want to interrogate a suspect about an offense that is unrelated to the subject of their initial interrogation. Several years ago the Arizona Supreme Court considered, and rejected, a similar argument, stating:
“The only difference between Edwards and the appellant is that Edwards was questioned about the same offense after a request for counsel while the appellant was reinterrogated about an unrelated offense. We do not believe that this factual distinction holds any legal significance for fifth amendment purposes. ” State v. Routhier, 137 Ariz. 90, 97, 669 P. 2d 68, 75 (1983), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1073 (1984).
We agree with the Arizona Supreme Court’s conclusion.
PH
On April 16, 1985, respondent was arrested at the scene of a just-completed burglary. The arresting officer advised him that he had a constitutional right to remain silent and also the right to have an attorney present during any interrogation. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467-479 (1966). Respondent replied that he “wanted a lawyer before answering any questions.” This fact was duly recorded in the officer’s written report of the incident. In due course, respondent was convicted of the April 16, 1985, burglary.
On April 19, 1985, while respondent was still in custody pursuant to the arrest three days earlier, a different officer interrogated him about a different burglary that had occurred on April 15. That officer was not aware of the fact that respondent had requested the assistance of counsel three days earlier. After advising respondent of his rights, the officer obtained an incriminating statement concerning the April 15 burglary. In the prosecution for that offense, the trial court suppressed that statement. In explaining his ruling, the trial judge relied squarely on the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Routhier, 137 Ariz., at 97, 669 P. 2d, at 75, characterizing the rule of the Edwards case as “clear and unequivocal.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression order in a brief opinion, stating:
“In Routhier, as in the instant case, the accused was continuously in police custody from the time of asserting his Fifth Amendment right through the time of the impermissible questioning. The coercive environment never dissipated.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Id., at 25. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict with certain other state court decisions. 484 U. S. 975 (1987). We now affirm.
hH HH
A major purpose of the Court’s opinion in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 441-442, was “to give concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.” “As we have stressed on numerous occasions, ‘[o]ne of the principal advantages’ of Miranda is the ease and clarity of its application. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 430 (1984); see also New York v. Quarles, [467 U. S. 649, 662-664 (1984)] (concurring opinion); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U. S. [707, 718 (1979)].” Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 425 (1986).
The rule of the Edwards case came as a corollary to Miranda's, admonition that “[i]f the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.” 384 U. S., at 474. In such an instance, we had concluded in Miranda, “[i]f the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.” Id., at 475. In Edwards, we “reconfirmed] these views and, to lend them substance, emphasize[d] that it is inconsistent with Miranda and its progeny for the authorities, at their instance, to reinterro-gate an accused in custody if he has clearly asserted his right to counsel.” 451 U. S., at 485. We concluded that re-interrogation may only occur if “the accused himself initiates farther communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Ibid. Thus, the prophylactic protections that the Miranda warnings provide to counteract the “inherently compelling pressures” of custodial interrogation and to “permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination,” 384 U. S., at 467, are implemented by the application of the Edwards corollary that if a suspect believes that he is not capable of undergoing such questioning without advice of counsel, then it is presumed that any subsequent waiver that has come at the authorities’ behest, and not at the suspect’s own instigation, is itself the product of the “inherently compelling pressures” and not the purely voluntary choice of the suspect. As Justice White has explained, “the accused having expressed his own view that he is not competent to deal with the authorities without legal advice, a later decision at the authorities’ insistence to make a statement without counsel’s presence may properly be viewed with skepticism.” Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 110, n. 2 (1975) (concurring in result).
We have repeatedly emphasized the virtues of a bright-line rule in cases following Edwards as well as Miranda. See Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 634 (1986); Smith v. Illinois, 469 U. S. 91, 98 (1984) (per curiam); Solem v. Stumes, 465 U. S. 638, 646 (1984); see also Shea v. Louisiana, 470 U. S. 51 (1985); Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U. S. 1039, 1044 (1983) (plurality opinion) (Rehnquist, J.). In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U. S. 707, 718 (1979), we explained that the “relatively rigid requirement that interrogation must cease upon the accused’s request for an attorney . . . has the virtue of informing police and prosecutors with specificity as to what they may do in conducting custodial interrogation, and of informing courts under what circumstances statements obtained during such interrogation are not admissible. This gain in specificity, which benefits the accused and the State alike, has been thought to outweigh the burdens that the de-cisión in Miranda imposes on law enforcement agencies and the courts by requiring the suppression of trustworthy and highly probative evidence even though the confession might be voluntary under traditional Fifth Amendment analysis.” The Edwards rule thus serves the purpose of providing “clear and unequivocal” guidelines to the law enforcement profession. Surely there is nothing ambiguous about the requirement that after a person in custody has expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, he “is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” 451 U. S., at 484-485.
I » — I HH
Petitioner contends that the bright-line, prophylactic Edwards rule should not apply when the police-initiated interrogation following a suspect’s request for counsel occurs in the context of a separate investigation. According to petitioner, both our cases and the nature of the factual setting compel this distinction. We are unpersuaded.
Petitioner points to our holding in Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S., at 103-104 (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 479), that when a suspect asserts his right to cut off questioning, the police may “ ‘scrupulously honor’ ” that right by “immediately ceas[ing] the interrogation, resum[ing] questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time and the provision of a fresh set of warnings, and restrict[ing] the second interrogation to a crime that had not been a subject of the earlier interrogation.” 423 U. S., at 106. The police in this case followed precisely that course, claims the State. However, as Mosley made clear, a suspect’s decision to cut off questioning, unlike his request for counsel, does not raise the presumption that he is unable to proceed without a lawyer’s advice. See id., at 101, n. 7; id., at 110, n. 2 (White, J., concurring in result), quoted supra, at 681.
Petitioner points as well to Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U. S. 523, 525 (1987), which concerned a suspect who had “told the officers that he would not give a written statement unless his attorney was present but had ‘no problem’ talking about the incident.” We held that this was a limited request for counsel, that Barrett himself had drawn a distinction between oral and written statements and thus that the officers could continue to question him. Petitioner argues that Roberson’s request for counsel was similarly limited, this time to the investigation pursuant to which the request was made. This argument is flawed both factually and legally. As a matter of fact, according to the initial police report, respondent stated that “he wanted a lawyer before answering any questions.” As a matter of law, the presumption raised by a suspect’s request for counsel — that he considers himself unable to deal with the pressures of custodial interrogation without legal assistance — does not disappear simply because the police have approached the suspect, still in custody, still without counsel, about a separate investigation.
That a suspect’s request for counsel should apply to any questions the police wish to pose follows, we think, not only from Edwards and Miranda, but also from a case decided the same day as Barrett. In Colorado v. Spring, 479 U. S. 564, 577 (1987), we held that “a suspect’s awareness of all the possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment privilege.” In the face of the warning'that anything he said could be used as evidence against him, Spring’s willingness to answer questions, without limiting such a waiver, see Connecticut v. Barrett, supra, indicated that he felt comfortable enough with the pressures of custodial interrogation both to answer questions and to do so without an attorney. Since there is “no qualification of [the] broad and explicit warning” that “anything [a suspect] says may be used against him,” 479 U. S., at 577 (emphasis in original), Spring’s decision to talk was properly considered to be equally unqualified. Conversely, Roberson’s unwillingness to answer any questions without the advice of counsel, without limiting his request for counsel, indicated that he did not feel sufficiently comfortable with the pressures of custodial interrogation to answer questions without an attorney. This discomfort is precisely the state of mind that Edwards presumes to persist unless the suspect himself initiates further conversation about the investigation; unless he otherwise states, see Connecticut v. Barrett, supra, there is no reason to assume that a suspect’s state of mind is in any' way investigation-specific, see Colorado v. Spring, supra.
Finally, petitioner raises the case of Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159, 161 (1985), which held that Moulton’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.” That case did not involve any Miranda issue because Moulton was not in custody. In our opinion, we rejected an argument that the statements should be admissible because the police were seeking information regarding both the crime for which Moulton had already been indicted, and a separate, inchoate scheme. Following Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, 207 (1964), we recognized, though, that the continuing investigation of uncharged offenses did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Our recognition of that fact, however, surely lends no support to petitioner’s argument that in the Fifth Amendment context, “statements about different offenses, developed at different times, by different investigators, in the course of two wholly independent investigations, should not be treated the same.” Brief for Petitioner 32. This argument overlooks the difference between the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The former arises from the fact that the suspect has been formally charged with a particular crime and thus is facing a state apparatus that has been geared up to prosecute him. The latter is protected by the prophylaxis of having an attorney present to counteract the inherent pressures of custodial interrogation, which arise from the fact of such interrogation and exist regardless of the number of crimes under investigation or whether those crimes have resulted in formal charges.
In sum, our cases do not support petitioner’s position.
> HH
Petitioner’s attempts at distinguishing the factual setting here from that in Edwards are equally unavailing. Petitioner first relies on the plurality opinion in Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U. S., at 1044 (Rehnquist, J.), which stated that Edwards laid down “a prophylactic rule, designed to protect an accused in police custody from being badgered by police officers in the manner in which the defendant in Ed wards was.” Petitioner reasons that “the chances that an accused will be questioned so repeatedly and in such quick succession that it will ‘undermine the will’ of the person questioned, or will constitute ‘badger[ing],’ are so minute as not to warrant consideration, if the officers are truly pursuing separate investigations.” Brief for Petitioner 16. It is by no means clear, though, that police engaged in separate investigations will be any less eager than police involved in only one inquiry to question a suspect in custody. Further, to a suspect who has indicated his inability to cope with the pressures of custodial interrogation by requesting counsel, any further interrogation without counsel having been provided will surely exacerbate whatever compulsion to speak the suspect may be feeling. Thus, we also disagree with petitioner’s contention that fresh sets of Miranda warnings will “reassure” a suspect who has been denied the counsel he has clearly requested that his rights have remained untrammeled. See ibid. Especially in a case such as this, in which a period of three days elapsed between the unsatisfied request for counsel and the interrogation about a second offense, there is a serious risk that the mere repetition of the Miranda warnings would not overcome the presumption of coercion that is created by prolonged police custody.
The United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioner, suggests that a suspect in custody might have “good reasons for wanting to speak with the police about the offenses involved in the new investigation, or at least to learn from the police what the new investigation is about so that he can decide whether it is in his interest to make a statement about that matter without the assistance of counsel.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11. The simple answer is that the suspect, having requested counsel, can determine how to deal with the separate investigations with counsel’s advice. Further, even if the police have decided temporarily not to provide counsel, see n. 6, supra, they are free to inform the suspect of the facts of the second investigation as long as such communication does not constitute interrogation, see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291 (1980). As we have made clear, any “further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police” that the suspect himself initiates, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S., at 485, are perfectly valid.
Finally, we attach no significance to the fact that the officer who conducted the second interrogation did not know that respondent had made a request for counsel. In addition to the fact that Edwards focuses on the state of mind of the suspect and not of the police, custodial interrogation must be conducted pursuant to established procedures, and those procedures in turn must enable an officer who proposes to initiate an interrogation to determine whether the suspect has previously requested counsel. In this case respondent’s request had been properly memorialized in a written report but the officer who conducted the interrogation simply failed to examine that report. Whether a contemplated reinterrogation concerns the same or a different offense, or whether the same or different law enforcement authorities are involved in the second investigation, the same need to determine whether the suspect has requested counsel exists. The police department’s failure to honor that request cannot be justified by the lack of diligence of a particular officer. Cf. Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, 154 (1972).
The judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Tr. 26 (Apr. 3, 1986).
“Routhier was based on Edwards versus Arizona which held that once the defendant has invoked his right to counsel, he may not be re-interrogated unless counsel has been made available to him or he initiates the conversation.
“The Routhier court states that whether the defendant is re-interrogated about the same offense or an unrelated offense makes no difference for Fifth Amendment purposes.
“The Routhier court further stated that Edwards is clear and unequivocal, there is to be no further interrogation by authorities once the right to counsel is invoked. The Court in that ease finding that the assertion of the right to counsel is an assertion by the accused that he is not competent to deal with authorities without legal advice. And that the resumption of questioning by the police without the requested attorney being provided, strongly suggests to the accused that he has no choice but to answer.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 15-16.
See State v. Dampier, 314 N. C. 292, 333 S. E. 2d 230 (1985) (Edwards inapplicable to interrogation by authorities from different State concerning unrelated matter); McFadden v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 103, 300 S. E. 2d 924 (1983) (Edwards inapplicable when authorities from different county question suspect about different crime); see also Lofton v. State, 471 So. 2d 665 (Fla. App.) (no Edwards violation when suspect is represented by attorney in unrelated matter, then questioned without counsel present), review denied, 480 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1985); State v. Newton, 682 P. 2d 295 (Utah 1984) (same); State v. Cornethan, 38 Wash. App. 231, 684 P. 2d 1355 (1984) (alternative holding: Edwards inapplicable to interrogation in unrelated investigation; court also holds that representation by attorney in unrelated matter does not suffice as request for counsel for Edwards purposes); cf. State v. Harriman, 434 So. 2d 551 (La. App.) (adopts petitioner’s view here, but only after holding that suspect had initiated conversation regarding second investigation), writ denied, 440 So. 2d 729 (La. 1983); but see United States ex rel. Espinoza v. Fairman, 813 F. 2d 117, 124-126 (CA7) (same rule as Arizona), cert. denied, 483 U. S. 1010 (1987); Luman v. State, 447 So. 2d 428 (Fla. App. 1984). (same); Radovsky v. State, 296 Md. 386, 464 A. 2d 239 (1983) (same); see also Boles v. Foltz, 816 F. 2d 1132, 1137-1141 (CA6) (Gibson, J., dissenting) (same; majority does not reach issue), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 857 (1987); cf. United States v. Scalf, 708 F. 2d 1540, 1544 (CA10 1983) (knowledge of request for counsel “is imputed to all law enforcement officers who subsequently deal with the suspect”); State v. Arceneaux, 425 So. 2d 740 (La. 1983) (same).
It is significant that our explanation of the basis for the “per se aspect of Miranda” in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U. S., at 719, applies to the application of the Edwards rule in a case such as this. As we stated in Fare:
“The rule in Miranda . . . was based on this Court’s perception that the lawyer occupies a critical position in our legal system because of his unique ability to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of a client undergoing custodial interrogation. Because of this special ability of the lawyer to help the client preserve his Fifth Amendment rights once the client becomes enmeshed in the adversary process, the Court found that ‘the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system’ established by the Court. [384 U. S.], at 469. Moreover, the lawyer’s presence helps guard against overreaching by the police and ensures that any statements actually obtained are accurately transcribed for presentation into evidence. Id., at 470.
“The per se aspect of Miranda was thus based on the unique role the lawyer plays in the adversary system of criminal justice in this country.” 442 U. S., at 719.
Tr. 26 (Apr. 3, 1986) (emphasis added); see id., at 23; Tr. 12 (Oct. 17, 1985, a.m.).
The United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioner, suggests similarly that “respondent’s failure to reiterate his request for counsel to [the officer involved in the second investigation], even, after [that officer] gave respondent complete Miranda warnings, could not have been the result of any doubt on respondent’s part that the police would honor a request for counsel if one were made.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10. This conclusion is surprising, considering that respondent had not been provided with the attorney he had already requested, despite having been subjected to police-initiated interrogation with respect to the first investigation as well. See n. 7, infra. We reiterate here, though, that the “right” to counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not absolute; that is, “[i]f authorities conclude that they will not provide counsel during a reasonable period of time in which investigation in the field is carried out, they may refrain from doing so without violating the person’s Fifth Amendment privilege so long as they do not question him during that time.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 474 (1966).
Indeed, the facts of this case indicate that different officers investigating the same offense are just as likely to bypass proper procedures as an officer investigating a different offense, inasmuch as the record discloses no less than five violations of the Edwards rule, four concerning the April 16 burglary and only one concerning the April 15 burglary. See Tr. 23-24, 49 (Apr. 3, 1986); Tr. 8-12 (Oct. 17, 1985, p.m.). It is only the last violation that is at issue 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.
Mr. Justice Harlan
announced the judgment of the Court in an opinion joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Marshall.
The Government directly appeals the order of the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissing, on the ground of former jeopardy, an information charging the defendant-appellee with willfully assisting in the preparation of fraudulent income tax returns, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 7206 (2).
Appellee was_ originally charged in February 1968 with 25 counts of violating §7206 (2). He was . brought to trial before Chief Judge Ritter on August 27, 1968. After the jury was chosen and sworn, 14 of the counts were dismissed on the Government’s motion. The trial then commenced, the Government calling as its first witness an Internal Revenue Service agent in order to put in evidence the remaining 11 allegedly fraudulent income tax returns the defendant was charged with helping to prepare. At the trial judge’s suggestion, these exhibits were stipulated to and introduced in evidence without objection. The Government’s five remaining witnesses were taxpayers whom the defendant allegedly had aided in preparation of these returns.
After the first of these witnesses was called, but prior to the commencement of direct examination, defense counsel suggested that these witnesses be’warned of their constitutional rights. The trial court agreed, and proceeded, in careful detail, to spell out the witness’ right not to say anything that might be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution against him and his right, in the event of such a prosecution, to be represented by an attorney. The first witness expressed a willingness to testify and stated that he had been warned of his. constitutional rights when the Internal Revenue Service first contacted him. The trial judge indicated, however, that he did not believe the witness had been given any warning at the time he was first contacted by the IRS, and refused to permit him to testify until he had consulted an attorney.
The trial judge then asked the prosecuting attorney if his remaining four witnesses were similarly situated. The prosecutor responded that they had been warned of their rights by the' IRS upon initial contact. The judge, expressing the view that any warnings that might have been given were probably inadequate, proceéded to discharge the jury; he then called all the taxpayers, into court, and informed them of their constitutional rights and of the considerable dangers of unwittingly making damáging admissions in these factual circumstances. Finally, he aborted the trial so the witnesses could consult with attorneys.
The case was set for retrial before another jury, but on pretrial motion by the defendant, Judge Ritter dismissed the information on the ground of former jeopardy. The Government filed a direct appeal to this Court, and we. noted probable jurisdiction. 396 U. S. 810 (1969). The case was argued at the 1969 Term and thereafter set for reargument at the present Term. 397 U. S. 1060 (1970).
I
Appellee contends, at the threshold, that our decision in United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 302-307 (1970), which followed our noting of probable jurisdiction in this case, forecloses appeal by the Government under the motion-in-bar provisions of 18 U. S. C. § 3731 prior to its recent amendment. The question was fully briefed and argued on reargument.
The statute provided, in relevant part, for an appeal by the Government direct to the Supreme Court “[f]rom the decision or judgment sustaining a motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.” Appellee concedes, as indeed he must under the prior rulings of this Court, that his plea of former jeopardy constituted a “motion in bar” within the meaning of the statute. The issue is whether appellee had been “put in jeopardy” by virtue of the impaneling of the jury in the first proceeding before the declaration of mistrial. In Sisson, supra, the opinion of the Court— in discussing the applicability of the motion-in-bar provision to the Government's direct appeal of the trial judge's actions there — concluded, inter alia, that the “put in jeopardy” language applied whenever the jury had been impaneled, even if the defendant might constitutionally have been retried under the double jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment. 399 U. S., at 302-307.
Here the jury in the first proceeding had been impaneled before the mistrial ruling, but appellee’s motion to dismiss on grounds of former jeopardy was made prior to the impaneling of the second jury. The Government contends that the impaneling of the jury must be understood to apply to the jury in the proceeding to which the plea of former jeopardy is offered as a bar, rather than the jury whose impaneling was, in the first instance, essential to sustain the plea on the merits. Ap-pellee contends that the construction put on the statute ' in the Sisson opinion requires the conclusion that the Government may not appeal when a jury in the prior proceeding for the offense in question has been impaneled.
We think the Government has the better of the argument. The Court’s opinion in Sisson dealt with the problem presented by the trial judge’s order puf porting to arrest the entry of judgment on the guilty verdict returned by the very jury whose impaneling was claimed to constitute “jeopardy” within the meaning of the motion-in-bar provision. The conclusion that jeopardy had attached by the impaneling of the jury in that proceeding rested on the view that the Congress was concerned, in granting the Government appeal rights in certain classes of eases, to avoid subjecting the defendant to a second trial where the first trial had terminated in á manner favorable to the defendant either because of a jury verdict or because of judicial action. . See Sisson, supra, at 293-300. The “compromise origins” of the Criminal Appeals Act, see id., at 307,. reflected this concern, and that concern is an important consideration supporting the canon of strict construction traditionally applied to this statute. See id., at 296-300; Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 96-98 (1967).
In the mistrial situation, the judicial ruling that is chronologically analogous to the Sisson, facts would be the declaration of a mistrial after the first jury has been impaneled. Obviously, the Government could not have appealed Judge Ritter’s. original declaration of mistrial. Since a mistrial ruling explicitly contemplates reprosecution of the defendant, the nonappealability of this judicial action fits with congressional action in excluding pleas in abatement from the class of cases warranting appellate review. The nonappealable status of rulings of this sort is fully explainable in terms of a policy disfavoring appeals from interlocutory rulings. See the discussion in Will v. United States, supra, at 96-98.
But it does not follow from the nonappealability of rulings' which are essentially interlocutory insofar as they expressly contémplate resumption of the prosecution, that Congress intended to foreclose governmental appeal from the sustaining of a later motion in bar on the trial judge’s conclusion that constitutional double jeopardy policies require that the earlier mistrial ruling now be accorded the effect of barring reprosecution.' Indeed, when we recall that pleas of former jeopardy tyere the paradigm illustrations of motions in bar at common law, see n. 2, supra, it seems much more, likely that the congressional decision to allow governmental appeals from the judge’s decision sustaining a motion in bar was intended to permit review of later judicial, action possibly premised on erroneous theories concerning constitutional effects attaching to the earlier interlocutory ruling.
Consistently with the Court’s opinion in Sisson, the sustaining of a motion in bar based on a plea of former jeopardy would be appealable as long as the motion in bar was sustained prior to the impaneling of the jury in the subsequent proceeding. Since Judge Ritter in this case dismissed the information on appellee’s plea of former jeopardy prior , to the impaneling of the second jury, .we conclude that the decision is directly appealable by the Government as a motion in bar before the defendant was “put in jeopardy” within the meaning of the applicable statute. Hence we proceed to the merits of appellee’s claim that reprosecution after the declaration of mistrial in the earlier proceeding would violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
II
The Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against placing a defendant “twice in jeopardy” represents a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit.in federal criminal proceedings. ' A power’ in government to subject the individual to repeated prosecutions for the same offense would cut deeply into the framework of procedural protections which the Constitution establishes for the conduct of a criminal trial. And society’s awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness, to limit the Government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in enforcement of criminal laws. Both of these considerations are expressed in Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188 (1957), where the Court noted that the policy underlying this provision “is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity,, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” These considerations have led this Court to conclude that a defendant is placed in jeopardy in a criminal proceeding once the defendant is put to trial before the trier of the facts, whether the • trier be a jury or a judge. See Green v. United States, supra, at 188; Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 688 (1949).
But it is also true that- a criminal trial is, even in . the best of circumstances, a complicated affair to manage: The proceedings are dependent in the first instance oh the most elementary sort of considerations, e. g., the health of the various witnesses, parties, attorneys, jurors, etc., all of whom must be prepared to arrive at the courthouse at set times. And when one adds the scheduling problems arising from case overloads, and the Sixth Amendment’s requirement that the single trial to which the double jeopardy provision restricts the Governmént be conducted speedily, it becomes readily apparent that a mechanical rule prohibiting retrial whenever circumstances compel the discharge of a jury without the defendant's consent would be too high a price to pay for the added assurance of personal security and freedom from governmental harassment which such a mechanical rule would provide. As the Court noted in Wade v. Hunter, supra, at 689, “a- defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed , by a particular tribunal must in some circumstances be subordinated to the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments.”
Thus the conclusion that “jeopardy attaches” when the trial commences expresses a judgment that the constitutional policies underpinning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee are implicated at that point in the proceed-' ings. The question remains, however, in what circumstances retrial is to be precluded when the initial proceedings are aborted prior to verdict without the defendant’s consent.
In dealing with that question^ this Court has,, for the most part, explicitly declined the invitation of litigants to formulate rules based on categories of circumstances which will , permit or preclude retrial. Thus, in United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 (1824), this Court held that a defendant in a capital case might be retried after the trial judge had, without the defendant’s consent, discharged a jury that reported itself unable to'agree. Mr. Justice Story’s opinion for the Court in Perez expressed the following thoughts on the problem of reprosecution after a mistrial had been declared without the consent of the defendant:
“We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested Courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into . consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere. To be sure, the power ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes; and, in capital cases especially, Courts should be extremely careful how they interfere with any of the chances of life, in favour of the prisoner. But, after all, they have the right to order the discharge f and the security which the public have for the faithful, sound, and conscientious exercise of this discretion, rests, in this, as in other cases, upon the responsibility of the Judges, under their oaths of office.”. Id., at 580.
The Perez case has since been applied by this Court as a standard of appellate review for testing the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion in declaring a mistrial without the defendant’s consent. E. g., Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148 (1891) (reprosecution not-barred where mistrial declared because letter published in newspaper rendered juror’s impartiality doubtful); Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263 (1892) (reprose-cution not barred where jury discharged after 40 hours of deliberation for inability to reach a verdict); Thompson v. United States, 155 U. S. 271 (1894) (reprosecution not barred where jury discharged because one juror had ■ served on grand jury indicting defendant); Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684 (1949) (retrial not barred where military .court-martial discharged due to- tactical necessity in the field).
But a more recent ease — Gori v. United States, 367 U. S. 364 (1961) — while adhering in the main to the Perez theme of a “manifest necessity” standard of appellate review — does suggest the possibility of a variation on that theme according to a determination by the appellate court as to which party to the case was the beneficiary of the mistrial ruling. In Gori, the Court was called upon to review the action of. a trial judge in discharging the jury when it appeared to the judge that the prosecution’s questioning of a witness might lead to the introduction of evidence of prior crimes. We upheld reprosecutiop after the mistrial in an opinion which, while applying the principle of Perez, appears to tie the judgment that there was no abuse of discretion in these circumstances to the fact that the judge- was acting “in the sole interest of the defendant.” 367 U. S., at 369; see also the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, id., at 370.
In the instant cáse, the Government, relying principally on Gori, contends that even if we conclude the trial judge here abused his discretion, reprosecution should be permitted because the judge’s ruling “benefited” the defendant and also clearly was not compelled by bad-faith prosecutorial conduct aimed at triggering a mistrial in order to get another day in court. If the judgment as to who was “benefited” by the mistrial ruling turns on the appellate court’s conclusion concerning which party the trial judge was, in point of personal motivation, trying to protect from prejudice,, it seems reasonably clear from the trial record here that the judge’s insistence on stopping the trial until the witnesses were properly warned was motivated by the desire, to protect the witnesses rather than the defendant. But the Government appears to view the question of “benefit” as turning on an appellate court’s post hoc assessment as to which party would in fact have been aided in the hypothetical event that the witnesses had been called to the stand after consulting with their own attorneys on the course of conduct that would best serve to insulate them personally from criminal and civil liability for the fraudu-. lent tax returns. That conception of benefit, however, involves. nothing more than an' exercise in pure speculation. In sum, we are unable to conclude on this record that this is a case of a mistrial made “in the sole interest of the defendant.” See Gori v. United States, supra.
Further, we think that a limitation on the abuse-of-discretion principle based on an appellate court’s assessment of which side benefited from the mistrial ruling does not adequately satisfy the policies underpinning the double jeopardy provision. Reprosecution after a mistrial has unnecessarily been declared by the trial court obviously subjects the defendant to the same personal strain and insecurity regardless of the motivation underlying the trial judge’s action. The Government contends, however, that the policies evinced by the double jeopardy provision do not reach this sort of injury; rather the unnecessarily inflicted second trial must, in the Government’s view, appear to be the result of a mistrial declaration which “unfairly aids the prosecution or harasses the defense.” Govt. Brief- 8.
Certainly it is clear beyond question that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not guarantee a defendant that the Government will be prepared, in' all circumstances, to vindicate the social interest in law enforcement through the vehicle of a single proceeding for a .given offense. Thus, for. example, reprosecution for the same offense is permitted where the defendant wins a reversal on appeal of a conviction. United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662 (1896); see Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 189 (1957). The determination to allow reprosecution in these circumstances reflects the judgment that the defendant's double jeopardy interests, however defined, do not go so- far as to compel society to so mobilize its decisionihaking resources that it will be prepared to assure the defendant a single proceeding free from harmful governmental or judicial error. But it is also clear that recognition that the defendant can be reprosecuted for the same offense after successful appeal does not compel the conclusion that double jeopardy policies are confined to prevention of prosecutorial or judicial overreaching. For the crucial difference between reprosecution after appeal by the. defendant and reprosecution, after a sua sponte judicial mistrial declaration is that in the first situation the defendant has not been deprived of his option to go to the first jury and, perhaps, end the, dispute then and. there with an acquittal. On the’ other hand, where the judge, acting without the defendant’s consent, aborts the proceeding, the defendant has béen deprived of his “valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.” See Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S., at 689.
If that right to go to a particular tribunal is valued, it is because, independent of the threat of bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor, the defendant has a significant interest in the decision whether or not to take the case from the jury when circumstances occur which might be thought to warrant a declaration of mistrial. Thus, where circumstances develop not attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching, a motion by the defendant for mistrial is ordinarily assumed to remove any barrier to reprosecution, even if the defendant’s motion is necessitated by prosecutorial or judicial error. In the absence of such a motion, the Perez doctrine of manifest necessity stands as a command to trial judges not to foreclose the defendant’s option until a scrupulous exercise of judicial discretion leads to the conclusion that the ends of public justice would not be served by a continuation of the proceedings. See United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat., at 580.
The conscious refusal of this Court to channel the exercise of that discretion according to rules based on categories of circumstances, see Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S., at 691, reflects the elusive nature of the problem presented by judicial action. foreclosing the defendant from going to his jury. But that discretion must still be exercised; ■ unquestionably an important factor to be considered is the need to hold litigants on both sides to standards of responsible professional conduct in the clash of an adversary criminal process. Yet we cannot evolve rules based on the source of the particular problem giving rise to a question whether a mistrial should or should not be declared, because, even in circumstances where the problem reflects error on the part of one counsel or the other, the trial judge must still take care to assure himself that the situation warrants action on his part foreclosing the defendant from a potentially favorable judgment by the tribunal.
In sum, counsel for both sides perform in an imperfect world; in this area, bright-line rules based on either the source of the problem or the intended beneficiary of the ruling would only disserve the vital competing interests of the-' Government and the defendant. ■ The trial judge must recognise that lack of preparedness by the Government . to continue the trial directly implicates policies •underpinning both the double jeopardy provisión and the speedy trial guarantee. Cf. Downum v. United States, 372 U. S. 734 (1963). Alternatively, the judge must bear in mind the potential risks of abuse by the defendant of society’s unwillingness to unnecessarily subject him to repeated prosecutions. Yet, in the final analysis, the judge must always temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he might believe to be favorably disposed to his fate.
III
Applying these considerations to the record in this case, we must conclude that the trial judge here abused his discretion in discharging the jury. Despite assurances by both the first witness and the prosecuting attorney that the five taxpayers involved in the litigation had all been warned of their constitutional rights, the judge refused to permit them to testify, first expressing his disbelief that they were warned at all, and then ex-’ pressing his views that any- warnings that might have been given would be inadequate. App. 41^42. In probing the assumed inadequacy of the warnings that might have been given, the prosecutor was asked if he really intended to try a case for willfully aiding in the preparation of fraudulent returns on. a theory that would not incriminate the taxpayers. When the prosecutor started to answer that he intended to do just that, the judge cut him off in midstream and immediately discharged the jury. App. 42-43. It is apparent from the record that no consideration was given to. the possibility of a trial continuance; indeed, the trial judge acted so abruptly in discharging the jury that, had the prosecutor been disposed to suggest a continuance, or the defendant to object to the discharge of the jury, there would have been no opportunity to do. so. When one examines the circumstances surrounding the discharge of this jury, it seems abundantly apparent that the trial judge made no effort to exercise a sound discretion to assure that, taking all the circumstances into account, there was a manifest necessity for the sua sponte declaration of this mistrial. United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat., at 580. Therefore, we must conclude that in the circumstances of this case, appellee’s reprosecution would violate the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment.
Affirmed.
These provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act have recently been amended. See n. 6, infra. However, the new amendment does not apply to cases begun in the District Court before the effective date of enactment. Ibid. Our jurisdiction over the present appeal is therefore controlled by the terms of the Criminal Appeals Act as codified at 18 U. S. C. § 3731.
The common-law equivalent of the motion in bar was used to raise the defenses of prior acquittal, prior conviction, and pardon. See United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, 151 (1931). Whether the motion-in-bar provision is construed broadly to reach any plea having the effect of preventing further prosecutions, see United States v. Mersky, 361 U. S. 431, 441-443 (1960) (BreiínaN, J., concurring), or narrowly to reach only pleas in the nature of confession and avoidance, see id., at 455-458 (Stewart, J., dissenting), appellee’s plea of former jeopardy based on the prior declaration of mistrial would be included. Cf. United States v. Blue, 384 U. S. 251, 254 (1966). See generally United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 300 n. 53 (1970).
The portion of the Court’s opinion in Sisson under discussion here was joined in by only four members of the Court.
Mr. ■ Justice White’s , dissenting opinion contended that the jeopardy language applies to preclude governmental appeal only where the defendant’s reprosecution would be barred by the Constitution.
The Government relies in part on United States v. Toteo, 377 U. S. 463 (1964), and United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U. S. 85 (1916), as sustaining jurisdiction under 18 U. S. C. §3731 to review the trial court’s action- in granting a pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds after the prior proceeding ended in a mistrial. In Tateo, however, jurisdiction was neither raised by the parties nor considered by the Court; therefore, it is of little significance on the jurisdiction point. In Oppenheimer, the motion in bar in the second proceeding rested on an earlier pretrial motion based on the statute of limitations; the theory of the second plea ivas res judieata.
Appellee points out that Rule 12 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits the defendant to raise the defense of former jeopardy on motion before or after the impaneling of the jury. See Notes of the Advisory Committee, 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 12.01 [2] (2d ed. 1970). Thus, it is suggested that the defendant may deprive the Government of its appeal simply by delaying his motion to dismiss until the jury has been impaneled. This' problem, of course,1 is inherent in the structure of the Criminal Appeals Act prior' to amendment; for example, the defendant under Rule 12 (b) (1) may also delay his statute of limitations plea until after the impaneling of the jury, see ibid., thereby depriving the Government of its § 3731 appeal to this Court. Soon after the passage of the original Act, the Attorney General recognized the problem and proposed that the Act be amended to require'counsel for the defendant to raise and argue such questions before jeopardy attaches. See Sisson, supra, at 305-306. A recently enacted amendment to the Criminal Appeals Act undertakes to. deal with the problem by allowing the Government to appeal “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.” Omnibus Crime-Control Act of 1970, § 14 (a) (1), 84 Stat. 1890 (January 2, 1971). However, the amendment is not applicable -to any criminal case begun in any district court before the effective date of the amendment. Id., § 14 (b)'. See also S. Rep. No. 91-1296, pp. 6-7-
It is clear from the record in this case that Judge Ritter’s action cannot, as two members of the Court suggest, be classified as an “acquittal” for purposes of this Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal under 18 U. S. C. § 3731. First, Judge Ritter’s action at the original trial clearly contemplated reprosecution of the defendant after the witnesses had consulted with attorneys. See App. 46 and-Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissent, post, at 488-489, n. 1. Judge Ritter’s subsequent action dismissing the information was simply put on the ground of defendant’s plea of former jeopardy, without further explanation. App. 60. But the parties below put the question of former jeopardy to Judge Ritter exclusively in terms of the Court’s line of cases concerning reprosecutability after mistrial declarations without the defendant’s consent. See App. 55-59, which contain the entire post-mistrial proceedings before Judge Ritter.
Of course, as we noted in Sisson, supra, at 290, the trial judge’s characterization of his own action 'cannot control the classification of the action for purposes of our appellate jurisdiction. But Sisson goes on to articulate the criterion of an “acquittal” for purposes of assessing our jurisdiction to review: the trial judge’s disposition is an “acquittal” if it is “a legal determination on the basis of facts adduced at the trial relating to the general issue of the case . . . .” Sisson, supra, at 290 n. 19. The record in this case is utterly devoid of any indication of reliance by Judge Ritter on facts relating to the general issue of the case, thereby surely distinguishing this case from Sisson, and, one would think, under the very reasoning of Sisson, compelling the conclusion that whatever else Judge Ritter may have done, he did not “acquit” the defendant in the relevant sense:
Two Terms ago the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment was made directly applicable to the States. See Benton V. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969).
See also Annotation,: Double Jeopardy — Mistrial, 6 L. Ed) 2d 1509; J. Sigler, Double Jeopardy 39-47 (1969).
And see Annotation, supra, n. 9, at 1511; Sigler, supra, n. 9, at 44-45.
We think, that nothing said in United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 467 (1964), can properly be taken as indicating a contrary view. For there, even though defendant’s ■ guilty plea which aborted the trial was subsequently held to have been coerced by judicial action, the defendant nonetheless was hot foreclosed of his option to go to the jury if he chose to do so, and thereafter rely on post-eonviction proceedings to redress the wrong done to him by the judge. In other words, the question of “voluntariness” for purposes of assessing the validity of a plea of guilty — whether offered before or at trial— must be distinguished from the question of “voluntariness” for purposes of assessing reprosecutability under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Conversely, where a defendant’s mistrial motion "is necessitated by -judicial or prosecutorial impropriety designed to avoid an acquittal, reprosecution might well be barred. Cf. United States v. Tateo, supra, at 468 n. 3; n. 11, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of an eighteen-year-old woman in an altercation growing out of a business transaction. A second woman was wounded in the affray. At his trial, petitioner claimed that he killed the deceased in self-defense. The jury obviously did not believe him or it would not have found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. He appealed to the Court of Appeals of Georgia which affirmed the conviction on July 12, 1950. Stembridge v. State, 82 Ga. App. 214, 60 S. E. 2d 491. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia was denied.
Petitioner thereafter filed in the trial court what he called an “Extraordinary Motion for New Trial.” This motion alleged that after the appellate proceedings above mentioned, petitioner for the first time, to wit, September, 1950, discovered new evidence which, had he known of and been able to use, would have resulted in his acquittal. He supported the motion with affidavits of ten of the jurors in the case stating that had this evidence been before them, they “would have never agreed to any verdict except one of not guilty . . . .”
The newly discovered evidence consisted of a conflict between a written statement made by Mrs. Mary Harrison, the other woman who was shot in the affray, and her testimony at the trial. Petitioner could not contend that he was unaware of the existence of this statement because the police investigator who recorded it was cross-examined at length about the statement and its contents by petitioner’s counsel at the trial. Petitioner claims only that he did not know of the conflict between the statement and Mrs. Harrison’s testimony at the trial until after the trial was over. The statement was made by Mrs. Harrison in the hospital, shortly after she was shot. It is not sworn to. At least, there is no jurat exhibited as a part thereof. This statement, often referred to as a dying declaration, and the copy thereof remained at all times in the hands of the police. Since Mrs. Harrison did not die, the State could not use the statement as a dying declaration. Ga. Code, § 38-307 (1933).
The motion alleges that at petitioner’s trial, Mrs. Harrison testified that he “did go into the third room of the house and that he did shoot Emma Johnekin after he had already wounded her in the front of the house, and after she had seated herself on a trunk in this rear room.” The house where the shooting occurred consisted of three rooms, in line from front to rear, and a kitchen. The statement made by Mrs. Harrison while in the hospital, which is allegedly in conflict with her testimony, was “and Emma [deceased] never got out of the front bed room until after the men [Stembridge and Terry] had already gone.”
This motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the evidence was impeaching only and under the Georgia Code, § 70-204, was not the basis for the granting of a new trial. Stembridge v. State, 84 Ga. App. 413, 415-416, 65 S. E. 2d 819, 821. This judgment was entered June 5, 1951.
Petitioner then filed a motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals and for the first time attempted to raise the question of his federal constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that he had been denied equal protection and due process in that the State had used Mrs. Harrison’s testimony to obtain his conviction with knowledge that it was perjured. The motion. for rehearing was denied July 17, 1951, in these words: “Upon consideration of the motion for a rehearing filed in this case, it is ordered that it be hereby denied.” On September 12, 1951, the Supreme Court of Georgia denied certiorari without opinion. On September 17, 1951, the Court of Appeals, at petitioner’s request, stayed the remittitur for ninety days to enable him to apply to this Court for certiorari.
On October 22, 1951, petitioner sought and obtained from the Court of Appeals of Georgia an amendment of the record in the following words:
“In the consideration by this court of the rehearing which raised the Federal question that The placing-in this case, by the State, of evidence known to be perjured seeks to deprive plaintiff in error of liberty without due process of law in violation of Section 2-103 of the Constitution of Georgia and in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,’ this court considered the constitutional question thus raised and decided iagainst the contentions of the plaintiff in error. In so doing this court considered Sec. 110-706 of the Code of Georgia of 1933 which provides as follows: ‘Any judgment, verdict, rule or order of court, which may have been obtained or entered up, shall be set aside and be of no effect, if it shall appear that the same was entered up in consequence of corrupt and wilful perjury; and it shall be the duty of the court in which such verdict, judgment, rule or order was obtained or entered up to cause the same to be set aside upon motion and notice to the adverse party; but it shall not be lawful for the said court to do so, unless the person charged with such perjury shall have been thereof duly convicted, and unless it shall appear to the said court that the said verdict, judgment, rule or order could not have been obtained and entered up without the evidence of such perjured person, saving always to third persons innocent of such perjury the rights which they may lawfully have acquired under such verdict, judgment, rule, or order before the same shall have been actually vacated and set aside’; and Burke v. State, 205 Ga. 656, et seq. which is a decision of the Supreme Court of this State and is therefore binding on this Court, and in which the Constitutional question raised by the plaintiff in error was decided adversely to his contentions. The decision of this Court on the rehearing in question being adverse to the plaintiff in error necessarily brought into consideration the question of whether the rights of the plaintiff in error as guaranteed to him under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States had been violated, and such decision necessarily determined that such rights had not been so violated. The decision by this court denying the rehearing necessarily determined that the action Of the Solicitor General as shown by the record did not deprive the plaintiff in error of any rights guaranteed to him under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; also the decision of this court necessarily applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to Sec. 1 lb-706 of the Code of Georgia of 1933 and decided that its application in this case did not amount to an abridgement of any of the rights of the plaintiff in error guaranteed to him under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and also that this Court necessarily considered Burke v. State, 205 Ga. 656, which is a decision of the Supreme Court of this State by which this Court is bound and which must be followed by this Court, the effect of which is to hold that it does not abridge any of the rights of the plaintiff in error guaranteed to him under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Review of this amending order, which purported to pass upon the constitutional question raised in the motion for rehearing, was not sought in the Supreme Court of Georgia. Instead, certiorari was sought here and granted. 342 U. S. 940.
First, since the Supreme Court of Georgia, which was the highest court of the state in which a decision could be had in this case, was not asked to pass upon and did not pass upon the purported amending order, we have no occasion to consider its effect.
Secondly, at the time the petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of Georgia, there appeared in the petition the following recital:
“This judgment and decision of the Court of Appeals in this case in failing and refusing to decide applicant’s case in accordance with Sec. 2-3708 of the Constitution of Georgia also violates article 1, sec. 1, par. 3 of the Constitution of Georgia (Code § 2-103) and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Code Sec. 1-815); both of which sections provide that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law; and article 1, sec. 1, par. 2, of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Code § 1-815), guaranteeing to all persons equal protection of the law.”
It is apparent from the record that the Supreme Court of Georgia took no action upon the question of federal constitutional rights raised for the first time on the motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals. This was in accord with its rule that constitutional questions must first be raised in the trial court. Beckmann v. Atlantic Rfg. Co., 181 Ga. 456, 182 S. E. 595. The attempt to raise the question of constitutional rights in the general terms of the above quotation from the petition for cer-tiorari did not begin to meet the requirement of the Supreme Court of Georgia for definiteness. Persons v. Lea, 207 Ga. 384, 61 S. E. 2d 832.
At this stage, the Supreme Court of Georgia could have denied certiorari on adequate state grounds. Where the highest court of the state delivers no opinion and it appears that the judgment might have rested upon a non-federal ground, this Court will not take jurisdiction to review the judgment. Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U. S. 806; Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211; White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760; McGoldrick v. Gulf Oil Corp., 309 U. S. 2; Woolsey v. Best, 299 U. S. 1; Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52; Cuyahoga Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 303-304; Adams v. Russell, 229 U. S. 353, 358-362; Allen v. Arguimbau, 198 U. S. 149, 154-155; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300, 307; Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 263.
The amending order of the Georgia Court of Appeals does not, in our view, change the posture of this case — it does not remove the strong possibility, in light of Georgia law, that the Supreme Court of Georgia might have rested its order on a nonfederal ground. We are without jurisdiction when the question of the existence of an adequate state ground is debatable. Bachtel v. Wilson, 204 U. S. 36.
The petition for certiorari was improvidently granted, and the case is dismissed.
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us once again to consider the constitutionality of a classification restricting the right to vote in a local election.
Appellees, residents of Fort Worth, Tex., brought this action to challenge the state and city laws limiting the franchise in city bond elections to persons who have made available for taxation some real, mixed, or personal property. A three-judge District Court held that this restriction on suffrage did not serve any compelling state interest and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stone v. Stovall, 377 F. Supp. 1016 (ND Tex. 1974). We granted , a partial stay of the District Court’s order pending disposition of the appeal. 416 U. S. 963 (1974). We subsequently noted probable jurisdiction. 419 U. S. 822 (1974).
I
The Texas Constitution provides that in all municipal elections “to determine expenditure of money or assumption of debt,” only those who pay taxes on property in the city are eligible to vote. Tex. Const. Art. 6, § 3. In addition, it directs that in any election held “for the purpose of issuing bonds or otherwise lending credit, or expending money or assuming any debt,” the franchise shall be limited to those qualified voters “who own taxable property in the . . . district . . . where such election is held,” and who have “duly rendered the same for taxation.” § 3a. The implementing statutes impose the same requirements, adding that to qualify for voting a resident of the district holding the election must have “rendered” his property for taxation to the district during the proper period of the election year, and that he must sign an affidavit indicating that he has done so. Tex. Elec. Code §§ 5.03, 5.04, 5.07 (1967 and Supp. 1974-1975). The Fort Worth City Charter further provides that the city shall not issue bonds unless they are authorized in an election of the “qualified voters who pay taxes on property situated within the corporate limits of the City of Ft. Worth.” Charter of the City of Fort Worth, c. 25, § 19.
In 1969, after our decisions in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U. S. 621 (1969), and Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969), the Texas Attorney General devised a “dual box election procedure” to be used in all the State’s local bond elections. Under this procedure, all persons owning taxable property rendered for taxation voted in one box, and all other registered voters cast their ballots in a separate box. The results in both boxes were tabulated, and the bond issue would be deemed to have passed only if it was approved by a majority vote both in the “renderers’ box” and in the aggregate of both boxes. This scheme ensured that the bonds would be safe from challenge even if the state-law restrictions on the franchise were later held unconstitutional.
On April 11, 1972, the city of Fort Worth conducted a tax bond election, using the dual-box system to authorize the sale of bonds to improve the city transportation system and to build a city library. Since the state eligibility restrictions had previously been construed to require only that the prospective voter render some property for taxation, even if he did not actually pay any tax on the property, Montgomery Independent School District v. Martin, 464 S. W. 2d 638 (Tex. 1971), all those who signed an affidavit indicating that they had rendered some property were permitted to vote in the “renderers’ box.” Of the 29,000 voters who participated in the bond election, approximately 24,000 voted as Tenderers and 5,000 as nonrenderers. The transportation bond proposal was approved in both boxes and in the aggregate. The library bonds, however, were less well received. Although the library bonds were approved by a majority of all the voters, they were defeated in the Tenderers’ box, and were therefore deemed not to have been authorized.
The appellees, three of whom had voted as nonrenderers, then filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claiming that the partial disfranchisement of persons not rendering property for taxation denied them equal protection of the laws. A three-judge District Court was convened; it heard argument, and on March 25, 1974, it entered judgment for the appellees. The court declared the relevant provisions of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Election Code, and the Fort Worth City Charter unconstitutional “insofar as they condition the right to vote in bond elections on citizens’ rendering property for taxation.” 377 F. Supp., at 1024. Although the court ruled that its decree would not make invalid any bonds already authorized or any bond elections held before the date of the judgment, it ordered the city defendants to count the ballots of those who had voted in the nonrenderers’ box, and it enjoined any future restriction of the franchise in state bond elections to those who have rendered property for taxation.
While all three judges concurred in the judgment, each member of the panel wrote separately. Judge Thorn-berry concluded that the Texas scheme was invalid because it divided the otherwise eligible voters into two classifications — renderers and nonrenderers — and that the disfranchisement of those who did not render property for taxation violated the Equal Protection Clause. Judge Woodward concurred in the result on the ground that the rendering requirement was tantamount to a requirement of property ownership, which he concluded was impermissible under this Court’s decision in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 (1966). Judge Brewster concurred in the judgment, but only because he thought the case was controlled by our decision in City oj Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204 (1970), where we held invalid a statute restricting the franchise in a general obligation bond election to real property owners.
II
Appellant, the Attorney General of Texas, argues that none of this Court’s cases draws into question a voting restriction of the sort used in this election. The eligibility scheme does not impose a wealth restriction on the exercise of the franchise, the appellant contends, and any classification that it does create is reasonable and should be upheld on that basis.
A
In Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U. S. 621 (1969), we held that in an election of general interest, restrictions on the franchise other than residence, age, and citizenship must promote a compelling state interest in order to survive constitutional attack. The appellant in Kramer challenged a New York statute that limited eligibility to vote in local school board elections to persons who owned or leased taxable real property in the school district, or who had children enrolled in the public schools. We expressed no opinion in Kramer whether a State might in some circumstances limit the franchise to those “primarily interested” in the election, but we held that the New York statute had impermissibly excluded many persons with a distinct and direct interest in the decisions of the school board, while at the same time including others with no substantial interest in school affairs. The fact that the school district was supported by a property tax did not mean that only those subject to direct assessment felt the effects of the tax burden, and the inclusion of parents would not exhaust the class of persons interested in the conduct of local school affairs.
In Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969), decided the same day, we invalidated a Louisiana statute limiting the franchise in local revenue bond elections to the “property taxpayers” of the district. As in Kramer, the city had failed to prove that under its classification all those excluded from voting were in fact substantially less interested or affected than those permitted to vote. Id., at 704. The bonds in Cipriano were intended to finance extension and improvement of the city's utility system. We pointed out that the operation of a utility system affects property owners and nonproperty owners alike, and since those not included among the eligible voters often use the utility services, they might well feel the effect of outstanding revenue bonds through the utility rates they would be required to pay.
The next Term, in City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, supra, we ruled unconstitutional a similar restriction of the franchise to real property taxpayers in a general obligation bond issue. The interests of property owners and nonproperty owners in a general obligation bond issue, we held, were not sufficiently disparate to justify excluding those owning no real property. The residents of the city, whether property owners or not, had a common interest in the facilities that the bond issue would make available, and they would all be substantially affected by the outcome of the election, both in terms of the benefits provided and the obligations incurred. Under the Phoenix bond arrangement, we noted that some of the debt service would be paid out of revenues other than property tax receipts, so nonproperty owners would be directly affected to some extent. We added, however, that even where the municipality looks only to property tax revenues for servicing general obligation bonds, the franchise could not legitimately be restricted to real property owners:
“Property taxes may be paid initially by property owners, but a significant part of the ultimate burden of each year’s tax on rental property will very likely be borne by the tenant rather than the landlord since . . . the landlord will treat the property tax as a business expense and normally will be able to pass all or a large part of this cost on to the tenants in the form of higher rent.” 399 U. S., at 210.
In addition, we noted that property taxes on commercial property would normally be treated as a cost of doing business and would “be reflected in the prices of goods and services purchased by nonproperty owners and property owners alike.” Id., at 211.
The basic principle expressed in these cases is that as long as the election in question is not one of special interest, any classification restricting the franchise on grounds other than residence, age, and citizenship cannot stand unless the district or State can demonstrate that the classification serves a compelling state interest. See Kramer, 395 U. S., at 626-627; Cipriano, 395 U. S., at 704.
The appellant’s claim that the Fort Worth election was one of special interest and thus outside the principles of the Kramer case runs afoul of our decision in City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, supra. In the Phoenix casé, we expressly stated that a general obligation bond issue— even where the debt service will be paid entirely out of property taxes as in Fort Worth — is a matter of general interest, and that the principles of Kramer apply to classifications limiting eligibility among registered voters.
In making the alternative contentions that the “rendering requirement” creates no real “classification,” or that the classification created should be upheld as being reasonable, the appellant misconceives the rationale of Kramer and its successors. Appellant argues that since all property is required to be rendered for taxation, and since anyone can vote in a bond election if he renders any property, no matter how little, the Texas scheme does not discriminate on the basis of wealth or property. Our cases, however, have not held or intimated that only property-based classifications are suspect; in an election of general interest, restrictions on the franchise of any character must meet a stringent test of justification. The Texas scheme creates a classification based on rendering, and it in effect disfranchises those who have not rendered their property for taxation in the year of the bond election. Mere reasonableness will therefore not suffice to sustain the classification created in this case.
B
The appellant has sought to justify the State’s rendering requirement solely on the ground that it extends some protection to property owners, who will bear the direct burden of retiring the city’s bonded indebtedness. The Phoenix case, however, rejected this analysis of the “direct” imposition of costs on property owners. Even under a system in which the responsibility of retiring the bonded indebtedness falls directly on property taxpayers, all members of the community share in the cost in various ways. Moreover, the construction of a library is not likely to be of special interest to a particular, well-defined portion of the electorate. Quite apart from the general interest of the library bond election, the appellant’s contention that the rendering requirement imposes no real impediment to participation itself undercuts the claim that it serves the purpose of protecting those who will bear the burden of the debt obligations. If anyone can become, eligible to vote by rendering property of even negligible value, the rendering requirement can hardly be said to select voters according to the magnitude of their prospective liability for the city’s indebtedness.
The appellee' city officials argue that the rendering qualification furthers another state interest: it encourages prospective voters to render their property and thereby helps enforce the State’s tax laws. This argument is difficult to credit. The use of the franchise to compel compliance with other, independent state objectives is questionable in any context. See United States v. Texas, 252 P. Supp. 234, 253-254 (WD Tex.), aff’d, 384 U. S. 155 (1966). It seems particularly dubious here, since under the State’s construction of the rendering requirement, an individual will be given the right to vote if he renders any property at all, no matter how trivial. Those rendering solely to earn the right to vote in bond elections may well render property of minimal value, in order to qualify for voting without imposing upon themselves a substantial tax liability. The rendering requirement thus seems unlikely to have any significant impact on the asserted state policy of encouraging each person to render all of his property.
In sum, the Texas rendering requirement erects a classification that impermissibly disfranchises persons otherwise qualified to vote, solely because they have not rendered some property for taxation. The Phoenix case establishes that Fort Worth’s election was not a “special interest” election, and the state interests proffered by-appellant and the city officials fall far short of meeting the “compelling state interest” test consistently applied in Kramer, Cipriano, and Phoenix.
Ill
In order to avoid the possibility of upsetting previous bond elections in the State, the District Court declined to give retroactive effect to its judgment. We have followed the same course in our prior cases dealing with voting classifications in bond elections, see Cipriano, 395 U. S., at 706; Phoenix, 399 U. S., at 213-215, and we agree with the District Court’s determination not to give its ruling retroactive effect. Since the portion of the District Court’s judgment invalidating the state constitutional and statutory provisions has been in full effect since that time, and since some local bond elections may subsequently have been conducted in reliance on that judgment, we hold that the District Court’s ruling should- apply only to those bond authorization elections that were not final on the date of the District Court’s judgment. As to other jurisdictions that may have restrictive voting classifications similar to those in Texas, we hold that our decision should not apply where the authorization to issue the securities is legally complete as of the date of this decision.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To “render” property for taxation means to list it with the tax assessor-collector of the taxing district in question. Property is “rendered” for taxation either when the owner reports it or when the tax assessor-collector places it on the tax rolls himself. Taxable property includes all real, mixed, and personal property with limited exemptions, such as $3,000 for homesteads and $250 for household furnishings. Tex. Const. Art. 8, § 1. Although state law requires taxpayers to render all their taxable property, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Arts. 7145, 7152 (1960 and Supp. 1974-1975), there is no penal sanction for failing to do so voluntarily.
Of the five named appellees, three voted as nonrenderers and two as rendering property owners. They sought to represent the class of all persons who voted in the election in favor of the library bonds. The District Court certified the class as proper under Fed. Rule Gv. Proc. 23 (b) (2). The city of Fort Worth and various city officials, who were defendants below, are listed as appellees in this Court, but they support the appeal and have filed a brief urging reversal, and are not included in subsequent references to appellees.
The effect of the dual-box procedure was that the nonrenderers could help defeat a bond issue, but they could not help pass it. If their votes, added to the votes of the Tenderers, produced a majority against the bonds, the bonds would not be issued,, even if the Tenderers favored them. But if the Tenderers opposed the bonds, the nonrenderers’ votes would be of no effect, even if they produced an overall majority in favor of the bond issue.
The Attorney General was joined as a defendant because Texas law requires that he certify the validity of any municipal bond issue. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Arts. 709d (1964 and Supp. 1974-1975), 4398 (1966).
We answered that question in Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District, 410 U. S. 719 (1973). In that case, we held that a water district created for the purpose of acquiring, storing, and distributing water for agricultural purposes could constitutionally have a board of directors selected in an election in which votes were allocated according to the assessed value of each voter’s land. Because of its “special limited purpose and . . . the disproportionate effect of its activities on landowners as' a group,” id., at 728, the Court held that the water district election was of sufficient “special interest” to a single group that the franchise could constitutionally be denied to others.
In Louisiana, as in Texas, personal property as well as real property was subject to taxation, and a “property taxpayer” could include a person with only personalty. The administrative practice was to tax only real property, however, so the effect was that in reality “property taxpayer” meant “real property taxpayer.” See Stewart v. Parish School Board, 310 F. Supp. 1172, 1173 n. 3 (ED La.), aff’d, 400 U. S. 884 (1970).
As a practical matter, under Texas’ scheme of tax assessment and collection, the rendering requirement may in effect create a property-related classification. Appellees’ counsel informed us at oral argument that Fort Worth, like other communities in Texas, makes no affirmative effort to tax property other than realty and business personalty. Tr. of Oral Arg. 26-27. Residents are free to “render” other forms of personalty, but this is apparently seldom done. See Yudof, The Property Tax in Texas Under State and Federal Law, 51 Tex. L. Rev. 885, 889-890 (1973). As a result, in Fort Worth those with realty and business personalty are automatically eligible to vote as “renderers,” while other voters must take the somewhat unusual step of voluntarily “rendering” their property for taxation. When he does so, the taxpayer affirms that he has rendered all his property, and that the valuation of the property is correct. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Arts. 7164, 7184 (1960).
This argument is similar to the one made by the State of Georgia in defense of its “freeholder” requirement for membership on county boards of education. Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346, 363-364 (1970). The State there claimed that the freeholder requirement imposed no real burden, since a candidate would qualify if he owned even a single square inch of land. We concluded that if that was the case it was difficult to conceive that the requirement served any rational state interest whatsoever.
Appellant relies on this Court’s decisions in McDonald v. Board of Election, 394 U. S. 802 (1969), and Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752 (1973), in defense of the classification created by Texas law in this case. In McDonald, however, the only issue before the Court was whether pretrial detainees in Illinois jails were unconstitutionally denied absentee ballots. The Court expressly noted that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the challenged Illinois statute had any impact on the appellants’ exercise of their right to vote. See 394 U. S., at 807-809. Any classification actually restraining the fundamental right to vote, the Court noted, would be subject to close scrutiny. In Rosario, the Court upheld a neutral requirement that a voter register a party preference 30 days in advance of the general election in order to be eligible to participate in the succeeding primary election. Because the registration requirement served the “legitimate and valid state goal” of “preservation of the integrity of the electoral process,” 410 U. S., at 761, and because it imposed no special burden on any class before the Court, see id., at 759 n. 9, the Court held that the time limitation on registration did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the First and Fourteenth Amendment right of association. By contrast, the Texas scheme imposes a restriction on the franchise having no perceptible purpose or effect in preserving the integrity of the electoral process; instead, it excludes a portion of the electorate for failing to comply with a wholly independent state policy.
The partial stay of the District Court’s judgment was granted only to the extent that the judgment below had prohibited the use of the dual-box election procedure. 416 U. S. 963.
There may be no such jurisdictions, at least where bond election voting qualifications are governed by statewide statutes and constitutional provisions. We are told that in the 15 States besides Texas that restricted the franchise to taxpayers in some fashion at the time the Phoenix case was decided, all qualified voters are now permitted to participate in bond elections. Brief for City of Phoenix, Ariz., et al. as Amici Curiae 19. In addition to the 13 States referred to in City oj Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204, 213 n. 11 (1970), Nevada and Wyoming utilized a dual-box election procedure much like Texas’, but in both cases that procedure has been abandoned. See Nev. Laws 1971, c. 49; Wyo. Laws 1973, c. 251.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present the question whether Congress, in enacting the Public Vessels Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 1112, 46 U. S. C. §§ 781 et seq., has consented that the United States be sued for “damages” by or on behalf of members of the civil service component of the crew of military transport vessels. We hold that the benefits available to such seamen under the Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 742, 5 U. S. C. §§ 751 et seq., are of such a nature as to preclude a suit for damages under the Public Vessels Act.
Petitioner Johansen, in No. 401, and petitioner Man-del’s decedent, in No. 414, were at the time of their injuries employed as civilian members of the crews of Army Transport vessels, owned and operated by the United States. For purposes of this review it is clear that these vessels were at that time being used as “public vessels,” not “merchant vessels/’ and that therefore petitioners have no remedy by way of a suit for damages under the Suits in Admiralty Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 525, 46 U. S. C. § 742. Both seamen were injured in the performance of their duties; petitioners were therefore concededly eligible for benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1916. Both allege that the injuries resulted from the negligence of respondent, and petitioner Johan-sen further relies upon the alleged unseaworthiness of his vessel. The relief sought by petitioner Johansen is “damages, wages, maintenance and cure”; that sought by petitioner Mandel is “damages” for wrongful death.
Petitioner Johansen was a carpenter in the crew of the transport Kingsport Victory. On August 5, 1949, he sustained a lacerated leg in the course of his duties aboard the vessel, which was lying at a pier at the Bethlehem Shipyard, Brooklyn, New York. He was treated at the Marine Hospital until October 24, 1949, as a beneficiary of the Bureau of Employees Compensation. He filed a claim for compensation benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, and collected a total of $358.20. On February 6, 1950, he filed this libel in admiralty in the District Court, relying upon the Public Vessels Act. The libel was dismissed, and, with one judge dissenting, the Second Circuit affirmed, 191 F. 2d 162, on the ground that the Federal Employees Compensation Act afforded petitioner his exclusive remedy. The court recognized that its decision conflicted on this point with a decision of the Fourth Circuit, Johnson v. United States, 186 F. 2d 120.
Petitioner Mandel’s decedent was an assistant engineer on a tug operated and controlled by the United States Army and assigned to the Mediterranean Theater of Operations during World War II. On October 15, 1944, the tug was destroyed by a mine, in attempting to enter the port of Cagliari, Sardinia. In this disaster, decedent met his death in the presence of the enemy. Decedent’s widow procured the appointment of an administrator who brought this suit for $150,000. The District Court overruled the Government’s motion to dismiss, based partly on the claim that the Federal Employees Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for the accident. During pretrial, when the Government refused to produce certain documentary evidence called for, the court entered an interlocutory decree of default against respondent. On appeal, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (3), the Third Circuit reversed. 191 F. 2d 164. It limited its consideration to the defense based on the Compensation Act. Recognizing conflict with the decision of the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Marine, 155 F. 2d 456, as well as Johnson v. United States, supra, that court nevertheless agreed with the Second Circuit, and held that the Federal Employees Compensation Act precluded recovery under the Public Vessels Act. To resolve the apparent conflict between these decisions, this Court granted certiorari. 342 U. S. 901.
Section 1 of the Public Vessels Act of 1925 provides “That a libel in personam in admiralty may be brought against the United States ... for damages caused by a public vessel of the United States . . . .” We have already held that this Act grants consent to be sued for personal injuries suffered by an individual not employed by the United States, caused by the negligent maintenance or operation of a public vessel of the United States. American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446, cf. Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 324 U. S. 215. If the congressional purpose was to allow damages for personal injuries sustained by federal employees while in the performance of duty, the literal language of the Act would allow actions of the nature of those before us.
This general language, however, must be read in the light of the central purpose of the Act, as derived from the legislative history of the Act and the surrounding circumstances of its enactment. The history of the Act has already been set forth in some detail in the Porello and Canadian Aviator cases cited above. It is sufficient here to recall that this Act was one of a number of statutes which attest “to the growing feeling of Congress that the United States should put aside its sovereign armor in cases where federal employees have tortiously caused personal injury or property damage.” 330 U. S., at 453. These enactments were not usually directed toward cases where the United States had already put aside its sovereign armor, granting relief in other forms. With such a legislative history, one hesitates to reach a conclusion as to the meaning of the Act by adoption of a possible interpretation through a literal application of the words. Nor is the legislative history of the Act helpful. We are cited to no evidence that any member of Congress in 1925 contemplated that this Act might be thought to confer additional rights on claimants entitled to the benefits of the Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1916. Surely the lack of such evidence is not helpful to petitioners’ case; the most that can be said of it is that Congress did not specifically exclude such claimants from the coverage of the Public Vessels Act.
Under these circumstances, it is the duty of this Court to attempt to fit the Public Vessels Act, as intelligently and fairly as possible, “into the entire statutory system of remedies against the Government to make a workable, consistent and equitable whole.” Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, 139. It is important, then, to examine briefly the other statutes which are a part of the system of remedies against the Government available to seamen for personal injuries.
In 1916 Congress passed both the Shipping Act, 39 Stat. 728, 46 U. S. C. §§ 801 et seq., and the Federal Employees Compensation Act. The former subjected Government vessels, employed solely as merchant vessels, to all laws, regulations and liabilities governing private merchant vessels, if they were purchased, chartered, or leased from the Shipping Board. Thus a remedy for damages for personal injuries was given to merchant seamen on ships in which the Government had an interest, but not to public-vessel seamen. Cf. The G. A. Flagg, 256 F. 852.
In the latter Act Congress undertook to provide a comprehensive compensation system for federal employees who sustain injuries in the performance of their duty. The payment of this compensation, subject to the provisions of the Act, is mandatory, for § 1 provides: “That the United States shall pay compensation as hereinafter specified for the disability or death of an employee resulting from a personal injury sustained while in the performance of his duty . . . .” Section 7 provides “That as long as the employee is in receipt of compensation under this Act, ... he shall not receive from the United States any salary, pay, or remuneration whatsoever except in return for services actually performed, and except pensions for service in the Army or Navy of the United States.” Section 8, however, recognized the conflict between that provision and the employee’s possible right to paid sick or annual leave, and required the employee to elect between compensation and such paid leave. The Act made no other provision for election at that time. Later it was amended by the Public Health Service Act of 1944 to provide generally for election between compensation and any other payments from the United States to which the employee may be entitled by reason of his injury under any other Act of Congress because of his service as an employee of the United States. 58 Stat. 712. The 1944 amendment thus consolidated the various election provisions of the Civil Service Retirement Act of 1920, 5 U. S. C. § 714, and other special disability retirement and pension legislation. E. g., 5 U. S. C. § 797; 10 U. S. C. § 1711; 14 U. S. C. §§ 311-312, 386; 34 U. S. C. §§ 855c, 857e; 50 U. S. C. App. § 1552. A further amendment in 1949 will be discussed below. Aside from these, there has never been any provision in the Compensation Act for election between compensation and other remedies. It is quite understandable that Congress did not specifically declare that the Compensation Act was exclusive of all other remedies. At the time of its enactment, it was the sole statutory avenue to recover from the Government for tortious injuries received in Government employment. Actually it was the only, and therefore the exclusive, remedy. See Johnson v. United States, 186 F. 2d 120, 123.
In 1920, the Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525, 46 U. S. C. § 742, gave a broad remedy to seamen on United States merchant vessels, but did not extend these benefits to seamen on public vessels. An extension of this nature was proposed, but defeated. See Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 324 U. S. 215, 220-221.
Next in the series was the Public Vessels Act of 1925, on which petitioners rely. So far as pertinent here, that Act simply provided that a libel might be brought against the United States for damages caused by a public vessel of the United States. No provision was made for election between this remedy and any remedies that might be available under other federal statutes. There is no indication that Congress recognized that this problem might arise.
In 1943 the Clarification Act, 57 Stat. 45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291, extended the remedies available to seamen on privately owned American vessels to seamen employed on United States vessels “as employees of the United States through the War Shipping Administration.” Claims arising under this Act were to be enforced pursuant to the Suits in Admiralty Act of 1920, even though the vessel on which the seaman was employed might not be a “merchant vessel” within the meaning of the Suits in Admiralty Act. It was specifically provided, however, that this remedy under the Clarification Act was to be exclusive of any remedies that might otherwise be available under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the Civil Service Retirement Act, and other similar acts. The Act thus gave effect to a congressional purpose to treat seamen employed through the War Shipping Administration as “merchant seamen,” not as “public vessel seamen.” See Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U. S. 783, 792, quoting from H. R. Rep. No. 107, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. The Act did not purport to change the status of public-vessel seamen not employed through the War Shipping Administration.
This was the situation prior to the 1949 amendments to the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Merchant seamen, other than those employed by the War Shipping Administration, on ships owned by the United States had a right to libel the United States pursuant to the Suits in Admiralty Act of 1920, but whether they were entitled to the benefits of the Compensation Act was doubtful. See Comptroller General’s Decision A-31684, Sept. 10, 1930; 34 Op. Atty. Gen. 363; Johnson v. Fleet Corp., 280 U. S. 320. Seamen employed through the War Shipping Administration were by the Clarification Act to be treated as merchant seamen, whether they were serving on merchant vessels or public vessels. As public-vessel seamen injured other than in the course of duty are not covered by the Compensation Act they would presumably have had the same rights to recovery as the public generally under the Public Vessels Act. Public-vessel seamen injured in the course of duty were entitled to all the benefits of the Federal Employees Compensation Act. The issue in this case is whether this last group of Government-employed seamen is eligible under both schemes of recovery.
It is argued by petitioners that the 1949 amendments to the Compensation Act, 63 Stat. 854, show that Congress understood that the remedy of compensation had not been, until that time, exclusive of other remedies, and that the remedy of compensation for seamen still does not preclude recovery under the Public Vessels Act. These amendments added a new subsection to § 7 of the Compensation Act of 1916 to provide clearly that the liability of the United States under the Compensation Act shall be exclusive of all other liability of the United States on account of the same injury. This amendment, however, was not to alter the rights of seamen in any way. Petitioners argue that Congress in 1949 was seeking, for the first time, to establish the exclusive nature of the remedy of compensation, and deliberately omitted seamen from this limitation. The background of the amendment shows, however, that this impression is erroneous. Prior to 1949, there was a divergence of view in the courts as to the exclusiveness vel non of the remedy of compensation. This uncertainty extended to suits by Government seamen seeking damages under the Public Vessels Act. The purpose of the 1949 amendment is simply “to make it clear that the right to compensation benefits under the act is exclusive and in place of any and all other legal liability of the United States or its instru-mentalities S. Rep. No. 836, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 23. This clarifying amendment, as reported out of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, lacked the proviso protecting the rights, if any, of seamen under other federal statutes. However, no seamen’s groups having participated in the hearings on the bill, Senator Morse proposed on the floor the proviso on which petitioners rely. Senator Morse himself recognized that his amendment did no more than preserve to seamen any rights which they might have in addition to compensation. There is language in his statement indicating that he was of the opinion that seamen employees had a choice between compensation and litigation in admiralty. 95 Cong. Rec. 13608, 13609. Senator Douglas, who was in charge of the bill, accepted these amendments for the reason that the seamen’s groups had not been heard before the committee of Congress. He stated:
“Mr. President, I should like to state my ground for agreeing to the amendments offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse]. The primary consideration for accepting the Senator’s amendments preserving the maritime rights and other statutory remedies of seamen is the fact that no hearings were held, no arguments were heard, and no discussion was had on this aspect of the pending bill. . . . For the same reason, namely, that we have had no hearings on the matter, we are not seeking to legislate affirmatively as to certain claims and denials of a right of election of remedies under existing laws, which claims and denials have not yet been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, although various other Federal courts have, in effect, held that federally employed seamen have such an election.
“In short, until the matter may be more fully considered by Congress, we seek by the amendments merely to make sure that seamen shall lose no existing rights.” 95 Cong. Rec. 13609.
As thus recommended, the bill passed the Senate, 95 Cong. Rec. 13609, and a week later the House accepted the Senate amendments without debate. 95 Cong. Rec. 14060. This background makes it clear that the 1949 amendments, far from changing the law respecting seamen’s remedies, do not even reflect a belief on the part of Congress that the remedy of compensation is not exclusive. There is nothing in these amendments to affect consideration of whether petitioners’ sole remedy is under the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 186 F. 2d 120, 123. If the remedy of compensation was exclusive prior to the passage of the 1949 amendment, it is exclusive now.
As indicated above, the courts have differed upon the question of exclusiveness of the remedy against the United States under the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This Court in Dahn v. Davis, 258 U. S. 421, held that a railway mail clerk, injured in a wreck on the railroad, while it was operated under the Federal Control Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 451, was barred from prosecuting a suit against the United States Director General because he had previously elected to accept payment under the Federal Employees Compensation Act. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 267 F. 105, was affirmed here on the ground that, where the employee had two remedies, each for the same wrong, and both against the United States, he could not pursue one remedy to a conclusion and then seek “a second satisfaction of the same wrong.” P. 429. The holding was thus based on the doctrine of election of remedies, but if the language is thought to allow the choice of an action against the Government for damages, it is to be noted that Government liability in that case depended upon § 10 of the Federal Control Act, permitting suits against carriers “as now provided by law,” and General Order No. 50 directing that any proceeding which “but for Federal control might have been brought against the carrier company, shall be brought against [the] Director General . . . and not otherwise.” There was therefore in the Dahn case legislation directly substituting the United States for the carriers in all litigation. Thus the carriers’ business was conducted deliberately by the Government with as little change as possible from the situation when carriers controlled. Here the United States operates its own public vessels, without any such conformity legislation. As such operator it has established by the Compensation Act a method of redress for employees. There is no reason to have two systems of redress. See also United States v. Marine, 155 F. 2d 456, a case allowing recovery to a civilian employee of the Government under the Suits in Admiralty Act, and Johnson v. United States, 186 F. 2d 120, which allowed a recovery under the Public Vessels Act to a civilian seaman on a public vessel. The opinions below in the cases we are considering take the opposite and, we think, the better view.
The Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 751 et seq., was enacted to provide for injuries to Government employees in the performance of their duties. It covers all employees. Enacted in 1916, it gave the first and exclusive right to Government employees for compensation, in any form, from the United States. It was a legislative breach in the wall of sovereign immunity to damage claims and it brought to Government employees the benefits of the socially desirable rule that society should share with the injured employee the costs of accidents incurred in the course of employment. Its benefits have been expanded over the years. See 5 U. S. C. (Supp. III) §§ 751 et seq. Such a comprehensive plan for waiver of sovereign immunity, in the absence of specific exceptions, would naturally be regarded as exclusive. See United States v. Shaw, 309 U. S. 495. Such a position does not run counter to the progressive liberalization of the right to sue the United States or its agencies for wrongs. This Court accepted the principle of the exclusive character of federal plans for compensation in Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135. Seeking so to apply the Tort Claims Act to soldiers on active duty as “to make a workable, consistent and equitable whole,” p. 139, we gave weight to the character of the federal “systems of simple, certain, and uniform compensation for injuries or death of those in armed services.” P. 144. Much the same reasoning leads us to our conclusion that the Compensation Act is exclusive.
Had Congress intended to give a crew member on a public vessel a right of recovery for damages against the Government beyond the rights granted other Government employees on the same vessel under other plans for compensation, we think that this advantage would have been specifically provided. As the Court of Appeals in the Johansen case explained, the duties and obligations of civilian and military members of the crew of a public vessel are much the same. Each has a general compensation system for injuries. To allow public-vessel seamen an election and to deny it to civilian seamen employed through the War Shipping Administration, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291, would contribute neither to uniformity nor to fairness. See Mandel v. United States, 191 F. 2d 164.
All in all we are convinced that the Federal Employees Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for civilian seamen on public vessels. As the Government has created a comprehensive system to award payments for injuries, it should not be held to have made exceptions to that system without specific legislation to that effect. Both cases are
, m , Affirmed.
In No. 401, both parties have agreed throughout these proceedings that the vessel in question was, as indicated by the allegations of the libel, a “public vessel,” not a “merchant vessel.”
In No. 414, petitioner alleged in his libel that the vessel in question was a “merchant vessel.” The District Court was doubtful about this point, but did not decide it, holding that petitioner was entitled to recover whether the vessel was a “public vessel” or a “merchant vessel.” In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that (1) if the vessel was a “public vessel,” petitioner’s remedy under the Federal Employees Compensation Act precluded recovery in this action, but (2) if the vessel was a “merchant vessel,” the case would present different questions, which need not be decided on this record. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the District Court to permit petitioner, if he so desires, to introduce evidence to show that the vessel was a “merchant vessel.” This Court affirms that mandate. Since petitioner does not specify the second holding as error, we review only the first, and assume for purposes of this review that the vessel was a “public vessel.”
63 Stat. 854:
“Sec. 201. Section 7 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, as amended (5 U. S. C., 1946 edition, sec. 757), is further amended by inserting the designation '(a)’ immediately before the first sentence thereof and by adding to such section a new subsection reading as follows:
“ ‘ (b) The liability of the United States or any of its instru-mentalities under this Act or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee shall be exclusive, and in place, of all other liability of the United States or such instrumentality to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States or such instrumentality, on account of such injury or death, in any direct judicial proceedings in a civil action or in admiralty, or by proceedings, whether administrative or judicial, under any other workmen’s compensation law or under any Federal tort liability statute: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to a master or a member of the crew of any vessel.’ ”
See the proviso of this section, quoted in note 2 above. See also §305 (b) of the 1949 Act: “Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to affect any maritime rights and remedies of a master or member of the crew of any vessel.”
See Posey v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 93 F. 2d 726; Parr v. United States, 172 F. 2d 462; Thomason v. W. P. A., 47 F. Supp. 51, aff’d 138 F. 2d 342; White v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 58 F. Supp. 776; see also Lewis v. United States, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 21, 190 F. 2d 22.
O’Neal v. United States, 11 F. 2d 869, aff’d 11 F. 2d 871; Lopez v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 831; United States v. Loyola, 161 F. 2d 126. See Bradey v. United States, 151 F. 2d 742, at 743 (dictum).
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, 562.
It is suggested that Brady v. Roosevelt S. S. Co., 317 U. S. 575, has a bearing on this issue. We think not. There is an assumption that an employee of the United States could have sued the Government for his injury, but the case was one for damages against private operators, not the Government. P. 577. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U. S. 783, 789.
Federal Tort Claims Act, 60 Stat. 842; Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525; Public Vessels Act, 43 Stat. 1112. See Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381.
Bradey v. United States, 151 F. 2d 742. See Dobson v. United States, 27 F. 2d 807.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In April and July 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Act), as amended, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq., promulgated pollution discharge limitations for the coal mining industry and for that portion of the mineral mining and processing industry comprising the crushed-stone, construction-sand, and gravel categories. Although the Act does not expressly authorize or require variances from the 1977 limitation, each set of regulations contained a variance provision. Respondents sought review of the regulations in various Courts of Appeals, challenging both the substantive standards and the variance clause. All of the petitions for review were transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In National Crushed Stone Assn. v. EPA, 601 F. 2d 111 (1979), and in Consolidation Coal Co. v. Costle, 604 F. 2d 239 (1979), the Court of Appeals set aside the variance provision as “unduly restrictive” and remanded the provision to EPA for reconsideration.
To obtain a variance from the 1977 uniform discharge limitations a discharger must demonstrate that the “factors relating to the equipment or facilities involved, the process applied, or other such factors relating to such discharger are fundamentally different from the factors considered in the establishment of the guidelines.” Although a greater than normal cost of implementation will be considered in acting on a request for a variance, economic ability to meet the costs will not be considered. A variance, therefore, will not be granted on the basis of the applicant’s economic inability to meet the costs of implementing the uniform standard.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected this position. It required EPA to “take into consideration, among other things, the statutory factors set out in § 301 (c),” which authorizes variances from the more restrictive pollution limitations to become effective in 1987 and which specifies economic capability as a major factor to be taken into account. The court held that
“ ‘if [a plant] is doing all that the maximum use of technology within its economic capability will permit and if such use will result in reasonable further progress toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants... no reason appears why [it] should not be able to secure such a variance should it comply with any other requirements of the variance.’ ” 601 F. 2d, at 124, quoting from Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 545 F. 2d 1351, 1378 (CA4 1976).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the decisions below and Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 191 U. S. App. D. C. 309, 590 F. 2d 1011 (1978), in which the variance provision was upheld. 444 U. S. 1069.
I
We shall first briefly outline the basic structure of the Act, which translates Congress’ broad goal of eliminating “the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters,” 33 U. S. C. §1251 (a)(1), into specific requirements that must be met by individual point sources.
Section 301 (b) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (b) (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill), authorizes the Administrator to set effluent limitations for categories of point sources. With respect to existing point sources, the section provides for implementation of increasingly stringent effluent limitations in two steps. The first step to be accomplished by July 1, 1977, requires all point sources to meet standards based on “the application of the best practicable control technology currently available [BPT] as defined by the Administrator... § 301 (b)(1) (A). The second step, to be accomplished by July 1, 1987, requires all point sources to meet standards based on application of the “best available technology economically achievable [BAT] for such category or class....” § 301 (b) (2) (A). Both sets of limitations — BPT’s followed within 10 years by BAT’s — are to be based upon regulatory guidelines established under § 304 (b).
Section 304 (b) of the Act,'33 U. S. C. § 1314 (b), is again divided into two sections corresponding to the two levels of technology, BPT and BAT. Under 1304 (b)(1) the Administrator is to quantify “the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best practicable control technology currently available [BPT] for classes and categories of point sources....” In assessing the BPT the Administrator is to consider
“the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application,... the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.” 33 U. S. C. §1314 (b)(1)(B).
Similar directions are given the Administrator for determining effluent reductions attainable from the BAT except that in assessing BAT total cost is no longer to be considered in comparison to effluent reduction benefits.
Section 402 authorizes the establishment of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), under which every discharger of pollutants is required to obtain a permit. The permit requires the discharger to meet all the applicable requirements specified in the regulations issued under § 301. Permits are issued by either the Administrator or state agencies that have been approved by the Administrator. The permit “transform [s] generally applicable effluent limitations... into the obligations (including a timetable for compliance) of the individual discharger....” EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U. S. 200, 205 (1976).
Section 301 (c) of the Act explicitly provides for modifying the 1987 (BAT) effluent limitations with respect to individual point sources. A variance under § 301 (c) may be obtained upon a showing “that such modified requirements (1) will represent the maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator; and (2) will result in reasonable further progress toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.” Thus, the economic ability of the individual operator to meet the costs of effluent reductions may in some circumstances justify granting a variance from the 1987 limitations.
No such explicit variance provision exists with respect to BPT standards, but in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112 (1977), we indicated that a variance provision was a necessary aspect of BPT limitations applicable by regulations to classes and categories of point sources. Id., at 128. The issue in this case is whether the BPT variance provision must allow consideration of the economic capability of an individual discharger to afford the costs of the BPT limitation. For the reasons that follow, our answer is in the negative.
II
The plain language of the statute does not support the position taken by the Court of Appeals. Section 301 (c) is limited on its face to modifications of the 1987 BAT limitations. It says nothing about relief from the 1977 BPT requirements. Nor does the language of the Act support the position that although § 301 (c) is not itself applicable to BPT standards, it requires that the affordability of the prescribed 1977 technology be considered in BPT variance decisions. This would be a logical reading of the statute only if the factors listed in § 301 (c) bore a substantial relationship to the considerations underlying the 1977 limitations as they do to those controlling the 1987 regulations. This is not the case.
The two factors listed in § 301 (c) — “maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator” and “reasonable further progress toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants” — parallel the general definition of BAT standards as limitations that “require application of the best available technology economically achievable for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward... eliminating the discharge of all pollutants....” §301 (b)(2). A §301 (c) variance, thus, creates for a particular point source a BAT standard that represents for it the same sort of economic and technological commitment as the general BAT standard creates for the class. As with the general BAT standard, the variance assumes that the 1977 BPT standard has been met by the point source and that the modification represents a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges. No one who can afford the best available technology can secure a variance.
There is no similar connection between § 301 (c) and the considerations underlying the establishment of the 1977 BPT limitations. First, § 301 (c)’s requirement of “reasonable further progress” must have reference to some prior standard. BPT serves as the prior standard with respect to BAT. There is, however, no comparable, prior standard with respect to BPT limitations. Second, BPT limitations do not require an industrial category to commit the maximum economic resources possible to pollution control, even if affordable. Those point sources already using a satisfactory pollution control technology need take no additional steps at all. The § 301 (c) variance factor, the “maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator,” would therefore be inapposite in the BPT context. It would not have the same effect there that it has with respect to BAT’s, i. e., it would not apply the general requirements to an individual point source.
More importantly, to allow a variance based on the maximum technology affordable by the point source, even if that technology fails to meet BPT effluent limitations, would undercut the purpose and function of BPT limitations. Rather than the 1987 requirement of the best measures economically and technologically feasible, the statutory provisions for 1977 contemplate regulations prohibiting discharges from any point source in excess of the effluent produced by the best practicable technology currently available in the industry. The Administrator was referred to the industry and to existing practices to determine BPT. He was to categorize point sources, examine control practices in exemplary plants in each category, and, after weighing benefits and costs and considering other factors specified by § 304, determine and define the best practicable technology at a level that would effect the obvious statutory goal for 1977 of substantially reducing the total pollution produced by each category of the industry. Necessarily, if pollution is to be diminished, limitations based on BPT must forbid the level of effluent produced by the most pollution-prone segment of the industry, that segment not measuring up to “the average of the best existing performance.” So understood, the statute contemplated regulations that would require a substantial number of point sources with the poorest performances either to conform to BPT standards or to cease production. To allow a variance based on economic capability and not to require adherence to the prescribed minimum technology would permit the employment of the very practices that the Administrator had rejected in establishing the best practicable technology currently in use in the industry.
To put the matter another way, under § 304, the Administrator is directed to consider the benefits of effluent reductions as compared to the costs of pollution control in determining BPT limitations. Thus, every BPT limitation represents a conclusion by the Administrator that the costs imposed on the industry are worth the benefits in pollution reduction that will be gained by meeting those limits. To grant a variance because a particular owner or operator cannot meet the normal costs of the technological requirements imposed on him, and not because there has been a recalculation of the benefits compared to the costs, would be inconsistent with this legislative scheme and would allow a level of pollution inconsistent with the judgment of the Administrator.
In terms of the scheme implemented by BPT limitations, the factors that the Administrator considers in granting variances do not suggest that economic capability must also be a determinant. The regulations permit a variance where “factors relating to the equipment or facilities involved, the process applied, or such other factors relating to such dis-charger are fundamentally different from the factors considered in the establishment of the guidelines.” If a point source can show that its situation, including its costs of compliance, is not within the range of circumstances considered by the Administrator, then it may receive a variance, whether or not the source could afford to comply with the minimum standard. In such situations, the variance is an acknowledgment that the uniform BPT limitation was set without reference to the full range of current practices, to which the Administrator was to refer. Insofar as a BPT limitation was determined without consideration of a current practice fundamentally different from those that were considered by the Administrator, that limitation is incomplete. A variance based on economic capability, however, would not have this character: it would allow a variance simply because the point source could not afford a compliance cost that is not fundamentally different from those the Administrator has already considered in determining BPT. It would force a displacement of calculations already performed, not because those calculations were incomplete or had unexpected effects, but only because the costs happened to fall on one particular operator, rather than on another who might be economically better off.
Because the 1977 limitations were intended to reduce the total pollution produced by an industry, requiring compliance with BPT standards necessarily imposed additional costs on the segment of the industry with the least effective technology. If the statutory goal is to be achieved, these costs must be borne or the point source eliminated. In our view, requiring variances from otherwise valid regulations where dischargers cannot afford normal costs of compliance would undermine the purpose and the intended operative effect of the 1977 regulations.
III
The Administrator’s present interpretation of the language of the statute is amply supported by the legislative history, which persuades us that Congress understood that the economic capability provision of § 301 (c) was limited to BAT variances; that Congress foresaw and accepted the economic hardship, including the closing of some plants, that effluent limitations would cause; and that Congress took certain steps to alleviate this hardship, steps which did not include allowing a BPT variance based on economic capability.
There is no indication that Congress intended § 301 (c) to reach further than the limitations of its plain language. The statement of the House managers of the Act described § 301 (c) as “not intended to justify modifications which would not represent an upgrading over the July 1, 1977, requirements of ‘best practicable control technology.’ ” Leg. Hist. 232. The Conference Report noted that a § 301 (c) variance could only be granted after the effective date of BPT limitations and could only be applied to BAT limitations. Similarly, the Senate Report on the Conference action emphasized that one of the purposes of the BPT limitation was to avoid imposing on the “Administrator any requirement... to determine the economic impact of controls on any individual plant in a single community.” Leg. Hist. 170.
Nor did Congress restrict the reach of § 301 (c) without understanding the economic hardships that uniform standards would impose. Prior to passage of the Act, Congress had before it a report jointly prepared by EPA, the Commerce Department, and the Council on Environmental Quality on the impact of the pollution control measures on industry. That report estimated that there would be 200 to 300 plant closings caused by the first set of pollution limitations. Comments in the Senate debate were explicit: “There is no doubt that we will suffer some disruptions in our economy because of our efforts; many marginal plants may be forced to close.” Leg. Hist. 1282 (Sen. Bentsen). The House managers explained the Conference position as follows:
“If the owner or operator of a given point source determines that he would rather go out of business than meet the 1977 requirements, the managers clearly expect that any discharge issued in the interim would reflect the fact that all discharges not in compliance with such 'best practicable technology currently available’ would cease by June 30, 1977.” Id., at 231.
Congress did not respond to this foreseen economic impact by making room for variances based on economic impact. In fact, this possibility was specifically considered and rejected:
“The alternative [to a loan program] would be waiving strict environmental standards where economic hardship could be shown. But the approach of giving variances to pollution controls based on economic grounds has long ago shown itself to be a risky course: All too often, the variances become a tool used by powerful political interests to obtain so many exemptions for pollution control standards and timetables on the flimsiest [sic] of pretenses that they become meaningless.' In short, with variances, exceptions to pollution cleanup can become the rule, meaning further tragic delay in stopping the destruction of our environment.” Id., at 1355 (Sen. Nelson).
Instead of economic variances, Congress specifically added two other provisions to address the problem of economic hardship.
First, provision was made for low-cost loans to small businesses to help them meet the cost of technological improvements. 86 Stat. 898, amending § 7 of the Small Business Act, 15 U. S. C. § 636. The Conference Report described the provision as authorizing the Small Business Administration “to make loans to assist small business concerns... if the Administrator determines that the concern is likely to suffer substantial economic injury without such assistance.” Leg. Hist. 153. Senator Nelson, who offered the amendment providing for these loans, saw the loans as an alternative to the dangers of an economic variance provision that he felt might otherwise be necessary. Several Congressmen understood the loan program as an alternative to forced closings: “It- is the smaller business that is hit hardest by these laws and their enforcement. And it is that same class of business that has the least resources to meet the demands of this enforcement.... Without assistance, many of these businesses may face extinction.” Id., at 1359 (Sen. McIntyre).
Second, an employee protection provision was added, giving EPA authority to investigate any plant’s claim that it must cut back production or close down because of pollution control regulations. § 507 (e), 86 Stat. 890, 33 U. S. C. § 1367 (e). This provision had two purposes: to allow EPA constantly to monitor the economic effect on industry of pollution control rules and to undercut economic threats by industry that would create pressure to relax effluent limitation rules. Representative Fraser explained this second purpose as follows:
“[T]he purpose of the amendment is to provide for a public hearing in the case of an industry claim that enforcement of these water-control standards will force it to relocate or otherwise shut down operations.... I think too many companies use the excuse of compliance, or the need for compliance, to change operations that are going to change anyway. It is this kind of action that gives the whole antipollution effort a bad name and causes a great deal of stress and strain in the community.” Leg. Hist. 659.
The only protection offered by the provision, however, is the assurance that there will be a public inquiry into the facts behind such an economic threat. The section specifically concludes that “[n]othing in this subsection shall be construed to require or authorize the Administrator to modify or withdraw any effluent limitation or order issued under this chapter.” § 507 (e), 33 U. S. C. § 1367 (e).
As we see it, Congress anticipated that the 1977 regulations would cause economic hardship and plant closings: “[T]he question... is not what a court thinks is generally appropriate to the regulatory process; it is what Congress intended for these regulations.” Du Pont, 430 U. S., at 138.
IV
It is by now a commonplace that “when faced with a problem of statutory construction, this Court shows great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration.” Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965). The statute itself does not provide for BPT variances in connection with permits for individual point sources, and we had no occasion in Du Pont to address the adequacy of the Administrator’s 1977 variance provision. In the face of § 301 (c)’s explicit limitation and in the absence of any other specific direction to provide for variances in connection with permits for individual point sources, we believe that the Administrator has adopted a reasonable construction of the statutory mandate.
In rejecting EPA’s interpretation of the BPT variance provision, the Court of Appeals relied on a mistaken conception of the relation between BPT and BAT standards. The court erroneously believed that since BAT limitations are to be more stringent than BPT limitations, the variance provision for the latter must be at least as flexible as that for the former with respect to affordability. The variances permitted by § 301 (c) from the 1987 limitations, however, can reasonably be understood to represent a cost in decreased effluent reductions that can only be afforded once the minimal standard expressed in the BPT limitation has been reached.
We conclude, therefore, that the Court of Appeals erred in not accepting EPA’s interpretation of the Act. EPA is not required by the Act to consider economic capability in granting variances from its uniform BPT regulations.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals are
Reversed.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The coal mining standards were published at 42 Fed. Reg. 21380 et seq. (1977), adopting 40 CFR Part 434. The mineral mining and processing standards were published at 42 Fed. Reg. 35843 et seq. (1977), adopting 40 CFR Part 436.
The variance provision reads as follows:
“In establishing the limitations set forth in this section, EPA took into account all information it was able to collect, develop and solicit with respect to factors (such as age and size of plant, raw materials, manufacturing processes, products produced, treatment technology available, energy requirements and costs) which can affect the industry subcategorization and effluent levels established. It is, however, possible that data which would affect these limitations have not been available and, as a result, these limitations should be adjusted for certain plants in this industry. An individual discharger or other interested person may submit evidence to the Regional Administrator (or to the State, if the State has the authority to issue NPDES permits) that factors relating to the equipment or facilities involved, the process applied, or other such factors related to such discharger are fundamentally different from the factors considered in the establishment of the guidelines. On the basis of such evidence or other available information, the Regional Administrator (or the State) will make a written finding that such factors are or are not fundamentally different for that facility compared to those specified in the Development Document. If such fundamentally different factors are found to exist, the Regional Administrator or the State shall establish for the discharger effluent limitations in the NPDES permit either more or less stringent than the limitations established herein, to the extent dictated by such fundamentally different factors. Such limitation must be approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator may approve or disapprove such limitations, specify other limitations, or initiate proceedings to revise these regulations.”
See 40 CFR §434.22 (1980) (coal preparation plants); §434.32 (acid mine drainage); § 434.42 (alkaline mine drainage); § 436.22 (crushed stone) and §436.32 (construction sand and gravel).
The actions were brought under §509 (b)(1)(E), which, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. § 1369 (b)(1)(E), gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction to review “the Administrator’s action... in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311... of this title....” Plaintiffs in National Crushed Stone were three producers and their trade association. Plaintiffs in Consolidation Coal were 17 coal producers, their trade association, 5 citizens’ environmental associations, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In National Crushed Stone, the Court of Appeals also vacated and remanded the substantive regulations. That action is not before the Court. In Consolidation Coed, the substantive regulations were upheld.
EPA has explained its position as follows:
“Thus a plant may be able to secure a BPT variance by showing that the plant’s own compliance costs with the national guideline limitation would be x times greater than the compliance costs of the plants EPA considered in setting the national BPT limitation. A plant may not, however, secure a BPT variance by alleging that the plant’s own financial status is such that it cannot afford to comply with the national BPT limitation.” 43 Fed. Reg. 50042 (1978).
Section 301 (c), 86 Stat. 844, 33 U. S. C. §1311 (c), allows the Administrator to grant a variance “upon a showing by the owner or operator... that such modified requirements (1) wiU represent the maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator; and (2) will result in reasonable further progress toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.”
A “point source” is defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,... from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” § 502 (14), 33 U. S. C. § 1362 (14) (1976 ed., Supp. III).
Throughout this opinion “Administrator” refers to the Administrator of EPA. In E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112 (1977), we sustained the Administrator’s authority to issue the 1977 effluent limitations.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 816, required that the second-stage standards be met by 1983. This deadline was extended in the Clean Water Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1567. Depending on the nature of the pollutant, the deadline for the more stringent limitations now falls between July 1, 1984, and July 1, 1987. The 1977 Act also replaced the BAT standard with a new standard, “best conventional pollutant control technology [BCT],” for certain so-called “conventional pollutants.” 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (b)(2)(E) (1976 ed., Supp. III). The distinction between BCT and BAT is not relevant to the issue presented here.
Senator Muskie, the principal Senate sponsor of the Act, described the “limited cost-benefit analysis” employed in setting BPT standards as being intended to “limit the application of technology only where the additional degree of effluent reduction is wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction... Remarks of Senator Muskie reprinted in Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress) Ser. No. 93-1, p. 170 (1973) (hereafter Leg. Hist.). Section 304 (b)(2)(B) lists “cost” as a factor to consider in assessing BAT, although it does not state that costs shall be considered in relation to effluent reduction.
Establishment of state permit programs is authorized by §402 (b), 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. III). At present, over 30 States and covered territories operate their own NPDES.programs.
In Du Pont, we held that pre-enforcement review of the BPT variance provision would be “premature,” 430 U. S., at 128, n. 19. In its petition for certiorari in this case, EPA argued that the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing the variance clause prior to application of the regulation to a particular discharger’s request for a variance. EPA has now abandoned this position. We agree with the Court of Appeals that whatever may have been true at the time of Du Pont, pre-enforcement review of the variance provisiones no longer premature since EPA has now taken the definitive position that the factors specified in § 301 (e) apply only to BAT limitations, and not to BPT limitations. See 43 Fed. Reg. 44847-44848, 50042 (1978); 44 Fed. Reg. 32893-32894 (1979). But cf. n. 25, infra. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reached the same conclusion in considering the identical variance clause in the context of BPT standards for paper mills:
“In the three years that have now elapsed since du Pont was briefed and argued in the Fourth Circuit, however, enough indicia of the Agency’s attitude toward the 1977 variance provision under the Act has [sic] accumulated so that its administration is anything but ‘a matter of speculation.’ ” Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 191 U. S. App. D. C. 309; 330, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1032 (1978) (citation omitted).
This is the proper result under the twofold test articulated in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 149 (1967), for evaluating the ripeness of administrative action. First, the issue is “fit” for judicial decision, because it involves only a question of law: whether the Court of Appeals properly construed the Act to require EPA to consider § 301 (c) factors in granting BPT variances.'Second, failure to review the variance issue now would cause “hardship” to the parties. The regulations in question affect thousands of point sources throughout the country — about 4,800 crushed-stone facilities and 6,000 coal facilities, many of them involved in this case through their trade associations. The resolution of this conflict will determine for some of these plants whether they will continue to exist or not, and for many others it will determine the level of funding they must budget for pollution controls. They should not be left to speculate on what the regulations require of them. Similarly, EPA represents to the Court that a failure to resolve the issue will cause some hardship to EPA: “a present ruling... would advance rather than impede the administrative enforcement of the Act.” Brief for Petitioners 21, n. 17.
Moreover, in Du Pont, supra, we held that a uniform BPT effluent regulation must contain a variance provision, if it is to be valid. EPA has definitively stated that economic capability will not be a ground for a variance. Section 509 (b)(1)(E) provides for judicial review of effluent limitations promulgated pursuant to § 301, and these actions were brought under that section. Since the variance clause is an integral part of the regulation, review of the regulation must reach the question of whether this limitation on the scope of the variance provision renders the regulation invalid under Du Pont.
Finally, the fact that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held the variance provision to be invalid, while the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Weyerhaeuser, supra, upheld the same provision provides yet another reason for this Court to settle this controversy at this time. For all of these reasons, the issue is ripe for judicial review.
It is true that in Du Pont we said there “[was no] radical difference in the mechanism used to impose limitations for the 1977 and the 198[7] deadlines” and that “there is no indication in either § 301 or § 304 that the § 304 guidelines play a different role in setting 1977 limitations.” 430 U. S., at 127. But our decision in Du Pont was that the 1977 limitations, like the 1987 limitations, could be set by regulation and for classes of point sources. It dealt with the power of the Administrator and the procedures he was to employ. There was no suggestion, nor could there have been, that the 1977 BPT and the 1987 BAT limitations were to have identical purposes or content. It follows that no proper inference could be drawn from Du Pont that the grounds for issuing variances from the 1987 limitations should also be the grounds for permitting individual point sources to depart from 1977 standards. Indeed, our opinion recognized that § 301 (c) was designed for BAT limitations, 430 U. S., at 121, 127, n. 17. Had we thought that § 301 (c) governed variances from both the BAT and BPT standards, there would have been no need to postpone to another day, as we did in 430 U. S., at 128, n. 19, the question whether the variance clause contained in the 1977 regulations had the proper scope. That scope would have been defined by § 301 (c).
Also, the ultimate goal expressed in § 301 (c), “the elimination of the discharge of pollutants,” reflects the “national goal” specified in § 301 (b) (2) (A) of “eliminating the discharge of all pollutants.” This is not the aim of a BPT limitation; its more modest purpose is to effect a first step toward this goal. Thus, while BAT limitations may be regarded as falling between a level of effluent reduction already achieved and the ultimate goal, the frame of reference within which BPT limitations are established contains neither the prior nor the subsequent measure.
EPA defines BPT as “the average of the best existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages and unit processes within each industrial category or subcategory. This average is not based upon a broad range of plants within an industrial category or subcategory, but is based upon performance levels achieved by exemplary plants.” 39 Fed. Reg. 6580 (1974). See also EPA, Effluent Guidelines Div., Development Document for Mineral Mining and Processing Point Source Category 409 (1979) and Development Document for Coal Mining 225 (1976). Support for this definition is found in the legislative history, Leg. Hist. 169-170 (remarks of Sen. Muskie); id., at 231 (remarks of Rep. Jones).
Respondents fail to consider this tension between a general calculation of costs and benefits and a particularized consideration of costs when they argue that because EPA only has authority to promulgate industrywide BPT regulations by analogy to its authority to promulgate industrywide BAT regulations, the same kind of economic capability/effluent reduction balancing relevant to a BAT variance must apply as well to a BPT variance.
Respondents argue that precluding consideration of economic capability in determining whether to grant a variance effectively precludes consideration of the “total costs” for the individual point source. Respondents rely upon a statement by Representative Jones as to the meaning of “total cost” in § 304 (b) (1) (B):
“internal, or plant, costs sustained by the owner or operator and those external costs such as potential unemployment, dislocation and rural area economic development sustained by the community, area, or region.” Leg. Hist. 231.
Unless economic capability is considered, it is argued, it will be impossible to consider the potential external costs of meeting a BPT limitation, caused by a plant closing. Although there is some merit to respondents’ contention, we do not believe it supports the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court did not hold that economic capability is relevant only if it discloses “fundamentally different” external costs from those considered by EPA in establishing the BPT limitation; rather, the court held that the factors included in § 301 (e) must be taken into consideration. Section 301 (c) makes economic capability, regardless of its effect on external costs, a ground for a variance. It is this position that we reject.
Since any variance provision will permit nonuniformity with the general BPT standard for a given category, we cannot attribute much weight to those passages in the legislative history, to which EPA points, that express a desire and expectation that “each polluter within a category or class of industrial sources... achieve nationally uniform effluent limitations based on ‘best
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is here on direct appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253 from the judgment of a three-judge court in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The District Court declared unconstitutional a portion of the North Carolina General Statutes known as the Anti-Busing Law, and granted an injunction against its enforcement. The proceeding before the three-judge court was an ancillary proceeding connected with the school desegregation case heretofore discussed, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, ante, p. 1. The instant appeal was taken by the North Carolina State Board of Education and four state officials. We granted the Charlotte-Mecklen-burg school board’s motion to join in the appeal, 400 U. S. 804 (1970).
When the litigation in the Swann case recommenced in the spring of 1969, the District Court specifically directed that the school board consider altering attendance areas, pairing or consolidation of schools, bus transportation of students, and any other method which would effectuate a racially unitary system. That litigation was actively prosecuted. The board submitted a series of proposals, all rejected by the District Court as inadequate. In the midst of this litigation over the remedy to implement the District Court’s order, the North Carolina Legislature enacted the anti-busing bill, set forth in relevant part in footnote 1.
Following enactment of the anti-busing statute the plaintiffs in the Swann case obtained leave to file a supplemental complaint which sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the statute. They sought to convene a three-judge court, but no action was taken on the requests at that time because the school board thought that the anti-busing law did not interfere with the school board’s proposed plan to transport about 4,000 Negro children to white suburban schools. 306 F. Supp 1291 (WDNC 1969). Other parties were added as defendants by order of the District Court dated February 25. In addition, certain persons who had brought a suit in state court to enjoin or impede the order of the federal court, the attorneys for those litigants, and state judges who at various times entered injunctions against the school authorities and blocked compliance with orders of the District Court were also joined; a three-judge court was then convened.
We observed in Swann, supra, at 16, that school authorities have wide discretion in formulating school policy, and that as a matter of educational policy school authorities may well conclude that some kind of racial balance in the schools is desirable quite apart from any constitutional requirements. However, if a state-imposed limitation on a school authority’s discretion operates to inhibit or obstruct the operation of a unitary school system or impede the disestablishing of a dual school system, it must fall; state policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees.
The legislation before us flatly forbids assignment of any student on account of race or for the purpose of creating a racial balance or ratio in the schools. The prohibition is absolute, and it would inescapably operate to obstruct the remedies granted by the District Court in the Swann case. But more important the statute exploits an apparently neutral form to control school assignment plans by directing that they be “color blind”; that requirement, against the background of segregation, would render illusory the promise of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954). Just as the race of students must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred, so also must race be considered in formulating a remedy. To forbid, at this stage, all assignments made on the basis of race would deprive school authorities of the one tool absolutely essential to fulfillment of their constitutional obligation to eliminate existing dual school systems.
Similarly, the flat prohibition against assignment of students for the purpose of creating a racial balance must inevitably conflict with the duty of school authorities to disestablish dual school systems. As we have held in Swann, the Constitution does not compel any particular degree of racial balance or mixing, but when past and continuing constitutional violations are found, some ratios are likely to be useful starting points in shaping a remedy. An absolute prohibition against use of such a device — even as a starting point — contravenes the implicit command of Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430 (1968), that all reasonable methods be available to formulate an effective remedy.
We likewise conclude that an absolute prohibition against transportation of students assigned on the basis of race, “or for the purpose of creating a balance or ratio,” will similarly hamper the ability of local authorities to effectively remedy constitutional violations. As noted in Swann, supra, at 29, bus transportation has long been an integral part of all public educational systems, and it is unlikely that a truly effective remedy could be devised without continued reliance upon it.
The remainder of the order of the District Court is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion, 312 F. Supp. 503.
Affirmed.
So far as here relevant, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 115-176.1 (Supp. 1969) reads as follows:
“No student shall be assigned or compelled to attend any school on account of race, creed, color or national origin, or for the purpose of creating a balance or ratio of race, religion or national origins. Involuntary bussing of students in contravention of this article is prohibited, and public funds shall not be used for any such bussing.”
312 F. Supp 503 (1970). The opinion as printed grants only declaratory relief. However, the District Court amended its original opinion by withdrawing Part V and entering an order dated June 22, 1970, which enjoined all parties “from enforcing, or seeking the enforcement of,” the portion of the statute found unconstitutional.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We granted the petition for certiorari of the United States in this case, 444 U. S. 822, to decide the question “[w]hether 25 U. S. C. [§] 357 authorizes a state or local government to ‘condemn’ allotted Indian trust lands by physical occupation.” Pet. for Cert. 2. That statute, in turn, provides in pertinent part:
“[LJands allotted in severalty to Indians may be condemned for any public purpose under the laws of the State or Territory where located in the same manner as land owned in fee may be condemned, and the money awarded as damages shall be paid to the allottee.” 31 Stat. 1084.
We think this is a case in which the meaning of a statute may be determined by the admittedly old-fashioned but nonetheless still entirely appropriate “plain meaning” canon of statutory construction. We further believe that the word “condemned,” at least as it was commonly used in 1901, when 25 U. S. C. § 357 was enacted, had reference to a judicial proceeding instituted for the purpose of acquiring title to private property and paying just compensation for it.
Both the factual and legal background of the case are complicated, but these complications lose their significance under our interpretation of § 357. For it is conceded that neither the city of Glen Alps nor the city of Anchorage, both Alaska municipal corporations, ever brought an action to condemn the lands here in question in federal court as required by Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382 (1939). And since we hold that only in such a formal judicial proceeding may lands such as this be acquired, the complex factual and legal history of the dispute between the Government, respondents Glen M. Clarke et al., and respondent Bertha Mae Tabbytite need not be recited in detail.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that § 357 permits acquisition of allotted lands by what has come to be known as “inverse condemnation.” 590 F. 2d 765 (1979). In so holding, the court reasoned that “once the taking has been accomplished by the state it serves little purpose to interpret the statute to refuse to permit an inverse condemnation suit to be maintained on the grounfd] that the state should have filed an eminent domain action prior to the taking.” Id., at 767. We disagree with the Court of Appeals and accordingly reverse the judgment.
There are important legal and practical differences between an inverse condemnation suit and a condemnation proceeding. Although a landowner’s action to recover just compensation for a taking by physical intrusion has come to be referred to as “inverse” or “reverse” condemnation, the simple terms “condemn” and “condemnation” are not commonly used to describe such an action. Rather, a “condemnation” proceeding is commonly understood to be an action brought by a condemning authority such as the Government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain. In United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445 (1903), for example, which held that the Federal Government’s permanent flooding of the plaintiff’s land constituted a compensable “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, this Court consistently made separate reference to condemnation proceedings and to the landowner’s cause of action to recover damages for the taking. Id., at 462, 467, 468.
More recent decisions of this Court reaffirm this well-established distinction between condemnation actions and physical takings by governmental bodies that may entitle a landowner to sue for compensation. Thus, in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275, 291 (1958), when discussing the acquisition by the Government of property rights necessary to carry out a reclamation project, this Court stated that such rights must be acquired by “paying just compensation therefor, either through condemnation or, if already taken, through action of the owners in the courts.” And in United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 749 (1947), this Court referred to the Government’s choice “not to condemn land but to bring about a taking by a continuous process of physical events.” See also id., at 747-748; Dugan v. Rank, 372 U. S. 609, 619 (1963).
The phrase “inverse condemnation” appears to be one that was coined simply as a shorthand description of the manner in which a landowner recovers just compensation for a taking of his property when condemnation proceedings have not been instituted. As defined by one land use planning expert, “[i]n-verse condemnation is ‘a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency.’ ” D. Hagman, Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law 328 (1971) (emphasis added). A landowner is entitled to bring such an action as a result of “the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to compensation. ...” See 6 P. Nichols, Eminent Domain § 25.41 (3d rev. ed. 1972). A condemnation proceeding, by contrast, typically involves an action by the condemnor to effect a taking and acquire title. The phrase “inverse condemnation,” as a common understanding of that phrase would suggest, simply describes an action that is the “inverse” or “reverse” of a condemnation proceeding.
There are also important practical differences between condemnation proceedings and actions by landowners to recover compensation for “inverse condemnation.” Condemnation proceedings, depending on the applicable statute, require various affirmative action on the part of the condemning authority. To accomplish a taking by seizure, on the other hand, a condemning authority need only occupy the land in question. Such a taking thus shifts to the landowner the burden to discover the encroachment and to take affirmative action to recover just compensation. And in the case of Indian trust lands, which present the Government “ 'with an almost staggering problem in attempting to discharge its trust obligations with respect to thousands upon thousands of scattered Indian allotments,' ” Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U. S. 365, 374 (1968), the United States may be placed at a significant disadvantage by this shifting of the initiative from the condemning authority to the condemnee.
Likewise, the choice of the condemning authority to take property by physical invasion rather than by a formal condemnation action may also have important monetary consequences. The value of property taken by a governmental body is to be ascertained as of the date of taking. United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 374 (1943). In a condemnation proceeding, the taking generally occurs sometime during the course of the proceeding, and thus compensation is based on a relatively current valuation of the land. See 1 L. Orgel, Valuation in Eminent Domain § 21, n. 29 (2d ed. 1953). When a taking occurs by physical invasion, on the other hand, the usual rule is that the time of the invasion constitutes the act of taking, and “[i]t is that event which gives rise to the claim for compensation and fixes the date as of which the land is to be valued. . . .” United States v. Dow, 357 U. S. 17, 22 (1958).
Thus, even assuming that the term “inverse condemnation” were in use in 1901 to the same extent as it is today, there are sufficient legal and practical differences between “condemnation” and “inverse condemnation” to convince us that when § 357 authorizes the condemnation of lands pursuant to the laws of a State or Territory, the term “condemned” refers not to an action by a landowner to recover compensation for a taking, but to a formal condemnation proceeding instituted by the condemning authority.
Respondent municipality of Anchorage argues that the action authorized by the Court of Appeals here should be regarded as one in condemnation because Alaska law allows the “exercise of the power of eminent domain through inverse condemnation or a taking in the nature of inverse condemnation.” Brief for Respondent Municipality of Anchorage 16. But we do not reach questions of Alaska law here because 25 U. S. C. § 357, although prescribing that allotted lands “may be condemned for any public purpose under the laws of the State or Territory where located,” requires that they nonetheless be “condemned.” It is conceded that there has never been a formal condemnation action instituted in this case. Since we construe such an action to be an indispensable prerequisite for the reliance of any State or Territory on the other provisions of this section, we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Reversed.
Mb. Justice Blackmun,
with whom Mb. Justice White joins, dissenting.
Since the Court’s opinion sets forth none of the facts of this case, it may be well to mention at least a few.
Bertha Mae Tabbytite, an American Indian, in 1954 settled on a 160-acre plot in the Chugach Mountains southeast of Anchorage, Alaska. She initially sought to perfect her claim to the land under the homestead laws and thereby to obtain an unrestricted fee title. Her applications for this were unsuccessful, however, and in 1966 Tabbytite agreed to accept a restricted trust patent to the land as an Indian allottee. As a result, the legal title remains in the United States, and Tabbytite’s powers of alienation are restricted. See 25 U. S. C. § 348.
Meanwhile, in 1958 Glen Clarke and his wife applied for a homestead patent on 80 acres adjoining the Tabbytite allotment. Two months later, without obtaining an easement, they constructed a road across that land. The Clarkes repeatedly contested Tabbytite’s homestead application and prevented her from perfecting her patent. After securing their own patent in 1961, the Clarkes subdivided their property into 40 parcels, most of which were sold to others before this litigation began. That subdivision and surrounding lands were incorporated in June 1961 as a third-class city called Glen Alps. As a third-class city under Alaska law, Glen Alps did not possess the power of eminent domain.
In 1969, the United States filed the present action for damages and to enjoin the use of the road across the Tabby-tite allotment. The District Court awarded damages for trespass but denied the injunction. The court concluded that the road was a “way of necessity,” and that closing the road would cause “hardship” to the defendants. On the initial appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that court reversed and did so on the grounds that upon entry in 1954 Tabbytite’s title to the land was good against everyone except the United States Government, and that the Clarkes were not successors in interest to an easement implicitly retained by the Government. 529 F. 2d 984 (1976).
That ruling, however, was not the end of the case. In September 1975, the municipality of Anchorage annexed Glen Alps and apparently took over maintenance of the roadway. On the remand to the District Court, the municipality entered the proceedings and opposed an injunction on the ground that it already had effectively exercised its power of eminent . domain by “inverse condemnation.” The United States took the position that the federal statute consenting to condemnation of allotted lands, 25 U. S. C. § 357, does not authorize inverse condemnation. The District Court ruled that under the federal statute, state law determines the propriety of condemnation proceedings and that Alaska law, indeed, recognized “inverse condemnation.” The court held, accordingly, that Tabbytite. was entitled to just compensation, but that an injunction should not issue.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and remanded the case for further proceedings. 590 F. 2d 765 (1979). It agreed with the District Court that § 357 permits a State to take Indian land by paying compensation in an inverse condemnation action. It reasoned that “once the taking has been accomplished by the state it serves little purpose to interpret the statute to refuse to permit an inverse condemnation suit to be maintained on the grounds that the state should have filed an eminent domain action prior to the taking.” 590 F. 2d, at 767. It observed that “it seems a contradiction to deny Indian beneficial owners a cause of action for damages under the guise of protecting their rights.” It predicted that its holding would encourage States and political subdivisions to act “with more circumspection, not less, when governmental activities conflict with ownership rights of Indian trust lands.” Ibid.
I find the opinion of the Ninth Circuit persuasive. The present case is not a dispute about a right but about a remedy. There is, of course, no question that if § 357 applies, Anchorage. has the right to take Tabbytite’s property through traditional eminent domain proceedings, and that Tabbytite has a right to just compensation if it does so. The case centers, however, in the fact that the municipality already has taken an interest in the property without a formal proceeding; the issue, then, is whether an after-the-fact award of just compensation is an adequate remedy. The dispute is in the measure of damages.
There is no question that inverse condemnation is recognized by Alaska law in circumstances similar to the present case. State of Alaska, Dept. of Highways v. Crosby, 410 P. 2d 724 (Alaska 1966); City of Anchorage v. Nesbett, 530 P. 2d 1324 (Alaska 1975). As I read § 357, it does not prohibit resort to inverse condemnation under state law. The statute explicitly refers to state law, and I read in the statute no specialized definition of the term “condemned” as a matter of federal law.
The United States and Tabbytite perhaps are concerned thát in an action for inverse condemnation, the property interest will be valued at the earlier date of the entry rather than at the subsequent date of the institution of formal condemnation proceedings. The inference, of course, is that the property interest will have appreciated in value in the interim, to the advantage of the Indian allottee. I suspect that this argument has more form than substance. Interest during the intervening period will make up much of the difference. And still more of that difference might well be the result of the improvement for which eminent domain is belatedly invoked. There is perhaps little reason to doubt, in this very case, that the Tabbytite property is more valuable because it is crossed by a graded, improved, and publicly maintained road.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s reversal of that judgment.
Respondent Tabbytite lost in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and did not petition for certiorari from that decision. She is therefore a respondent in this Court. This Court’s Rule 21 (4). Her counsel has filed both a brief and reply brief adopting the statements of the case and the arguments set forth in the brief for the United States, but principally devoted to “matters not included in the Brief of the United States.” Since we agree with the position advanced by the United States, we need not decide whether Tabbytite’s arguments comply with this Court’s Rule 40 (1) (d)(2). See also Rule 40 (3).
The landowner’s right to sue for damages was based on the theory that if a landowner were entitled to have governmental agents enjoined from taking his land without implementing condemnation proceedings, he also was entitled to waive that right and to demand just compensation as if the Government had taken his property under its sovereign right of eminent domain. 188 U. S., at 462. See also, e. g., United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co., 112 U. S. 645, 656 (1884). Cf. United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196 (1882) (holding that landowner could bring suit for ejectment against federal officials who took possession of land without bringing condemnation proceedings); Winslow v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 188 U. S. 646, 660-661 (1903) (after declining to treat a suit for damages by a landowner as a condemnation action, the Court directed the lower court to enjoin temporarily proceedings brought by the landowner to dispossess the railroad company from the land “in order to enable [the railroad company] to condemn such land in proper proceedings for that purpose, which cannot be taken in the present suit”).
Also, in United States v. Dow, 357 U. S. 17, 21 (1958), this Court stated:
“Broadly speaking, the United States may take property pursuant to its power of eminent domain in one of two ways: it can enter into physical possession of property without authority of a court order; or it can institute condemnation proceedings under various Acts of Congress providing authority for such takings. Under the first method — physical seizure — no condemnation proceedings are instituted, and the property owner is provided a remedy under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (a) (2) and 1491, to recover just compensation. See Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U. S. 95, 104. Under the second procedure the Government may either employ statutes which require it to pay over the judicially determined compensation before it can enter upon the land, ... or proceed under other statutes which enable it to take immediate possession upon order of court before the amount of just compensation has been ascertained.”
The legislative history of § 357 does not provide any meaningful guidance as to the meaning of “condemned.” The language eventually adopted as § 357 was not part of the original bill. It was inserted, without comment or discussion, on the Senate floor. 34 Cong. Rec. 1448 (1901). And the House Report only briefly discussed §3 of the Act, to which § 357 was added. It stated: “Fifth. Providing for the opening of highways through like lands under State and Territorial laws and upon the payment of compensation.” H. R. Rep. No. 2064, 56th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1900).
It is not clear that Alaska law would permit deliberate resort to inverse condemnation as a means of avoiding initiation of formal condemnation proceedings. That issue is not before us, since Anchorage first assumed responsibility for the road under a claim of right under the first judgment of the District 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:
|
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.
Pee Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed on the authority of Wesberry v. Sanders, ante, p. 1, without prejudice to the right of the appellants to apply by April 1, 1964, to the District Court for further equitable relief in light of the present circumstances including the imminence of the forthcoming election and “the operation of the election machinery of Texas” noted by the District Court in its opinion. The stay heretofore granted by Mr. Justice Black is continued in effect pending timely application for the foregoing relief and final disposition thereof by the District Court.
Mr. Justice Clark joins this disposition, but upon the grounds stated in his separate opinion in Wesberry v. Sanders, ante, p. 18.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would reverse the judgment below for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Wesberry v. Sanders, ante, pp. 20, 50.
224 F. Supp. 499, 513.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
While respondent in this case was in police custody, he indicated that he did not wish to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. The issue presented is whether, in the circumstances of this case, officers interrogated respondent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when they allowed him to speak with his wife in the presence of a police officer.
I
On November 23, 1982, the Flagstaff Police Department received a telephone call from a local K mart store. The caller stated that a man had entered the store claiming to have killed his son. When officers reached the store, respondent Mauro freely admitted that he had killed his son. He directed the officers to the child’s body, and then was arrested and advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). The officers then took Mauro to the pólice station, where he was advised of his Miranda rights again. At that point, Mauro told the officers that he did not wish to make any more statements without having a lawyer present. All questioning then ceased. As no secure detention area was available, Mauro was held in the office of the police captain.
At the same time, one of the officers, Detective Manson, was questioning Mauro’s wife in another room. After she finished speaking with Manson, Mrs. Mauro asked if she could speak to her husband. Manson was reluctant to allow the meeting, but after Mrs. Mauro insisted, he discussed the request with his supervisor, Sergeant Allen. Allen testified that he “saw no harm in it and suggested to [Manson] that if she really sincerely wanted to talk to him to go ahead and allow it.” App. 74. Allen instructed Manson not to leave Mr. and Mrs. Mauro alone and suggested that Manson tape-record the conversation.
Manson then “told both Mr. and Mrs. Mauro that they could speak together only if an officer were present in the room to observe and hear what was going on.” Id., at 218 (findings of trial court). He brought Mrs. Mauro into the room and seated himself at a desk, placing a tape recorder in plain sight on the desk. He recorded their brief conversation, in which she expressed despair about their situation. During the conversation, Mauro told his wife not to answer questions until a lawyer was present.
Mauro’s defense at trial was that he had been insane at the time of the crime. In rebuttal, the prosecution played the tape of the meeting between Mauro and his wife, arguing that it demonstrated that Mauro was sane on the day of the murder. Mauro sought suppression of the recording on the ground that it was a product of police interrogation in violation of his Miranda rights. The trial court refused to suppress the recording. First, it explained the basis of the officers’ decision to allow Mrs. Mauro to meet with her husband in the presence of a policeman:
“The police counseled [Mrs. Mauro] not to [speak with her husband], but she was adamant about that. They finally yielded to her insistent demands. The Police Station lacked a secure interview room. The police justifiably appeared [sic] for Mrs. Mauro’s . . . safety, and they were also concerned about security, both in terms of whether Mr. and Mrs. Mauro might cook up a lie or swap statements with each other that shouldn’t have been allowed, and whether some escape attempt might have been made, or whether there might have been an attempt to smuggle in a weapon. They really had no idea what to expect along those lines.” Ibid.
In light of these justifications, the trial court found “that this procedure was not a ruse, nor a subterfuge by the police. They did not create this situation [i. e., allowing the meeting] as an indirect means of avoiding the dictates of Miranda.” Ibid. Accordingly, the trial court admitted the evidence. Mauro was convicted of murder and child abuse, and sentenced to death.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed. 149 Ariz. 24, 716 P. 2d 393 (1986). It found that by allowing Mauro to speak with his wife in the presence of a police officer, the detectives interrogated Mauro within the meaning of Miranda. This interrogation was impermissible, the court said, because Mauro previously had invoked the right to have counsel present before being questioned further. The court noted that both detectives had acknowledged in pretrial hearings that they knew it was “possible” that Mauro might make incriminating statements if he saw his wife. The court relied on our statement in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291 (1980), that interrogation includes a “practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect,” id., at 301. The court then concluded that the officers’ testimony demonstrated that there had been interrogation, because “[t]hey both knew that if the conversation took place, incriminating statements were likely to be made.” 149 Ariz., at 31, 716 P. 2d, at 400. Therefore, it held that the tape recording was not properly admitted at Mauro’s trial.
Arizona filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Because the decision below appeared to misconstrue our decision in Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, we granted the petition, 479 U. S. 811 (1986). We now reverse.
HH 1 — 1
We begin by summarizing the relevant legal principles. The Fifth Amendment provides that no “person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), the Court concluded that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. ” Id., at 467. “Accordingly, the Court formulated the now-familiar ‘procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.’” Colorado v. Spring, 479 U. S. 564, 572 (1987) (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 444). Among these is the rule that when an accused has “expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, [he] is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 484-485 (1981).
One of the questions frequently presented in cases in this area is whether particular police conduct constitutes “interrogation.” In Miranda, the Court suggested in one passage that “interrogation” referred only to actual “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers.” 384 U. S., at 444. But this statement was clarified in Rhode Island v. Innis, supra. In that case, the Court reviewed the police practices that had evoked the Miranda Court’s concern about the coerciveness of the “‘interrogation environment.’” 446 U. S., at 299 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 457). The questioned practices included “the use of lineups in which a coached witness would pick the defendant as the perpetrator . . .[,] the so-called ‘reverse line-up’ in which a defendant would be identified by coached witnesses as the perpetrator of a fictitious crime,” and a variety of “psychological ploys, such as to ‘posi[t]’ ‘the guilt of the subject,’ to ‘minimize the moral seriousness of the offense,’ and ‘to cast blame on the victim or on society.’” 446 U. S., at 299 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 450) (brackets by Innis Court). None of these techniques involves express questioning, and yet the Court found that any of them, coupled with the “interrogation environment,” was likely to “‘subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner’ and thereby undermine the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.” 466 U. S., at 399 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 457). Thus, the Innis Court concluded that the goals of the Miranda safeguards could be effectuated if those safeguards extended not only to express questioning, but also to “its functional equivalent.” 446 U. S., at 301. The Court explained the phrase “functional equivalent” of interrogation as including “any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Ibid, (footnotes omitted). Finally, it noted that “[t]he latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police.” Ibid.
1 — 1 I — I hH
We now turn to the case before us. The officers gave Mauro the warnings required by Miranda. Mauro indicated that he did not wish to be questioned further without a lawyer present. Mauro never waived his right to have a lawyer present. The sole issue, then, is whether the officers’ subsequent actions rose to the level of interrogation — that is, in the language of Innis, whether they were the “functional equivalent” of police interrogation. We think it is clear under both Miranda and Innis that Mauro was not interrogated. The tape recording of the conversation between Mauro and his wife shows that Detective Manson asked Mauro no questions about the crime or his conduct. Nor is it suggested — or supported by any evidence — that Sergeant Allen’s decision to allow Mauro’s wife to see him was the kind of psychological ploy that properly could be treated as the functional equivalent of interrogation.
There is no evidence that the officers sent Mrs. Mauro in to see her husband for the purpose of eliciting incriminating statements. As the trial court found, the officers tried to discourage her from talking to her husband, but finally “yielded to her insistent demands,” App. 218. Nor was Detective Manson’s presence improper. His testimony, that the trial court found credible, indicated a number of legitimate reasons — not related to securing incriminating statements — for having a police officer present. See supra, at 523-524 (quoting App. 218). Finally, the weakness of Mauro’s claim that he was interrogated is underscored by examining the situation from his perspective. Cf. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S., at 301 (suggesting that the suspect’s perspective may be relevant in some cases in determining whether police actions constitute interrogation). We doubt that a suspect, told by officers that his wife will be allowed to speak to him, would feel that he was being coerced to incriminate himself in any way.
The Arizona Supreme Court was correct to note that there was a “possibility” that Mauro would incriminate himself while talking to his wife. It also emphasized that the officers were aware of that possibility when they agreéd to allow the Mauros to talk to each other. But the actions in this case were far less questionable than the “subtle compulsion” that we held not to be interrogation in Innis. See id., at 303. Officers do not interrogate a suspect simply by hoping that he will incriminate himself. In Miranda, and again in Innis, the Court emphasized:
“Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. . . . Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 478, quoted in Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, at 299-300.
See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 305 (1985). (“‘[F]ar from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable’” (quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 187 (1977))). Mauro was not subjected to compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning. Thus, his volunteered statements cannot properly be considered the result of police interrogation.
In deciding whether particular police conduct is interrogation, we must remember the purpose behind our decisions in Miranda and Edwards: preventing government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment. The government actions in this case do not implicate this purpose in any way. Police departments need not adopt inflexible rules barring suspects from speaking with their spouses, nor must they ignore legitimate security concerns by allowing spouses to meet in private. In short, the officers in this case acted reasonably and lawfully by allowing Mrs. Mauro to speak with her husband. In this situation, the Federal Constitution does not forbid use of Mauro’s subsequent statements at his criminal trial.
I — I <!
The judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The entire conversation proceeded as follows:
“MRS. MAURO: Please — please, I don’t know what to do. We should have put David [the victim] in the hospital. Please — I don’t know what we’re going to do. We should have went for help — we should have went for help.
“[MR. MAURO]: You tried as best you could to stop it.
“MRS. MAURO: I-
“[MR. MAURO]: Shut up.
“MRS. MAURO: —taken him to a mental hospital or something. What’ll we do?
“[MR. MAURO]: Shut up.
“DET. MANSON: Do you know a reverend or a priest or someone you can talk to — take care of David?
“MRS. MAURO: No.
“[MR. MAURO]: Don’t answer questions until you get rights of attorney before you find out whats [sic] going on. You tried to stop me as best you can. What are you going to do, kill me? You tried the best you can to stop me.
“MRS. MAURO: I don’t — we don’t — I don’t have money.
“[MR. MAURO]: There’s a public attorney.
“MRS. MAURO: I don’t know.
“[MR. MAURO]: There’s a public attorney. Why don’t you just be quiet.
“MRS. MAURO: I don’t have any money to bury him. I don’t have any money. All I got is enough money for the rent for the children and that’s it.
“DET. MANSON: Did you want to talk to your husband any more?
“MRS. MAURO: No, I can’t talk to him.
“[MR. MAURO]: Then don’t talk to me — get out.
“MRS. MAURO: I don’t know what to do. O.K.”
149 Ariz. 24, 30-31, 716 P. 2d 393, 399-400 (1986).
The court relied on testimony of the officers at the hearing in the trial court on the suppression motion. Sergeant Allen testified as follows:
“Q. [C]ertainly when you sent an officer in there to listen to that conversation, you knew that it was possible that he might make incriminating statements?
“A. That’s correct.
“Q. And obviously, you wanted to record that conversation so as to have a record of those incriminating statements.
“A. That’s correct.” Id., at 30, 716 P. 2d, at 399. Detective Manson’s testimony was as follows:
“Q. [Detective Manson], certainly you were aware that during the conversation either [Mrs. Mauro] or my client may have given an incriminating statement?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And obviously one of the purposes of your tape recording the interview was to take down any such statements?
“A. Yes, sir.” Ibid.
In Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires observance of this privilege in state-court proceedings.
In the course of the conversation, that apparently lasted only a few minutes, Manson made two statements, both apparently directed at Mauro’s wife. See n. 1, supra.
Justice Stevens suggests that the officers “employed a powerful psychological ploy.” Post, at 531. He bases this statement on his reading of the record that the officers “failed to give respondent any advance warning that Mrs. Mauro was coming to talk to him, that a police officer would accompany her, or that their conversation would be recorded.” Ibid. This reading is difficult to reconcile with the trial court’s conclusion that the officers “told both Mr. and Mrs. Mauro that they could speak together only if an officer were present in the room to observe and hear what was going on.” App. 218. This sentence seems to indicate that Mauro received advance warning. But accepting the facts as Justice Stevens states them, the opinion still makes it clear that Mauro was fully informed before the conversation began. Similarly, it may be that the officers did not give Mr. Mauro advance warning that they would record the eonversation, but the trial court noted that “[t]he officer who was present produced a tape recorder and told the couple that their conversation would be recorded and put that tape recorder down on the desk in plain sight and taped their conversation, so they had knowledge that that was going on.” Ibid. Justice Stevens also implies that respondent was forced against his will to talk to his wife. Post, at 581. But, as the trial court observed, “[t]he defendant, with knowledge that the police were listening, could have chosen not to speak to his wife. Instead, he chose to speak.” App. 219. In short, the trial court’s findings completely rebut the atmosphere of oppressive police conduct portrayed by the dissent.
The dissent suggests that the Arizona Supreme Court found as a fact that the officers intended to interrogate Mauro and faults us for reversing this allegedly factual finding. With due respect, we disagree with this reading of the record. The Arizona Supreme Court did not conclude that the officers intended to interrogate Mauro. Rather it concluded that “[t]hey both knew that . . . incriminating statements were likely to be made.” 149 Ariz., at 31, 716 P. 2d, at 400. Taken in context, this is a determination that the facts known to the officers satisfied the legal standard we established in Rhode Island v. Innis. Our decision today does not overturn any of the factual findings of the Arizona Supreme Court. Rather, it rests on a determination that the facts of this case do not present a sufficient likelihood of incrimination to satisfy the legal standard articulated in Miranda v. Arizona and in Rhode Island v. Innis.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 British Transport Commission, owner of the overnight ferry, Duke of York, questions the power of a District Court sitting in an admiralty limitation proceeding to permit the parties to cross-claim against each other for damages arising out of the same maritime collision. The United States, as owner of the U. S. N. S. Haiti Victory, had filed the original proceeding in which the Commission along with others filed claims. While the proceeding was pending some of the claimants against the Haiti filed cross-claims against the Duke and, in addition, the United States asserted a “set-off” and “cross-claim” against the Duke in answer to the latter’s claim. The District Court dismissed all of the cross-claims on the ground that “a limitation proceeding does not provide a forum for the adjudication of liability of co-claimants to each other.” The Court of Appeals reversed holding that “As a practical matter as well as an equitable one, the claimants herein should be allowed to implead the Commission.” 230 F. 2d 139, 144. Because the question is an important one of admiralty jurisdiction we granted certiorari, limited to the limitation proceeding question. 352 U. S. 821. We agree with the Court of Appeals.
On May 6, 1953, in the North Sea, the Naval Transport, Haiti Victory, owned by the United States, rammed the overnight channel ferry, Duke of York, owned by petitioner. The bow of the Duke broke away from the vessel and sank as a result of a deep cut on her port side just forward of the bridge inflicted by the Haiti. While the Haiti suffered only minor damage the Duke’s loss was claimed to be $1,500,000. In addition several of the 437 persons aboard the Duke were killed, many were injured, and many of them lost their baggage. The Haiti returned to the United States and, thereafter, this proceeding was filed under §§ 183-186 of the Limited Liability Act, R. S. §§ 4281-4289, as amended, 46 U. S. C. §§ 181-196, for exoneration from, or limitation of, liability for loss or damage resulting from the collision. The United States as petitioner further alleged that the collision was “caused by the fault and neglect of the SS Duke of York and the persons in charge of her . . . and occurred without fault on the part of the petitioner . . . .”
The Duke filed a claim in the proceeding for $l,500j000 and in addition an answer in which it claimed, inter alia, that the damages resulting from the collision were “not caused or contributed to by any fault or negligence on the part of this claimant . . . but were done, occasioned or incurred with the privity or knowledge of and were caused by the Petitioner and its managing officers and supervising agents and the master of the Haiti Victory . . . which will be shown on the trial.” The United States answered that the collision “was occasioned by either the sole fault of the Duke of York or the joint fault of both the Duke of York and the Haiti Victory”; it alleged damage to the Haiti in the sum of $65,000, and that in addition it “has also been subjected to claims by passengers and members of the crews of both vessels filed herein, which presently approximate $809,714 for personal injury and death, and $45,975 for property damage other than that claimed by the Duke of York; all of which damage it prays to set off and recoup against the claimant, British Transport Commission, as owner of the Duke of York . . . .” Various of the claimants against- the Haiti in the meanwhile filed impleading petitions against the Duke alleging the collision was “caused or contributed to by the fault and negligence of the S. S. ‘Duke of York’. . .” setting out, as did the United States, the particular acts upon which the claim of negligence was based. The District Court dismissed all of these cross-claims holding that the Act offers “a forum for the complete adjudication and recovery of all claims . . . against the petitioner only. ... To permit one claimant to prosecute another claimant in the limitation litigation would be unfair. The latter has intervened under compulsion, the court enjoining his resort to any other tribunal. Therefore, his responsibility should not be enlarged beyond that incident to his claim. Obedience to the. injunction should not expose him to an attack to which, in regular course, he would be subject only in the jurisdiction of his residence or other place of voluntary entrance.”
On a hearing “restricted to the issues of the asserted liabilities of the two vessels, Duke of York and Haiti Victory, for the collision,” the court exonerated the Haiti from all liability, holding the Duke solély to blame for the collision. 131 F. Supp. 712. This finding was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals and is not before us. In reversing the dismissal of the cross-claims the Court of Appeals reasoned that “Modern codes of procedure have reflected two facets: (1) all rights, if this can fairly be done, should be decided in a single legal proceeding; (2) parties who submit themselves to the jurisdiction of a court in a legal proceeding should be bound by that court’s decision on all questions, appropriate to and seasonably raised in, that proceeding. Those ideas, we think, can reasonably be deduced from the spirit, if not the letter, of the 56th Admiralty Rule.” 230 F. 2d, at 145.
The excellent coverage this Court’s cases have given the historical incidents forming the background that went into the adoption of the Limited Liability Act relieves us of any minute recitation of that history. See Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104 (1872); Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578 (1883) ; The Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 122 (1894); Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383 (1941). The history shows that although the Act was patterned on earlier English statutes its foundations sprang from the roots of the general maritime law of medieval Europe. “The real object of the act . . . was to limit the liability of vessel owners to their interest in the adventure,” The Main v. Williams, supra, at 131, and thus “to encourage ship-building and to induce capitalists to invest money in this branch of industry,” Norwich Co. v. Wright, supra, at 121.
The Congress by the provisions of the Act left the form and modes of procedure to the judiciary. Twenty years after passage of the Act this Court adopted some general rules with respect to admiralty practice. See 13 Wall, xii and xiii. Rule 56 first came into the General Admiralty Rules as Rule 59. As will be noted, it was originally fashioned to accommodate cross-libels in marine collision cases, but acting upon the same inherent power to bring into the proceeding other parties whose presence would enable the court to do substantial justice in regard to the entire matter, the courts soon began to extend the practice by analogy to cases other than collision. See, e. g., The Alert, 40 F. 836 (1889); 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1948), 450-456. As it is expressed in 2 Benedict, Admiralty (6th ed. 1940), § 349, at 534, “the 'equity of the rule’ was given wide extension and the principle . . . was applied by analogy to require the appearance of any additional respondent who might be responsible for the claim or a part thereof.” In the 1920 revision the 59th Rule became the 56th General Admiralty Rule and, as amended by this Court, authorized either a claimant or respondent to bring in any other vessel or person “partly or wholly liable ... by way of remedy over, contribution or otherwise, growing out of the same matter.” 254 U. S. 707. The present-day limitation proceeding, therefore, springs from the 1851 Act and this Court’s rules. Neither source indicates that admiralty limitation precluded other ordinary admiralty procedures. In fact, as Mr. Justice Bradley put it in The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 33 (1881), “we may say, once for all, that [the rules] were not intended to restrict parties claiming the benefit of the law, but to aid them. . . . The rules referred to were adopted for the purpose of formulating a proceeding that would give full protection to the ship-owners in such a case. They were not intended to prevent them from availing themselves of any other remedy or process which the law itself might entitle them to adopt.” Accord, Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451 (1882).
It is the Commission’s contention that Rule 56 is wholly inapplicable to the adjudication of a claim of one co-claimant against another in a limitation proceeding. The rule, it says, refers to libels and the use of the word “claimant” includes only the claimant of the vessel involved and not to those making claims against the vessel. But we have seen that Rule 56 has long been held to encompass cross-claims between parties in libel actions. This Court has held that limitation of liability petitions may also be determined by appropriate pleading in libel actions. See The North Star, 106 U. S. 17 (1882), and the discussion infra. It may therefore be said that a limitation proceeding not only provides concourse but serves the function of a cross-libel to determine the rights between petitioner and claimants as well; and equitable rights between the limitation petitioner and a claimant have long been recognized as encompassed in Rule 50. Moor e-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. McMahon, 235 F. 2d 142 (1956). It appears then that had this proceeding started out as a libel the Commission admittedly would have no complaint. And as we have pointed out, the Rules were not promulgated as technicalities restricting the parties as well as the admiralty court in the adjudication of relevant issues before it. There should therefore be no requirement that the facts of a case be tailored to fit the exact language of a rulé. The initial petition filed in the limitation proceeding alleged that the Duke was wholly or partly at fault and asked for a “set-off” or “cross-claim” against it; the Commission entered the case not only to prove its claim but to contest this allegation of negligence against the Duke. The claimants are all present in the litigation. The United States has now filed a cross-claim or cross-libel against the Commission, it already being a party to the suit and before the court. The question is not what “tag” we put on the proceeding, or whether it is a “suit” under Rule 56 or a libel in per-sonam, or whether the pleading is of an offensive or defensive nature, but rather whether the Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties. It is sufficient to say as did Chief Justice Taft for a unanimous Court in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 273 U. S. 207 (1927), “that all the ease with which rights can be adjusted in equity is intended to be given to the [limitation] proceeding. It is the administration of equity in an admiralty court. . . . It looks to a complete and just disposition of a many cornered controversy . . . .” Id., at 216. See also the opinion of Chief Justice Hughes for a unanimous Court in Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383, 386-387 (1941). We do not believe that the analogy to equity is shadowy. The claimants in this proceeding have just claims arising out of the collision of the Haiti and the Duke. They have as much interest in the potential liability resulting from that marine disaster as has the equity receiver in perfecting the res of the estate. The scope of the proceeding is not limited to a determination of the petitioner’s fault nor to its interest in the Haiti. In fact, here the fault of the disaster, a matter of legitimate interest to the claimants, has been adjudicated against the Commission and it admits this judgment is res judicata in all courts. Why does it not follow that the claimants, scattered as they are in eight countries of the world but all present in this proceeding, should recover judgment for their damages? Why should each be required to file a secondary action in the courts of another country merely to prove the amount of his due when the same evidence is already before the admiralty court here?
Logic and efficient judicial administration require that recovery against all parties at fault is as necessary to the claimants as is the fund which limited the liability of the initial petitioner. Otherwise this proceeding is but a “water haul” for the claimants, a result completely out of character in admiralty practice. Furthermore, the Commission entered this proceeding voluntarily without compulsion. It filed an answer asking that justice be done regarding the subject matter, the collision; it denied all fault on its part and affirmatively sought to place all blame on the Haiti; it claimed damage in the sum of $1,500,000; and it contested the Haiti’s claim of limitation or exoneration. In all of these respects judgment went against the Commission — it lost. Now having lost, it claims that the court has wholly lost jurisdiction while had it won, jurisdiction to enter judgment on all claims would have continued. It asserts that neither the Haiti, which was damaged to the extent of some $65,000, nor any of the other 115 claimants may prove their losses against it. But reason compels the conclusion that if the court had power to administer justice in the event the Commission had won, it should have like power when it lost. Whether it is by analogy to Rule 56 or by virtue of Rule 44, or by admiralty’s general rules heretofore promulgated by this Court, we hold it a necessary concomitant of jurisdiction in a factual situation such as this one that the Court have power to adjudicate all of the demands made and arising out of the same disaster. This too reflects the basic policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Admiralty practice, which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of legal technicalities it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices.
It is true that no case of this Court has passed on the question directly. However, examination of the practice of American admiralty courts indicates that cross-libel procedures have been resorted to between co-parties in a limitation concursus at least since The North Star, 106 U. S. 17 (1882). While initially that case was not a limitation proceeding, this Court held that both parties could have obtained a limitation of liability if entitled to it without the necessity of separate suits. In The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97 (1887), both the libelant and the cross-libelant sought and received the benefit of liability limitation. Thereafter, in The City of Boston, 182 F. 171 (1909), a District Court allowed the filing of cross-claims in the limitation proceeding there begun. It is of interest to note that while there was no express rule at the time permitting such procedure it was granted “following the analogy of admiralty rule 59 [now Rule 56].” It was thought that “the same claim for contribution which . . . might [be recovered] in an independent suit” could properly be adjudicated by a cross-claim although there was no “reported precedent for the allowance of such a claim in limited liability proceedings.” In re Eastern Dredging Co., 182 F. 179, 183 (1909). In 1919 the Second Circuit decided The Adah, 258 F. 377, in which Judge Hough declared that “Whether it was necessary, in absolving the Adah, to fix blame on some one else, is a question we need not decide.” But where the parties enter the limitation proceeding, the court held “It is enough that they did come in, and made parties of themselves. . . . Having become parties, they are bound by the decree entered in the suit wherein they are parties.” Id., at 381. And this was but the echo of Mr. Justice Bradley in The Scotland, supra, where he said, “when parties choose to resort to [a nation’s] forum for redress” they cannot “complain of the determination of their rights by that law . . . .” 105 U. S., at 31-32. Later in In re United States Steel Products Co., 24 F. 2d 657 (1928), the Second Circuit squarely decided that cross-claims were properly considered in limitation proceedings. The United States’ claim in limitation was “a right of suit in admiralty against the Steel Inventor,” id., at 659, the court said, which subjected it to cross-suit, citing United States v. The Thekla, 266 U. S. 328 (1924). See also The Steel Inventor, 43 F. 2d 958 (1930). And as recently as Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. McMahon, 235 F. 2d 142 (1956), the Second Circuit unanimously reaffirmed the principles of these cases. It reasoned that since all of the claims arose out of the same incident they should be determined in a single cause, thus effectuating an “economy of trial litigation” so much desired in judicial administration.
Petitioner points to cases from the Second Circuit in which cross-claims were not permitted. But we find none apposite to this case, other than perhaps New Jersey Barging Corp. v. T. A. D. Jones & Co., 135 F. Supp. 97 (1955). That case held that the impleading of the claimant would convert a proceeding to limit the petitioners’ liability to a proceeding by other claimants against the impleaded claimant. While it is sufficient to say that New Jersey Barging Corp. has subsequently, in effect, been overruled by the Second Circuit in Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. McMahon, supra, we might add that it is easily distinguishable from the situation here. No answer was filed and no effort was made toward an affirmative defense, the claimant only having forwarded his statement of asserted damage by mail. Nor do we think Algoma C. & H. B. R. Co. v. Great Lakes Transit Corp., 86 F. 2d 708 (1936), affords petitioner comfort. There Judge Learned Hand held that the railroad, in filing a limitation proceeding, had improperly laid venue. While there is some dicta in the opinion indicating that the petitioner in a limitation proceeding could recover nothing affirmatively, we agree with Judge Knox’s interpretation of that case in his opinion in The Clio — The Springhill, 1948 A. M. C. 75, 77. In Algoma the original limitation petitioner had filed no counterclaim in its proceeding. Therefore nothing could be recovered affirmatively. The case therefore does not stand for the proposition that it would not be permissible for a counterclaim to be filed. The view that the counterclaim would be permissible is supported by The Steel Inventor, supra, and In re United States Steel Products Co., supra, in both of which Judge Hand participated.
Petitioner also depends heavily on Department of Highways v. Jahncke Service, Inc., 174 F. 2d 894 (1949), an opinion of the Fifth Circuit. We believe it inapposite also. There Jahncke’s barges tore loose in a windstorm and damaged the Department of Highways’ bridge. Jahncke petitioned for limitation and the Department, after filing its claim and answer, then attempted to implead the Town of Madisonville, the owner of some other barges, which also had struck the bridge. Obviously there was no connection, other than the same wind and water, between Madisonville’s barges which were independently moored and Jahncke’s. Madisonville had filed no claim in Jahncke’s limitation proceeding, the damages arising from a distinctly separate incident.
Petitioner points to the many dire consequences that may flow from exposing claimants to cross-claims. While these predictions are entirely speculative and not before us, we comment on those which petitioner believes to be the more serious. First it says foreign claimants will be frightened away and will not file claims in American limitation proceedings. This result is more, says petitioner, “than just robbing Peter to pay Paul.” But if petitioner prevailed both Peter and Paul would be robbed. While it is true that no compulsion could be exerted on foreign claimants to file claims and some would not do so thus preventing the determination of fault from being res judi-cata as to them; and while an injunction against suits being filed in foreign jurisdictions would be ineffective unless comity required its recognition; and assuming all this would encourage the filing of foreign suits and the levying of attachments on any offending American vessel while in a foreign port, or for that matter against any vessel of the same American owner; still this would have little practical effect on the operation of our limitation law. Most foreign claimants are foreign shipowners whose vessels visit American ports and are subject to like action by claimants living here. Self-protection would balance things out. But even if it did not, of what good is a judgment as to fault, even if res judicata, if a claimant recovers nothing? The proceeding here would become entirely abortive. Petitioner's theory makes the claimants no more than pawns in a game between the offending shipowners in which all that the claimants win after the successful battle is the right to fight another day for their due and in another court. It appears to us, therefore, that fairness in litigation requires that those who seek affirmative recovery in a court should be subject therein to like exposure for the damage resulting from their acts connected with the identical incident. The claimants here ask no more. That no foreign country permits such impleading should not force litigants in United States courts to forego such procedures. Foreign limitation of liability procedures are for the most part different from ours where not only fault but claims are determined as part and parcel of the limitation action itself. We conclude that in the final analysis the manifest advantages of this cross-claim procedure serve the best interests of all of the parties before a court of the United States who find themselves the unfortunate victims of maritime disaster.
Other questions of procedural detail raised by the petitioner we leave to the trial courts. This has been the policy of this Court in the past in admiralty practice.
Affirmed.
The United States had not filed a cross-claim against the Duke for damage to its vessel because, as it alleges, its counsel felt that it had waived recovery of any claim against a vessel of the British Government by virtue of the “Knock for Knock” Agreement, 56 Stat. 1780, E. A. S. 282, Dec. 4, 1942. Subsequently, while the appeal was pending, the British Government advised that it did not consider the Duke as a government vessel. Consequently, following the Court of Appeals decision, the United States filed a cross-claim against the Duke in the proceedings before the District Court.
Rule 56 was adopted as Rule 59 in 1883 as a codification of the decision in The Hudson, 15 F. 162 (1883). The Rule then provided in part:
“In a suit for damage by collision, if the claimant of any vessel proceeded against, or any respondent proceeded against in personam, shall, by petition, on oath, presented before or at the time of answering the libel, or within such further time as the court may allow, and containing suitable allegations showing fault or negligence in any other vessel contributing to the same collision, and the particulars thereof, and that such other vessel or any other party ought to be proceeded against in the same suit for such damage, pray that process be issued against such vessel or party to that end, such process may be issued . . . .” 112 U. S. 743.
The remainder of Rule 59 in its original form is substantially similar to the last two sentences of the present Rule 56.
The present Rule 56 provides:
“In any suit, whether in rem or in personam, the claimant or respondent (as the case may be) shall be entitled to bring in any other vessel or person (individual or corporation) who may be partly or wholly liable either to the libellant or to such claimant or respondent by way of remedy over, contribution or otherwise, growing out of the same matter. This shall be done by petition, on oath, presented before or at the time of answering the libel, or at any later time during the progress of the cause that the court may allow. Such petition shall contain suitable allegations showing such liability, and the particulars thereof, and that such other vessel or person ought to be proceeded against in the same suit for such damage, and shall pray that process be issued against such vessel or person to that end. Thereupon such process shall issue, and if duly served, such suit shall proceed as if such vessel or person had been originally proceeded against; the other parties in the suit shall answer the petition; the claimant of such vessel or such new party shall answer the libel; and such further proceedings shall be had and decree rendered by the court in the suit as to law and justice shall appertain. But every such petitioner shall, upon filing his petition, give a stipulation, with sufficient sureties, or an approved corporate surety, to pay the libellant and to any claimant or any new party brought in by virtue of such process, all such costs, damages, and expenses as shall be awarded against the petitioner by the court on the final decree, whether rendered in the original or appellate court; and any such claimant or new party shall give the same bonds or stipulations which are required in the like eases from parties brought in under process issued on the prayer of a libellant.” 254 U. S. 707.
Rule 50 provides:
“Whenever a cross-libel is filed upon any counterclaim arising out of the same contract or cause of action for which the original libel was filed, and the respondent or claimant in the original suit shall have given security to respond in damages, the respondent in the cross-libel shall give security in the usual amount and form to respond in damages to the claims set forth in said cross-libel, unless the court, for cause shown, shall otherwise direct; and all proceedings on the Original libel shall be stayed until such security be given unless the court otherwise directs.” 254 U. S. 702.
Rule 44 provides:
“In suits in admiralty in all cases not provided for by these rules or by statute, the district courts are to regulate their practice in such a manner as they deem most expedient for the due administration of justice, provided the same are not inconsistent with these rules.” 254 U. S. 698.
Algoma C. & H. B. R. Co. v. Great Lakes Transit Corp., 86 F. 2d 708 (1936); New Jersey Barging Corp. v. T. A. D. Jones & Co., 135 F. Supp. 97 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1955); Petition of Texas Co., 81 F. Supp. 758 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1948); Poling Bros. No. 5—Tom Wogan, 1937 A. M. C. 1513 (D. C. E. D. N. Y.).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
A Washington statute provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce. We are asked to decide whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 832, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq., preempts that statute to the extent it applies to ERISA plans. We hold that it does.
I
Petitioner Donna Rae Egelhoff was married to David A. Egelhoff. Mr. Egelhoff was employed by the Boeing Company, which provided him with a life insurance policy and a pension plan. Both plans were governed by ERISA, and Mr. Egelhoff designated his wife as the beneficiary under both. In April 1994, the Egelhoffs divorced. Just over two months later, Mr. Egelhoff died intestate following an automobile accident. At that time, Mrs. Egelhoff remained the listed beneficiary under both the life insurance policy and the pension plan. The life insurance proceeds, totaling $46,000, were paid to her.
Respondents Samantha and David Egelhoff, Mr. Egelhoffs children by a previous marriage, are his statutory heirs under state law. They sued petitioner in Washington state court to recover the life insurance proceeds. Respondents relied on a Washington statute that provides:
“If a marriage is dissolved or invalidated, a provision made prior to that event that relates to the payment or transfer at death of the decedent’s interest in a nonpro-bate asset in favor of or granting an interest or power to the decedent’s former spouse is revoked. A provision affected by this section must be interpreted, and the nonprobate asset affected passes, as if the former spouse failed to survive the decedent, having died at the time of entry of the decree of dissolution or declaration of invalidity.” Wash. Rev. Code § 11.07.010(2)(a) (1994).
That statute applies to “all nonprobate assets, wherever situated, held at the time of entry by a superior court of this state of a decree of dissolution of marriage or a declaration of invalidity.” § 11.07.010(1). It defines “nonprobate asset” to include “a life insurance policy, employee benefit plan, annuity or similar contract, or individual retirement account.” § 11.07.010(5)(a).
Respondents argued that they were entitled to the life insurance proceeds because the Washington statute disqualified Mrs. Egelhoff as a beneficiary, and in the absence of a qualified named beneficiary, the proceeds would pass to them as Mr. Egelhoff’s heirs. In a separate action, respondents also sued to recover the pension plan benefits. Respondents again argued that the Washington statute disqualified Mrs. Egelhoff as a beneficiary and they were thus entitled to the benefits under the plan.
The trial courts, concluding that both the insurance policy and the pension plan “should be administered in accordance” with ERISA, granted summary judgment to petitioner in both eases. App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a, 48a. The Washington Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and reversed. In re Estate of Egelhoff, 98 Wash. App. 314, 968 P. 2d 924 (1998). It concluded that the Washington statute was not pre-empted by ERISA. Id., at 317, 968 P. 2d, at 925. Applying the statute, it held that respondents were entitled to the proceeds of both the insurance policy and the pension plan. Ibid.
The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed. 139 Wash. 2d 557, 989 P. 2d 80 (1999). It held that the state statute, although applicable to “employee benefit plan[s],” does not “refefr] to” ERISA plans to an extent that would require pre-emption, because it “does not apply immediately and exclusively to an ERISA plan, nor is the existence of such a plan essential to operation of the statute.” Id., at 574, 989 P. 2d, at 89. It also held that the statute lacks a “connection with” an ERISA plan that would compel pre-emption. Id., at 576,989 P. 2d, at 90. It emphasized that the statute “does not alter the nature of the plan itself, the administrator’s fiduciary duties, or the requirements for plan administration.” Id., at 575, 989 P. 2d, at 90. Nor, the court concluded, does the statute conflict with any specific provision of ERISA, including the antialienation provision, 29 U. S. C. § 1056(d)(1), because it “does not operate to divert benefit plan proceeds from distribution under terms of the plan documents,” but merely alters "the underlying circumstances to which the distribution scheme of [the] plan must be applied.” 139 Wash. 2d, at 578, 989 P. 2d, at 91.
Courts have disagreed about whether statutes like that of Washington are pre-empted by ERISA. Compare, e. g., Manning v. Hayes, 212 F. 3d 866 (CA5 2000) (finding preemption), cert. pending, No. 00-265, and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hanslip, 939 F. 2d 904 (CA10 1991) (same), with, e. g., Emard v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 153 F. 3d 949 (CA9 1998) (finding no pre-emption), and 139 Wash. 2d, at 557, 989 P. 2d, at 80 (same). To resolve the conflict, we granted certiorari. 530 U. S. 1242 (2000).
II
Petitioner argues that the Washington statute falls within the terms of ERISA’s express pre-emption provision and that it is pre-empted by ERISA under traditional principles of conflict pre-emption. Because we conclude that the statute is expressly pre-empted by ERISA, we address only the first argument.
ERISA’s pre-emption section, 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), states that ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” covered by ERISA. We have observed repeatedly that this broadly worded provision is “clearly expansive.” New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 655 (1995); see, e. g., Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U. S. 374, 384 (1992) (listing cases in which we have described ERISA pre-emption in broad terms). But at the same time, we have recognized that the term “relate to” cannot be taken “to extend to the furthest stretch of its indeterminacy,” or else “for all practical purposes pre-emption would never run its course.” Travelers, supra, at 655.
We have held that a state law relates to an ERISA plan “if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 97 (1988). Petitioner focuses on the “connection with” part of this inquiry. Acknowledging that “connection with” is scarcely more restrictive than “relate to,” we have cautioned against an “uncritical literalism” that would make pre-emption turn on “infinite connections.” Travelers, supra, at 656. Instead, “to determine whether a state law has the forbidden connection, we look both to ‘the objectives of the ERISA statute as a guide to the scope of the state law that Congress understood would survive,’ as well as to the nature of the effect of the state law on ERISA plans.” California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N. A, Inc., 519 U. S. 316, 325 (1997), quoting Travelers, supra, at 656 (citation omitted).
Applying this framework, petitioner argues that the Washington statute has an impermissible connection with ERISA plans. We agree. The statute binds ERISA plan administrators to a particular choice of rules for determining beneficiary status. The administrators must pay benefits to the beneficiaries chosen by state law, rather than to those identified in the plan documents. The statute thus implicates an area of core ERISA concern. In particular, it runs counter to ERISA’s commands that a plan shall “specify the basis on which payments are made to and from the plan,” § 1102(b)(4), and that the fiduciary shall administer the plan “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan,” § 1104(a)(1)(D), making payments to a “beneficiary” who is “designated by a participant, or by the terms of [the] plan.” § 1002(8). In other words, unlike generally applicable laws regulating “areas where ERISA has nothing to say,” Dillingham, 519 U. S., at 330, which we have upheld notwithstanding their incidental effect on ERISA plans, see, e. g., ibid., this statute governs the payment of benefits, a central matter of plan administration.
The Washington statute also has a prohibited connection with ERISA plans because it interferes with nationally uniform plan administration. One of the principal goals of ERISA is to enable employers “to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.” Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 9 (1987). Uniformity is impossible, however, if plans are subject to different legal obligations in different States.
The Washington statute at issue here poses precisely that threat. Plan administrators cannot make payments simply by identifying the beneficiary specified by the plan documents. Instead they must familiarize themselves with state statutes so that they can determine whether the named beneficiary’s status has been "revoked” by operation of law. And in this context the burden is exacerbated by the choice-of-law problems that may confront an administrator when the employer is located in one State, the plan participant lives in another, and the participant’s former spouse lives in a third. In such a situation, administrators might find that plan payments are subject to conflicting legal obligations.
To be sure, the Washington statute protects administrators from liability for making payments to the named beneficiary unless they have "actual knowledge of the dissolution or other invalidation of marriage,” Wash. Rev. Code § 11.07.010(S)(a) (1994), and it permits administrators to refuse to make payments until any dispute among putative beneficiaries is resolved, § 11.07.010(3)(b). But if administrators do pay benefits, they will face the risk that a court might later find that they had “actual knowledge” of a divorce. If they instead decide to await the results of litigation before paying benefits, they will simply transfer to the beneficiaries the costs of delay and uncertainty. Requiring ERISA administrators to master the relevant laws of 50 States and to contend with litigation would undermine the congressional goal of “minimizing] the administrative and financial burden[s]” on plan administrators — burdens ultimately borne by the beneficiaries. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 138, 142 (1990).
We recognize that all state laws create some potential for a lack of uniformity. But differing state regulations affecting an ERISA plan's “system for processing claims and paying benefits” impose “precisely the burden that ERISA preemption was intended to avoid.” Fort Halifax, supra, at 10. And as we have noted, the statute at issue here directly conflicts with ERISA’s requirements that plans be administered, and benefits be paid, in accordance with plan documents. We conclude that the Washington statute has a “connection with” ERISA plans and is therefore pre-empted.
Ill
Respondents suggest several reasons why ordinary ERISA pre-emption analysis should not apply here. First, they observe that the Washington statute allows employers to opt out. According to respondents, the statute neither regulates plan administration nor impairs uniformity because it does not apply when “[t]he instrument governing disposition of the nonprobate asset expressly provides otherwise.” Wash. Rev. Code § 11.07.010(2)(b)(i) (1994). We do not believe that the statute is saved from pre-emption simply because it is, at least in a broad sense, a default rule.
Even though the Washington statute’s cancellation of private choice may itself be trumped by specific language in the plan documents, the statute does “dictate the ehoice[s] facing ERISA plans” with respect to matters of plan administration. Dillingham, supra, at 334. Plan administrators must either follow Washington’s beneficiary designation scheme or alter the terms of their plan so as to indicate that they will not follow it. The statute is not any less of a regulation of the terms of ERISA plans simply because there are two ways of complying with it. Of course, simple noneom-pliance with the statute is not one of the options available to plan administrators. Their only choice is one of timing, i. e., whether to bear the burden of compliance ex post, by paying benefits as the statute dictates (and in contravention of the plan documents), or ex ante, by amending the plan.
Respondents emphasize that the opt-out provision makes compliance with the statute less burdensome than if it were mandatory. That is true enough, but the burden that remains is hardly trivial. It is not enough for plan administrators to opt out of this particular statute. Instead, they must maintain a familiarity with the laws of all 50 States so that they can update their plans as necessary to satisfy the opt-out requirements of other, similar statutes. They also must be attentive to changes in the interpretations of those statutes by state courts. This “tailoring of plans and employer conduct to the peculiarities of the law of each jurisdiction” is exactly the burden ERISA seeks to eliminate. Ingersoll-Band, swpm, at 142.
Second, respondents emphasize that the Washington statute involves both family law and probate law, areas of traditional state regulation. There is indeed a presumption against pre-emption in areas of traditional state regulation such as family law. See, e. g., Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572, 581 (1979). But that presumption can be overcome where, as here, Congress has made clear its desire for pre-emption. Accordingly, we have not hesitated to find state family law pre-empted when it conflicts with ERISA or relates to ERISA plans. See, e. g., Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U. S. 838 (1997) (holding that ERISA pre-empts a state community property law permitting the testamentary transfer of an interest in a spouse’s pension plan benefits).
Finally, respondents argue that if ERISA pre-empts this statute, then it also must pre-empt the various state statutes providing that a murdering heir is not entitled to receive property as a result of the killing. See, e. g., Cal. Prob. Code Ann. §§250-259 (West 1991 and Supp. 2000); 755 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 755, § 5/2 — 6 (1999). In the ERISA context, these "slayer” statutes could revoke the beneficiary status of someone who murdered a plan participant. Those statutes are not before us, so we do not decide the issue. We note, however, that the principle underlying the statutes — which have been adopted by nearly every State — is well established in the law and has a long historical pedigree predating ERISA. See, e. g., Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506, 22 N. E. 188 (1889). And because the statutes are more or less uniform nationwide, their interference with the aims of ERISA is at least debatable.
* * *
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
One can of course escape the conflict between the plan documents (which require making payments to the named beneficiary) and the statute (which requires maMng payments to someone else) by calling the statute an “invalidation” of the designation of the named beneficiary, and by observing that the plan documents are silent on whether “invalidation” is to occur upon divorce. The dissent employs just such an approach. See post, at 155-156 (opinion of Breyer, J.). Reading a clear statement as an ambiguous metastatement enables one to avoid all kinds of conflicts between seemingly contradictory texts. Suppose, for example, that the statute required that all pension benefits be paid to the Governor of Washington. That seems inconsistent with the plan documents (and with ERISA), but the inconsistency disappears if one calls the statute an “invalidation” of the principal and alternate beneficiary designations. After all, neither the plan nor ERISA actually says that beneficiaries cannot be invalidated in favor of the Governor. This approach exploits the logical inability of any text to contain a complete set of instructions for its own interpretation. It has the vice — or perhaps the virtue, depending upon one’s point of view — of draining all language of its meaning.
Respondents argue that in this case, the disposition dictated by the Washington statute is consistent with that specified in the plan documents. Because Mr. Egelhoff designated “Donna R. Egelhoff wife” as the beneficiary of the life insurance policy, they contend that once the Egelhoffe divorced, “there was no such person as ‘Donna R. Egelhoff wife) the designated person had definitionally ceased to exist.” Brief for Respondents 44 (emphasis in original); see also post, at 155 (BREYER, J., dissenting). In effect, respondents ask us to infer that what Mr. Egelhoff meant when he filled out the form was not “Donna R. Egelhoff, who is my wife,” but rather “a new legal person — -‘Donna as spouse/” Brief for Respondents 44. They do not mention, however, that below the “Beneficiary” line on the form, the printed text reads, “First Name [space] Middle Initial [space] Last Name [space] Relationship.” See Appendix to opinion of Breyer, 3., post. Rather than impute to Mr. Egelhoff the unnatural (and indeed absurd) literalism suggested by respondents, we conclude that he simply provided all of the information requested by the form. The happenstance that “Relationship” was on the same line as the beneficiary’s name does not, we think, evince an intent to designate “a new legal person.”
The dissent observes that the Washington statute permits a plan administrator to avoid resolving the dispute himself and to let courts or parties settle the matter. See post, at 158. This observation only presents an example of how the costs of delay and uncertainty can be passed on to beneficiaries, thereby thwarting ERISA’s objective of efficient plan administration. Cf. Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 9 (1987).
Contrary to the dissent's suggestion that the resolution of this ease depends on one’s view of federalism, see post, at 160-161, we are called upon merely to interpret ERISA. And under the text of ERISA, the fiduciary “shall” administer the plan “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan,” 29 U.S. C. § 1104(a)(1)(D). The Washington statute conflicts with this command because under this statute, the only way the fiduciary can administer the plan according to its terms is to change the very terms he is supposed to follow.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The income tax liability of three individual taxpayers for a given year is here before the Court. Only a single question, common to all the cases, is involved. The Tax Court held a view favorable to the taxpayers. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue sought review before the appropriate Courts of Appeals. . As to two of the taxpayers, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, while the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit took a contrary view of the law. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
All controlling facts in the three situations are similar. Each taxpayer reports his income on the cash receipts and disbursements method. Each, in the respective years involved, received a salary from a closely held corporation in which he was both an officer and a stockholder. The full amount of salary so received was reported as income for the year received. Subsequently, after audit of the corporate returns, the Commissioner disallowed the deduction by the corporations of parts of the salaries as exceeding reasonable compensation. As a result, deficiencies in income taxes were determined against the corporations. The Commissioner also determined that the officers were liable as transferees under § 311 of the Internal Revenue Code for the corporate deficiencies. The receipt of excessive salary was the transfer upon which the transferee liability was predicated. As a result of either litigation or negotiation, various amounts became established as deficiencies of the corporations and as transferee liabilities of each of the three officers. In each case, the entire process of determining these amounts — from the start of the audit by agents of the Commissioner to the final establishment of the liabilities — occurred after the end of the year in which the salary was received and reported.
The question before the Court is whether part of the salary should be excluded from taxable income in the year of receipt since part was excessive salary and led to transferee liability for the unpaid taxes of the corporations. The taxpayers contend that an adjustment should be made in the year of original receipt of the salary; the Government that an adjustment should be made in the year of payment of the transferee liability.
One of the basic aspects of the federal income tax is that there be an annual accounting of income. Each item of income must be reported in the year in which it is properly reportable and in no other. For a cash basis taxpayer, as these three are, the correct year is the year in which received.
Not infrequently, an adverse claimant will contest the right of the recipient to retain money or property, either in the year of receipt or subsequently. In North American Oil v. Burnet, 286 U. S. 417 (1932), we considered whether such uncertainty would result in an amount otherwise includible in income being deferred as reportable income beyond the annual period in which received. That decision established the claim of right doctrine “now deeply rooted in the federal tax system.” The usual statement of the rule is that by Mr. Justice Brandéis in the North American Oil opinion: “If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.” 286 U. S., at 424.
The phrase “claim of right” is a term known of old to lawyers. Its typical use has been in real property law in dealing with title by adverse possession, where the rule has been that title can be acquired by adverse possession only if the occupant claims that he has a right to be in possession as owner. The use of the term in the field of income taxation is analogous. There is a claim of right when funds are received and treated by a taxpayer as belonging to him. The fact that subsequently the claim is found to be invalid by a court does not change the fact that the claim did exist. A mistaken claim is nonetheless a claim, United States v. Lewis, 340 U. S. 590 (1951).
However, we are told that the salaries were not received as belonging to the taxpayers, but rather they were received by the taxpayers as “constructive trustees” for the benefit of the creditors of the corporation. Admittedly, receipts by a trustee expressly for the benefit of another are not income to the trustee in his individual capacity, for he “has received nothing ... for his separate use and benefit,” Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 211 (1920).
We do not believe that these taxpayers were trustees in the sense that the salaries were not received for their separate use and benefit. Under the equitable doctrine that the funds of a corporation are a trust fund for the benefit of creditors, a stockholder receiving funds without adequate consideration from an insolvent corporation may be held, in some jurisdictions, to hold the funds as a constructive trustee. So it was that these taxpayers were declared constructive trustees and were liable as transferees in equity. A constructive trust is a fiction imposed as an equitable device for achieving justice. It lacks the attributes of a true trust, and is not based on any intention of the parties. Even though it has a retroactive existence in legal fiction, fiction cannot change the “readily realizable economic value” and practical “use and benefit” which these taxpayers enjoyed during a prior annual accounting period, antecedent to the declaration of the constructive trust. .
We think it clear that the salaries were received under a claim of individual right — not under a claim- of right as a trustee. Indeed one of the parties concedes, as is manifestly so, that the reporting of the salary on the income tax returns indicated that the income was held under a claim of individual right. The taxpayers argue that the salary was subject to a restriction on its use. Since all the facts which ultimately gave rise to the trans--feree liability were in existence at the end of the taxable year, we are told those facts were a legal restriction on the use of the salary. Actually it could not have been said at the end of each of the years involved that the transferee liability would materialize. The Commissioner might not have audited one or all of these particular returns; the Commissioner might not have gone through the correct procedure or have produced enough admissible evidence to meet his burden of proving transferee liability; or, through subsequent profitable operations, the corporations might have been able to have paid their taxes obviating the necessity of resort to the transferees.
There is no need to attempt to list hypothetical situations not before us which put such restrictions on use as to prevent the receipt under claim of right from giving rise to taxable income. But a potential or dormant restriction, such as here involved, which depends upon the future application of rules of law to present facts, is not a “restriction on use” within the meaning of North American Oil v. Burnet, supra.
The inequities of treating an amount as income which eventually turns out not to be income are urged upon us. The Government concedes that each of these taxpayers is entitled to a deduction for a loss in the year of repayment of the amount earlier included in income. In some cases, this treatment will benefit the taxpayer; in others it will not. Factors such as the tax rates in the years involved and the brackets in which the income of the taxpayer falls will be controlling. A rule which required that the adjustment be made in the earlier year of receipt instead of the later year of repayment would generally be unfavorable to taxpayers, for the statute of limitations would frequently bar any adjustment of the tax liability for the earlier year. Congress has enacted an annual accounting system under which income is counted up at the end of each year. It would be disruptive of an orderly collection of the revenue to rule that the accounting must be done over again to reflect events occurring after the year for which the accounting is made, and would violate the spirit of the annual accounting system. This basic principle cannot be changed simply because it is of - advantage to a taxpayer or to the Government in a particular case that a different rule be followed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in No. 76, being consistent with this opinion, is affirmed, while the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in No. 138 is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Gordon W. Hartfield and Edwin E. Healy, 16 T. C. 200 (1951) (consolidated proceedings); Hall C. Smith, 11 T. C. 174 (1948).
Commissioner v. Hartfield, 194 F. 2d 662 (1952).
Commissioner v. Smith, 194 F. 2d 536 (1952).
344 U. S. 811, 813 (1952).
Charles E. Smith & Sons Co. v. Commissioner, 184 F. 2d 1011 (1950).
Reo Motors v. Commissioner, 338 U. S. 442 (1950); Heiner v. Mellon, 304 U. S. 271 (1938); Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U. S. 359 (1931). See I. R. C., § 41.
I. R. C., § 42 (a). Other permissive methods of accounting for tax purposes are the accrual basis, I. R. C., §§ 41 and 42, and the installment basis, I. R. C., § 44.
United States v. Lewis, 340 U. S. 590, 592 (1951).
4 Tiffany, Real Property, § 1147.
15A Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations, §§ 7369-7389.
3 Scott on Trusts, § 462.1; 3 Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, § 471.
Rutkin v. United States, 343 U. S. 130, 137 (1952).
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 211 (1920).
The rule announced in North American Oil v. Burnet, supra, requires a receipt without “restriction on use” as well as under a claim of right.
I. R. C., § 1119 imposes upon the Commissioner the burden of proving transferee liability. This may be contrasted to the rule that normally the burden of proof is on the taxpayer contesting the determination of the Commissioner. I. R. C., § 1111; Rule 32, Tax Court of United States.
Transferee liability is secondary to the primary liability of the transferor. To sustain transferee liability the Commissioner must prove that he is unable to collect the deficiency from the transferor. 9 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 53.29.
G. C. M. 16730, XV-1 Cum. Bull. 179 (1936).
I. R. C., § 322 (b). See also I. R. C., §§ 275 and 311 (b).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law prohibits some, but by no means all, broadcast advertising of lotteries and casino gambling. In United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U. S. 418 (1993), we upheld the constitutionality of 18 U. S. C. § 1304 as applied to broadcast advertising of Virginia’s lottery by a radio station located in North Carolina, where no such lottery was authorized. Today we hold that § 1304 may not be applied to advertisements of private casino gambling that are broadcast by radio or television stations located in Louisiana, where such gambling is legal.
I
Through most of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, Congress adhered to a policy that not only discouraged the operation of lotteries and similar schemes, but forbade the dissemination of information concerning such enterprises by use of the mails, even when the lottery in question was chartered by a state legislature. Consistent with this Court’s earlier view that commercial advertising was unprotected by the First Amendment, see Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52, 54 (1942), we found that the notion that “lotteries... are supposed to have a demoralizing influence upon the people” provided sufficient justification for excluding circulars concerning such enterprises from the federal postal system, Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 736-787 (1878). We likewise deferred to congressional judgment in upholding the similar exclusion for newspapers that contained either lottery advertisements or prize lists. In re Rapier, 143 U. S. 110, 134-135 (1892); see generally Edge, 509 U. S., at 421-422; Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321 (1903). The current versions of these early antilottery statutes are now codified at 18 U. S. C. §§ 1301-1303.
Congress extended its restrictions on lottery-related information to broadcasting as communications technology made that practice both possible and profitable. It enacted the statute at issue in this ease as §316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1088. Now codified at 18 U. S. C. § 1304 (“Broadcasting lottery information”), the statute prohibits radio and television broadcasting, by any station for which a license is required, of
“any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes.”
The statute provides that each day’s prohibited broadcasting constitutes a separate offense punishable by a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Ibid. Although § 1304 is a criminal statute, the Solicitor General informs us that, in practice, the provision traditionally has been enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which imposes administrative sanctions on radio and telé-vision licensees for violations of the agency’s implementing regulation. See 47 CFR § 73.1211 (1998); Brief for Respondents 3. Petitioners now concede that the broadcast ban in § 1304 and the FCC’s regulation encompasses advertising for privately owned casinos — a concession supported by the broad language of the statute, our precedent, and the FCC’s sound interpretation. See FCC v. American Broadcasting Co., 347 U. S. 284, 290-291, and n. 8 (1954).
During the second half of this century, Congress dramatically narrowed the scope of the broadcast prohibition in § 1304. The first inroad was minor: In 1950, certain not-for-profit fishing contests were exempted as “innocent pastimes... far removed from the reprehensible type of gambling activity which it was paramount in the congressional mind to forbid.” S. Rep. No. 2243, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1950); see Act of Aug. 16, 1950, ch. 722, 64 Stat. 451, 18 U.S.C. § 1305.
Subsequent exemptions were more substantial. Responding to the growing popularity of state-run lotteries, in 1975 Congress enacted the provision that gave rise to our decision in Edge. 509 U. S., at 422-423; Act of Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1916, 18 U.S.C. §1307; see also § 1953(b)(4). With subsequent modifications, that amendment now exempts advertisements of state-conducted lotteries from the nationwide postal restrictions in §§ 1301 and 1302, and from the broadcast restriction in § 1304, when “broadcast by a radio or television station licensed to a location in... a State which conducts such a lottery.” § 1307(a)(1)(B); see also §§ 1307(a)(1)(A), (b)(1). The § 1304 broadcast restriction remained in place, however, for stations licensed in States that do not conduct lotteries. In Edge, we held that this remaining restriction on broadcasts from nonlottery States, such as North Carolina, supported the “laws against gambling” in those jurisdictions and properly advanced the “congressional policy of balancing the interests of lottery and nonlottery States.” 509 U. S., at 428.
In 1988, Congress enacted two additional statutes that significantly curtailed the coverage of § 1304. First, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 102 Stat. 2467, 25 U. S. C. §2701 et seq., authorized Native American tribes to conduct various forms of gambling — including casino gambling — pursuant to tribal-state compacts if the State permits such gambling “for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity.” § 2710(d)(1)(B). The IGRA also exempted “any gaming conducted by an Indian tribe pursuant to” the Act from both the postal and transportation restrictions in 18 U. S. C. §§ 1301-1302, and the broadcast restriction in § 1304. 25 U. S. C. §2720. Second, the Charity Games Advertising Clarification Act of 1988, 18 U. S. C. § 1307(a)(2), extended the exemption from §§1301-1304 for state-run lotteries to include any other lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme— not prohibited by the law of the State in which it operates — when conducted by: (i) any governmental organization; (ii) any not-for-profit organization; or (iii) a commercial organization as a promotional activity “clearly occasional and ancillary to the primary business of that organization.” There is no dispute that the exemption in § 1307(a)(2) applies to casinos conducted by state and local governments. And, unlike the 1975 broadcast exemption for advertisements of and information concerning state-conducted lotteries, the exemptions in both of these 1988 statutes are not geographically limited; they shield messages from § 1304’s reach in States that do not authorize such gambling as well as those that do.
A separate statute, the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U. S. C. § 3701 et seq., proscribes most sports betting and advertising thereof. Section 3702 makes it unlawful for a State or tribe “to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact” — or for a person “to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote, pursuant to the law or compact” of a State or tribe — any lottery or gambling scheme based directly or indirectly on competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate. However, the Act also includes a variety of exemptions, some with obscured congressional purposes: (i) gambling schemes conducted by States or other governmental entities at any time between January 1,1976, and August 31, 1990; (ii) gambling schemes authorized by statutes in effect on October 2, 1991; (iii) gambling “conducted exclusively in casinos” located in certain municipalities if the schemes were authorized within 1 year of the effective date of the Act and, for “commercial casino gaming scheme[s],” that had been in operation for the preceding 10 years pursuant to a state constitutional provision and comprehensive state regulation applicable to that municipality; and (iv) gambling on parimutuel animal racing or jai-alai games. § 3704(a); see also 18 U. S. C. §§ 1953(b)(1) — (3) (regarding interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia). These exemptions make the scope of §3702’s advertising prohibition somewhat unclear, but the prohibition is not limited to broadcast media and does not depend on the location of a broadcast station or other disseminator of promotional materials.
Thus, unlike the uniform federal antigambling policy that prevailed in 1934 when 18 U. S. C. § 1304 was enacted, federal statutes now accommodate both progambling and anti-gambling segments of the national polity.
h — l h*H
Petitioners are an association of Louisiana broadcasters and its members who operate FCC-licensed radio and television stations in the New Orleans metropolitan area. But for the threat of sanctions pursuant to § 1304 and the FCC’s companion regulation, petitioners would broadcast promotional advertisements for gaming available at private, for-profit casinos that are lawful and regulated in both Louisiana and neighboring Mississippi. According to an FCC official, however, “[ujnder appropriate conditions, some broadcast signals from Louisiana broadcasting stations may be heard in neighboring states including Texas and Arkansas,” 3 Record 628, where private casino gambling is unlawful.
Petitioners brought this action against the United States and the FCC in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, praying for a declaration that § 1304 and the FCC’s regulation violate the First Amendment as applied to them, and for an injunction preventing enforcement of the statute and the rule against them. After noting that all parties agreed that the case should be decided on their cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of the Government. 866 F. Supp. 975, 976 (1994). The court applied the standard for assessing commercial speech restrictions set out in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566 (1980), and concluded that the restrictions at issue adequately advanced the Government’s “substantial interest (1) in protecting the interest of nonlottery states and (2) in reducing participation in gambling and thereby minimizing the social costs associated therewith.” 866 F. Supp., at 979. The court pointed out that federal law does not prohibit the broadcast of all information about casinos, such as advertising that promotes a casino’s amenities rather than its “gaming aspects,” and observed that advertising for state-authorized casinos in Louisiana and Mississippi was actually “abundant.” Id., at 980.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the District Court’s application of Central Hudson, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Government. 69 F. 3d 1296, 1298 (1995). The panel majority’s description of the asserted governmental interests, although more specific, was essentially the same as the District Court’s:
“First, section 1304 serves the interest of assisting states that restrict gambling by regulating interstate activities such as broadcasting that are beyond the powers of the individual states to regulate. The second asserted governmental interest lies in discouraging public participation in commercial gambling, thereby minimizing the wide variety of social ills that have historically been associated with such activities.” Id., at 1299.
The majority relied heavily on our decision in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328 (1986), see 69 F. 3d, at 1300-1302, and endorsed the theory that, because gambling is in a category of “vice activity” that can be banned altogether, “advertising of gambling can lay no greater claim on constitutional protection than the underlying activity,” id., at 1302. In dissent, Chief Judge Politz contended that the many exceptions to the original prohibition in § 1304 — and that section’s conflict with the policies of States that had legalized gambling — precluded justification of the restriction by either an interest in supporting anticasino state policies or “an independent federal interest in discouraging public participation in commercial gambling.” Id., at 1303-1304.
While the broadcasters’ petition for certiorari was pending in this Court, we decided 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S. 484 (1996). Because the opinions in that case concluded that our precedent both preceding and following Posadas had applied the Central Hudson test more strictly, 517 U. S., at 509-510 (opinion of Stevens, J.); id., at 531-532 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) — and because we had rejected the argument that the power to restrict speech about certain socially harmful activities was as broad as the power to prohibit such conduct, see id., at 513-514 (opinion of Stevens, J.); see also Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U. S. 476, 482-483, n. 2 (1995) — we granted the broadcasters’ petition, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the ease for further consideration. 519 U. S. 801 (1996).
On remand, the Fifth Circuit majority adhered to its prior conclusion. 149 F. 3d 334 (1998). The majority recognized that at least part of the Central Hudson inquiry had “become a tougher standard for the state to satisfy,” 149 F. 3d, at 338, but held that § 1304’s restriction on speech sufficiently advanced the asserted, governmental interests and was not “broader than necessary to control participation in casino gambling,” id., at 340. Because the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion in Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 107 F. 3d 1328, cert. denied, 522 U. S. 1115 (1998), as did a Federal District Court in Players Int'l Inc. v. United States, 988 F. Supp. 497 (NJ 1997), we again granted the broadcasters’ petition for certiorari. 525 U. S. 1097 (1999). We now reverse.
III
In a number of cases involving restrictions on speech that is “commercial” in nature, we have employed Central Hudsons four-part test to resolve First Amendment challenges:
“At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” 447 U. S., at 566.
In this analysis, the Government bears the burden of identifying a substantial interest and justifying the challenged restriction. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 770 (1993); Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 480 (1989); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 71, and n. 20 (1983).
The four parts of the Central Hudson test are not entirely discrete. All are important and, to a certain extent, interrelated: Each raises a relevant question that may not be dispositive to the First Amendment inquiry, but the answer to which may inform a judgment concerning the other three. Partly because of these intricacies, petitioners as well as certain judges, scholars, and amici curiae have advocated repudiation of the Central Hudson standard and implementation of a more straightforward and stringent test for assessing the validity of governmental restrictions on commercial speech. As the opinions in kk Liquormart demonstrate, reasonable judges may disagree about the merits of such proposals. It is, however, an established part of our constitutional jurisprudence that we do not ordinarily reach out to make novel or unnecessarily broad pronouncements on constitutional issues when a ease can be fully resolved on a narrower ground. See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 21 (1960). In this ease, there is no need to break new ground. Central Hudson, as applied in our more recent commercial speech eases, provides an adequate basis for decision.
IV
All parties to this ease agree that the messages petitioners wish to broadcast constitute commercial speech, and that these broadcasts would satisfy the first part of the Central Hudson test: Their content is not misleading and concerns lawful activities, i. e., private casino gambling in Louisiana and Mississippi. As well, the proposed commercial messages would convey information — whether taken favorably or unfavorably by the audience — about an activity that is the subject of intense public debate in many communities. In addition, petitioners’ broadcasts presumably would disseminate accurate information as to the operation of market competitors, such as pay-out ratios, which can benefit listeners by informing their consumption choices and fostering price competition. Thus, even if the broadcasters’ interest in conveying these messages is entirely pecuniary, the interests of, and benefit to, the audience may be broader. See Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 764-765 (1976); Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 96-97 (1977); Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809, 822 (1975).
The second part of the Central Hudson test asks whether the asserted governmental interest served by the speech restriction is substantial. The Solicitor General identifies two such interests: (1) reducing the social costs associated with “gambling” or “casino gambling,” and (2) assisting States that “restrict gambling” or “prohibit casino gambling” within their own borders. Underlying Congress’ statutory scheme, the Solicitor General contends, is the judgment that gambling contributes to corruption and organized crime; underwrites bribery, narcotics trafficking, and other illegal Conduct; imposes a regressive tax on the poor; and “offers a false but sometimes irresistible hope of financial advancement.” Brief for Respondents 15-16. With respect to casino gambling, the Solicitor General states that many of the associated social costs stem from “pathological” or “compulsive” gambling by approximately 3 million Americans, whose behavior is primarily associated with “continuous play” games, such as slot machines. He also observes that compulsive gambling has grown along with the expansion of legalized gambling nationwide, leading to billions of dollars in economic costs; injury and loss to these gamblers as well as their families, communities, and government; and street, white-collar, and organized crime. Id., at 16-20.
We can accept the characterization of these two interests as “substantial,” but that conclusion is by no means self-evident. No one seriously doubts that the Federal Government may assert a legitimate and substantial interest in alleviating the societal ills recited above, or in assisting like-minded States to do the same. Cf. Edge, 509 U. S., at 428. But in the judgment of both the Congress and many state legislatures, the social costs that support the suppression of gambling are offset, and sometimes outweighed, by countervailing policy considerations, primarily in the form of economic benefits. Despite its awareness of the potential social costs, Congress has not only sanctioned casino gambling for Indian tribes through tribal-state compacts, but has enacted other statutes that reflect approval of state legislation that authorizes a host of public and private gambling activities. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §§ 1307, 1953(b); 25 U. S. C. §§2701-2702, 2710(d); 28 U.S.C. § 3704(a). That Congress has generally exempted state-run lotteries and casinos from federal gambling legislation reflects a decision to defer to, and even promote, differing gambling policies in different States. Indeed, in Edge we identified the federal interest furthered by § 1304’s partial broadcast ban as the “congressional policy of balancing the interests of lottery and non-lottery States.” 509 U. S., at 428. Whatever its character in 1934 when § 1304 was adopted, the federal policy of discouraging gambling in general, and casino gambling in particular, is now decidedly equivocal.
Of course, it is not our function to weigh the policy arguments on either side of the nationwide debate over whether and to what extent casino and other forms of gambling should be legalized. Moreover, enacted congressional policy and “governmental interests” are not necessarily equivalents for purposes of commercial speech analysis. See Bolger, 463 U. S., at 70-71. But we cannot ignore Congress’ unwillingness to adopt a single national policy that consistently endorses either interest asserted by the Solicitor General. See Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 768; 44 Liquormart, 517 U. S., at 531 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Even though the Government has identified substantial interests, when we consider both their quality and the information sought to be suppressed, the crosscurrents in the scope and application of § 1304 become more difficult for the Government to defend.
V
The third part of the Central Hudson test asks whether the speech restriction directly and materially advances the asserted governmental interest. “This burden is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 770-771. Consequently, “the regulation may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government’s purpose.” Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 564. We have observed that “this requirement is critical; otherwise, ‘a State could with ease restrict commercial speech in the service of other objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on commercial expression.’ ” Rubin, 514 U. S., at 487, quoting Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 771.
The fourth part of the test complements the direct-advancement inquiry of the third, asking whether the speeeh restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve the interests that support it. The Government is not required to employ the least restrictive means conceivable, but it must demonstrate narrow tailoring of the challenged regulation to the asserted interest — “a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is in proportion to the interest served.” Fox, 492 U. S., at 480 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 44 Liquormart, 517 U. S., at 529, 581 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). On the whole, then, the challenged regulation should indicate that its proponent “ ‘carefully calculated’ the costs and benefits associated with the burden on speech imposed by its prohibition.” Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U. S. 410, 417 (1993), quoting Fox, 492 U. S., at 480.
As applied to petitioners’ case, § 1304 cannot satisfy these standards. With regard to the first asserted interest— alleviating the social costs of casino gambling by limiting demand — the Government contends that its broadcasting restrictions directly advance that interest because “promotional” broadcast advertising concerning casino gambling increases demand for such gambling, which in turn increases the amount of casino gambling that produces those social costs. Additionally, the Government believes that compulsive gamblers are especially susceptible to the pervasiveness and potency of broadcast advertising. Brief for Respondents 33-36. Assuming the accuracy of this causal chain, it does not necessarily follow that the Government’s speech ban has directly and materially furthered the asserted interest. While it is no doubt fair to assume that more advertising would have some impact on overall demand for gambling, it is also reasonable to assume that much of that advertising would merely channel gamblers to one casino rather than another. More important, any measure of the effectiveness of the Government’s attempt to minimize the social costs of gambling cannot ignore Congress’ simultaneous encouragement of tribal casino gambling, which may well be growing at a rate exceeding any increase in gambling or compulsive gambling that private casino advertising could produce. See n. 5, supra. And, as the Court of Appeals recognized, the Government fails to “connect casino gambling and compulsive gambling with broadcast advertising for casinos” — let alone broadcast advertising for non-Indian commercial casinos. 149 F. 3d, at 339.
We need not resolve the question whether any lack of evidence in the record fails to satisfy the standard of proof under Central Hudson, however, because the flaw in the Government’s ease is more fundamental: The operation of § 1304 and its attendant regulatory regime is so pierced by exemptions and inconsistencies that the Government cannot hope to exonerate it. See Rubin, 514 U. S., at 488. Under current law, a broadcaster may not carry advertising about privately operated commercial casino gambling, regardless of the location of the station or the casino. 18 U. S. C. § 1304; 47 CFR § 73.1211(a) (1998). On the other hand, advertisements for tribal casino gambling authorized by state compacts — whether operated by the tribe or by a private party pursuant to a management contract — are subject to no such broadcast ban, even if the broadcaster is located in, or broadcasts to, a jurisdiction with the strictest of antigambling policies. 25 U. S. C. § 2720. Government-operated, nonprofit, and “occasional and ancillary” commercial casinos are likewise exempt. 18 U. S. C. § 1307(a)(2).
The FCC’s interpretation and application of §§1304 and 1307 underscore the statute’s infirmity. Attempting to enforce the underlying purposes and policy of the statute, the FCC has permitted broadcasters to tempt viewers with claims of “Vegas-style excitement” at a commercial “casino,” if “casino” is part of the establishment’s proper name and the advertisement can be taken to refer to the casino’s amenities, rather than directly promote its gaming aspects. While we can hardly fault the FCC in view of the statute’s focus on the suppression of certain types of information, the agency’s practice is squarely at odds with the governmental interests asserted in this case.
From what we can gather, the Government is committed to prohibiting accurate product information, not commercial enticements of all kinds, and then only when conveyed over certain forms of media and for certain types of gambling— indeed, for only certain brands of casino gambling — and despite the fact that messages about the availability of such gambling are being conveyed over the airwaves by other speakers.
Even putting aside the broadcast exemptions for arguably distinguishable sorts of gambling that might also give rise to social costs about which the Federal Government is concerned — such as state lotteries and parimutuel betting on horse and dog races, § 1307(a)(1)(B); 28 U. S. C. § 3704(a)— the Government presents no convincing reason for pegging its speech ban to the identity of the owners or operators of the advertised casinos. The Government cites revenue needs of States and tribes that conduct casino gambling, and notes that net revenues generated by the tribal casinos are dedicated to the welfare of the tribes and their members. See 25 U. S. C. §§ 2710(b)(2)(B), (d)(1)(A)(ii), (2)(A). Yet the Government admits that tribal casinos offer precisely the same types of gambling as private casinos. Further, the Solicitor General does not maintain that government-operated casino gaming is any different, that States cannot derive revenue from taxing private casinos, or that any one class of casino operators is likely to advertise in a meaningfully distinct manner from the others. The Government’s suggestion that Indian casinos are too isolated to warrant attention is belied by a quick review of tribal geography and the Government’s own evidence regarding the financial success of tribal gaming. See n. 5, supra. If distance were determinative, Las Vegas might have remained a relatively small community, or simply disappeared like a desert mirage.
Ironically, the most significant difference identified by the Government between tribal and other classes of casino gambling is that the former is “heavily regulated.” Brief for Respondents 88. If such direct regulation provides a basis for believing that the social costs of gambling in tribal casinos are sufficiently mitigated to make their advertising tolerable, one would have thought that Congress might have at least experimented with comparable regulation before abridging the speech rights of federally unregulated casinos. While Congress’ failure to institute such direct regulation of private casino gambling does not necessarily compromise the constitutionality of §1304, it does undermine the asserted justifications for the restriction before us. See Rubin, 514 U. S., at 490-491. There surely are practical and nonspeeeh-related forms of regulation-including a prohibition or supervision of gambling on credit; limitations on the use of cash machines on casino premises; controls on admissions; pot or betting limits; location restrictions; and licensing requirements — that could more directly and effectively alleviate some of the social costs of casino gambling.
We reached a similar conclusion in Rubin. There, we considered the effect of conflicting federal policies on the Government’s claim that a speech restriction materially advanced its interest in preventing so-called “strength wars” among competing sellers of certain alcoholic beverages. We concluded that the effect of the challenged restriction on commercial speech had to be evaluated in the context of the entire regulatory seheme, rather than in isolation, and we invalidated the restriction based on the “overall irrationality of the Government’s regulatory scheme.” Id., at 488. As in this case, there was “little chance” that the speech restriction could have directly and materially advanced its aim, “while other provisions of the same Act directly undermine[d] and counteract[ed] its effects.” Id., at 489. Coupled with the availability of other regulatory options which could advance the asserted interests “in a manner less intrusive to [petitioners’] First Amendment rights,” we found that the Government could not satisfy the Central Hudson test. Id., at 490-491.
Given the special federal interest in protecting the welfare of Native Americans, see California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U. S. 202, 216-217 (1987), we recognize that there may be valid reasons for imposing commercial regulations on non-Indian businesses that differ from those imposed on tribal enterprises. It does not follow, however, that those differences also justify abridging non-Indians’ freedom of speech more severely than the freedom of their tribal competitors. For the power to prohibit or to regulate particular conduct does not necessarily include the power to prohibit or regulate speech about that conduct. 44 Liquormart, 517 U. S., at 509-511 (opinion of Stevens, J.); see id., at 531-532 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Rubin, 514 U. S., at 483, n. 2. It is well settled that the First Amendment mandates closer scrutiny of government restrictions on speech than of its regulation of commerce alone. Fox, 492 U. S., at 480. And to the extent that the purpose and operation of federal law distinguishes among information about tribal, governmental, and private casinos based on the identity of their owners or operators, the Government presents no sound reason why such lines bear any meaningful relationship to the particular interest asserted: minimizing casino gambling and its social costs by way of a (partial) broadcast ban. Discovery Network, 507 U. S., at 424, 428. Even under the degree of scrutiny that we have applied in commercial speech cases, decisions that select among speakers conveying virtually identical messages are in serious tension with the principles undergirding the First Amendment. Cf. Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 465 (1980); First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777, 784-785 (1978).
The second interest asserted by the Government — the derivative goal of “assisting” States with policies that disfavor private casinos — adds little to its case. We cannot see how this broadcast restraint, ambivalent as it is, might directly and adequately further any state interest in dampening consumer demand for casino gambling if it cannot achieve the same goal with respect to the similar federal interest.
Furthermore, even assuming that the state policies on which the Federal Government seeks to embellish are more coherent and pressing than their federal counterpart, § 1304 sacrifices an intolerable amount of truthful speech about lawful conduct when compared to all of the policies at stake and the social ills that one could reasonably hope such a ban to eliminate. The Government argues that petitioners’ speech about private casino gambling should be prohibited in Louisiana because, “under appropriate conditions,” 3 Record 628, citizens in neighboring States like Arkansas and Texas (which hosts tribal, but not private, commercial casino gambling) might hear it and make rash or costly decisions. To be sure, in order to achieve a broader objective such regulations may incidentally, even deliberately, restrict a certain amount of speech not thought to contribute significantly to the dangers with which the Government is concerned. See Fox, 492 U. S., at 480; cf. Edge, 509 U. S., at 429-430. But Congress’ choice here was neither a rough approximation of efficacy, nor a reasonable accommodation of competing state and private interests. Rather, the regulation distinguishes among the indistinct, permitting a variety of speech that poses the same risks the Government purports to fear, while banning messages unlikely to cause any harm at all. Considering the manner in which § 1304 and its exceptions operate and the scope of the speech it proscribes, the Government’s second asserted interest provides no more convincing basis for upholding the regulation than the first.
VI
Accordingly, respondents cannot overcome the presumption that the speaker and the audience, not the Government, should be left to assess the value of accurate and nonmis-leading information about lawful conduct. Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 767. Had the Federal Government adopted a more coherent policy, or accommodated the rights of speakers in States that have legalized the underlying conduct, see Edge, 509 U. S., at 428, this might be a different case. But under current federal law, as applied to petitioners and the messages that they wish to convey, the broadcast prohibition in 18 U.S.C. §1304 and 47 CFR §73.1211 (1998) violates the First Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
See, e. g., Act of Mar. 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 963 (prohibiting the transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, and the mailing of, tickets and advertisements for lotteries and similar enterprises); Act of Mar. 2, 1827, §6, 4 Stat. 238 (restricting the participation of postmasters and assistant postmasters in the lottery business); Act of July 27, 1868, § 13, 15 Stat. 196 (prohibiting the mailing of any letters or circulars concerning lotteries or similar enterprises); Act of July 12, 1876, §2, 19 Stat. 90 (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation challenges the validity, under the United States Constitution, of Local Act No. 140, passed by the Legislature of Alabama in 1957, redefining the boundaries of the City of Tuskegee. Petitioners, Negro citizens of Alabama who were, at the time of this redistricting measure, residents of the City of Tuskegee, brought an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for a declaratory judgment that Act 140 is unconstitutional, and for an injunction to restrain the Mayor and officers of Tuskegee and the officials of Macon County, Alabama, from enforcing the Act against them and other Negroes similarly situated. Petitioners’ claim is that enforcement of the statute, which alters the shape of Tuskegee from a square to an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure, will constitute a discrimination against them in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and will deny them the right to vote in defiance of the Fifteenth Amendment.
The respondents moved for dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for lack of jurisdiction of the District Court. The court granted the motion, stating, “This Court has no control over, no supervision over, and no power to change any boundaries of municipal corporations fixed by a duly convened and elected legislative body, acting for the people in the State of Alabama.” 167 F. Supp. 405, 410. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirmed the judgment, one judge dissenting. 270 F. 2d 594. We brought the case here since serious questions were raised concerning the power of a State over its municipalities in relation to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. 362 U. S. 916.
At this stage of the litigation we are not concerned with the truth of the allegations, that is, the ability of petitioners to sustain their allegations by proof. The sole question is whether the allegations entitle them to make good on their claim that they are being denied rights under the United States Constitution. The complaint, charging that Act 140 is a device to disenfranchise Negro citizens, alleges the following facts: Prior to Act 140 the City of Tuskegee was square in shape; the Act transformed it into a strangely irregular twenty-eight-sided figure as indicated in the diagram appended to this opinion. The essential inevitable effect of this redefinition of Tuskegee’s boundaries is to remove from the city all save only four or five of its 400 Negro voters while not removing a single white voter or resident. The result of the Act is to deprive the Negro petitioners discriminatorily of the benefits of residence in Tuskegee, including, inter alia, the right to vote in municipal elections.
These allegations, if proven, would abundantly establish that Act 140 was not an ordinary geographic redistricting measure even within familiar abuses of gerrymandering. If these allegations upon a trial remained uncontradicted or unqualified, the conclusion would be irresistible, tantamount for all practical purposes to a mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely concerned with segregating white and colored voters by fencing Negro citizens out of town so as to deprive them of their pre-existing municipal vote.
It is difficult to appreciate what stands in the way of adjudging a statute having this inevitable effect invalid in light of the principles by which this Court must judge, and uniformly has judged, statutes that, howsoever speciously defined, obviously discriminate against colored citizens. “The [Fifteenth] Amendment nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination.” Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 275.
The complaint amply alleges a claim of racial discrimination. Against this claim the respondents have never suggested, either in their brief or in oral argument, any countervailing municipal function which Act 140 is designed to serve. The respondents invoke generalities expressing the State's unrestricted power — unlimited, that is, by the United States Constitution — to establish, destroy, or reorganize by contraction or expansion its political subdivisions, to wit, cities, counties, and other local units. We freely recognize the breadth and importance of this aspect of the State's political power. To exalt this power into an absolute is to misconceive the reach and rule of this Court’s decisions in the leading case of Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, and related cases relied upon by respondents.
The Hunter case involved a claim by citizens of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, that the General Assembly of that State could not direct a consolidation of their city and Pittsburgh over the objection of a majority of the Allegheny voters. It was alleged that while Allegheny already had made numerous civic improvements, Pittsburgh was only then planning to undertake such improvements, and that the annexation would therefore greatly increase the tax burden on Allegheny residents. All that the case held was (1) that there is no implied contract between a city and its residents that their taxes will be spent solely for the benefit of that city, and (2) that a citizen of one municipality is not deprived of property without due process of law by being subjected to increased tax burdens as a result of the consolidation of his city with another. Related cases, upon which the respondents also rely, such as Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182; Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil Co., 250 U. S. 394; and Laramie County v. Albany County, 92 U. S. 307, are far off the mark. They are authority only for the principle that no constitutionally protected contractual obligation arises between a State and its subordinate governmental entities solely as a result of their relationship.
In short, the cases that have come before this Court regarding legislation by States dealing with their political subdivisions fall into two classes: (1) those in which it is claimed that the State, by virtue of the prohibition against impairment of the obligation of contract (Art. I, § 10) and of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is without power to extinguish, or alter the boundaries of, an existing municipality; and (2) in which it is claimed that the State has no power to change the identity of a municipality whereby citizens of a pre-exist-ing municipality suffer serious economic disadvantage.
Neither of these claims is supported by such a specific limitation upon State power as confines the States under the Fifteenth Amendment. As to the first category, it is obvious that the creation of municipalities — clearly a political act — does not come within the conception of a contract under the Dartmouth College case. 4 Wheat. 518. As to the second, if one principle clearly emerges from the numerous decisions of this Court dealing with taxation it is that the Due Process Clause affords no immunity against mere inequalities in tax burdens, nor does it afford protection against their increase as an indirect consequence of a State’s exercise of its political powers.
Particularly in dealing with claims under broad provisions of the Constitution, which derive content by an interpretive process of inclusion and exclusion, it is imperative that generalizations, based on and qualified by the concrete situations that gave rise to them, must not be applied out of context in disregard of variant controlling facts. Thus, a correct reading of the seemingly unconfined dicta of Hunter and kindred cases is not that the State has plenary power to manipulate in every conceivable way, for every conceivable purpose, the affairs of its municipal corporations, but rather that the State’s authority is unrestrained by the particular prohibitions of the Constitution considered in those cases.
The Hunter opinion itself intimates that a state legislature may not be omnipotent even as to the disposition of some types of property owned by municipal corporations, 207 U. S., at 178-181. Further, other cases in this Court have refused to allow a State to abolish a municipality, or alter its boundaries, or merge it with another city, without preserving to the creditors of the old city some effective recourse for the collection of debts owed them. Shapleigh v. San Angelo, 167 U. S. 646; Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289; Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514; Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266. For example, in Mobile v. Watson the Court said:
“Where the resource for the payment of the bonds of a municipal corporation is the power of taxation existing when the bonds were issued, any law which withdraws or limits the taxing power and leaves no adequate means for the payment of the bonds is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States, and is null and void.” Mobile v. Watson, supra, 116 U. S., at 305.
This line of authority conclusively shows that the Court has never acknowledged that the States have power to do as they will with municipal corporations regardless of consequences. Legislative control of municipalities, no less than other state power, lies within the scope of relevant limitations imposed by the United States Constitution. The observation in Graham v. Folsom, 200 U. S. 248, 253, becomes relevant: “The power of the State to alter or destroy its corporations is not greater than the power of the State to repeal its legislation.” In that case, which involved the attempt by state officials to evade the collection of taxes to discharge the obligations of an extinguished township, Mr. Justice McKenna, writing for the Court, went on to point out, with reference to the Mount Pleasant and Mobile cases:
“It was argued in those cases, as it is argued in this, that such alteration or destruction of the subordinate governmental divisions was a proper exercise of legislative power, to which creditors had to submit. The argument did not prevail. It was answered, as we now answer it, that such power, extensive though it is, is met and overcome by the provision of the Constitution of the United States which forbids a State from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. . . .” 200 U. S., at 253-254.
If all this is so in regard to the constitutional protection of contracts, it should be equally true that, to paraphrase, such power, extensive though it is, is met and overcome by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State from passing any law which deprives a citizen of his vote because of his race. The opposite conclusion, urged upon us by respondents, would sanction the achievement by a State of any impairment of voting rights whatever so long as it was cloaked in the garb of the realignment of political subdivisions. “It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.” Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U. S. 583, 594.
The respondents find another barrier to the trial of this case in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549. In that case the Court passed on an Illinois law governing the arrangement of congressional districts within that State. The complaint rested upon the disparity of population between the different districts which rendered the effectiveness of each individual’s vote in some districts far less than in others. This disparity came to pass solely through shifts in population between 1901, when Illinois organized its congressional districts, and 1946, when the complaint was lodged. During this entire period elections were held under the districting scheme devised in 1901. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it presented a subject not meet for adjudication. The decisive facts in this case, which at this stage must be taken as proved, are wholly different from the considerations found controlling in Colegrove.
That case involved a complaint of discriminatory apportionment of congressional districts. The appellants in Colegrove complained only of a dilution of the strength of their votes as a result of legislative inaction over a course of many years. The petitioners here complain that affirmative legislative action deprives them of their votes and the consequent advantages that the ballot affords. When a legislature thus singles out a readily isolated segment of a racial minority for special discriminatory treatment, it violates the Fifteenth Amendment. In no case involving unequal weight in voting distribution that has come before the Court did the decision sanction a differentiation on racial lines whereby approval was given to unequivocal withdrawal of the vote solely from colored citizens. Apart from all else, these considerations lift this controversy out of the so-called “political” arena and into the conventional sphere of constitutional litigation.
In sum, as Mr. Justice Holmes remarked, when dealing with a related situation, in Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540, “Of course the petition concerns political action,” but “The objection that the subject matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words.” A statute which is alleged to have worked unconstitutional deprivations of petitioners’ rights is not immune to attack simply because the mechanism employed by the legislature is a redefinition of municipal boundaries. According to the allegations here made, the Alabama Legislature has not merely redrawn the Tuskegee city limits with incidental inconvenience to the petitioners; it is more accurate to say that it has deprived the petitioners of the municipal franchise and consequent rights and to that end it has incidentally changed the city’s boundaries. While in form this is merely an act redefining metes and bounds, if the allegations are established, the inescapable human effect of this essay in geometry and geography is to despoil colored citizens, and only colored citizens, of their theretofore enjoyed voting rights. That was not Colegrove v. Green.
When a State exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right. This principle has had many applications. It has long been recognized in cases which have prohibited a State from exploiting a power acknowledged to be absolute in an isolated context to justify the imposition of an “unconstitutional condition.” What the Court has said in those cases is equally applicable here, viz., that “Acts generally lawful may become unlawful when done to accomplish an unlawful end, United States v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324, 357, and a constitutional power cannot be used by way of condition to attain an unconstitutional result.” Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U. S. 105, 114. The petitioners are entitled to prove their allegations at trial.
For these reasons, the principal conclusions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals are clearly erroneous
and the decision below must be D ,
D Reversed.
MR. Justice Douglas, while joining the opinion of the Court, adheres to the dissents in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549, and South v. Peters, 339 U. S. 276.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Chart Showing Tuskegee, Alabama, Before and After Act 140
(The entire area of the square comprised the City prior to Act 140. The irregular black-bordered figure within the square represents the post-enactment city.)
Soon after the decision in the Colegrove case, Governor Dwight H. Green of Illinois in his 1947 biennial message to the legislature recommended a reapportionment. The legislature immediately responded, Ill. Sess. Laws 1947, p. 879, and in 1951 redistricted again. Ill. Sess. Laws 1951, p. 1924.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This review on certiorari requires us to decide whether a United States District Court has power to vacate its judgment of conviction and sentence after the expiration of the full term of service.
On December 18, 1939, respondent pleaded guilty on a federal charge, in the Northern District of New York, and was given a four-year sentence which he served. Thereafter, in 1950, he was convicted by a New York court on a state charge, sentenced to a longer term as a second offender because of the prior federal conviction, and is now incarcerated in a state prison.
As courts of New York State will not review the judgments of other jurisdictions on habeas corpus or coram nobis, People v. McCullough, 300 N. Y. 107, 110, 89 N. E. 2d 335, 336-337, respondent filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis and gave notice of a motion for the writ in the United States District Court where his first sentence was received. Both sought an order voiding the judgment of conviction. The ground was violation of his constitutional rights through failure, without his competent waiver, to furnish him counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458. The District Court in an unreported decision treated the proceeding as a motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 and refused relief because it had no jurisdiction as the applicant was no longer in custody under its sentence, citing United States v. Lavelle, 194 F. 2d 202, a controlling authority on that point. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that 28 U. S. C. § 2255 did not supersede “all other remedies which could be invoked in the nature of the common law writ of error coram nobis.” As it considered that the remedy sought was of that kind and the application justified a hearing because the error alleged was “of fundamental character,” the Court of Appeals reversed and, without passing upon the sufficiency of the allegations, directed remand for further proceedings. United States v. Morgan, 202 F. 2d 67. Deeming the decision to conflict with United States v. Kerschman, 201 F. 2d 682, we granted certiorari. 345 U. S. 974.
The foregoing summary of steps discloses respondent’s uncertainty in respect to choice of remedy. The papers are labeled as though they sought a common-law writ of error coram nobis but the notice of the motion indicates that an order voiding the judgment is sought. In behalf of the unfortunates, federal courts should act in doing justice if the record makes plain a right to relief. We think a belated effort to set aside the conviction and sentence in the federal criminal case is shown. We therefore treat the record as adequately presenting a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis enabling the trial court to properly exercise its jurisdiction. Adams v. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 272. So treating the motion, Rule 35, Fed. Rules Crim. Proe., allowing the correction of “an illegal sentence at any time” is inapplicable. Sentences subject to correction under that rule are those that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.
Since this motion in the nature of the ancient writ of coram nobis is not specifically authorized by any statute enacted by Congress, the power to grant such relief, if it exists, must come from the all-writs section of the Judicial Code. This section originated in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its substance persisted through the Revised Statutes, § 716, and the Judicial Code, § 262, to its present form upholding the judicial power to attain justice for suitors through procedural forms “agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” If there is power granted to issue writs of coram nobis by the all-writs section, we hold it would comprehend the power for the District Court to take cognizance of this motion in the nature of a coram nobis. See note 4, supra. To move by motion instead of by writ is purely procedural. The question then is whether the all-writs section gives federal courts power to employ coram nobis.
The writ of coram nobis was available at common law to correct errors of fact. It was allowed without limitation of time for facts that affect the “validity and regularity” of the judgment, and was used in both civil and criminal cases. While the occasions for its use were infrequent, no one doubts its availability at common law. Coram nobis has had a continuous although limited use also in our states. Although the scope of the remedy at common law is often described by references to the instances specified by Tidd’s Practice, see note 9, supra, its use has been by no means so limited. The House of Lords in 1844 took cognizance of an objection through the writ based on a failure properly to swear witnesses. See the O’Connell case, note 11, supra. It has been used, in the United States, with and without statutory authority but always with reference to its common-law scope — for example, to inquire as to the imprisonment of a slave not subject to imprisonment, insanity of a defendant, a conviction on a guilty plea through the coercion of fear of mob violence, failure to advise of right to counsel. An interesting instance of the use of coram nobis by the Court of Errors of New York is found in Davis v. Packard, 8 Pet. 312. It was used by the Court of Errors, and approved by this Court, to correct an error “of fact not apparent on the face of the record” in the trial court, to wit, the fact that Mr. Davis was consul-general of the King of Saxony and therefore exempt from suit in the state court.
This Court discussed the applicability of a motion in federal courts in the nature of coram nobis in United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 67. There a convicted defendant alleged he discovered through no fault of his, only after the end of the term in which he was convicted, misconduct of an assistant United States attorney and concealed bias of a juror against him, the defendant. This Court refused to direct consideration of the motion after the term expired because the remedy, if any, was by writ of error or motion for new trial. As it was not applicable in the circumstances of the Mayer case, this Court refused to say whether a motion coram nobis would ever lie in federal courts. This Court has approved correction of clerical errors after the term. Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U. S. 141, 154. However, we have not held that the writ of coram nobis or a motion of that nature was available in the federal courts.
In other federal courts than ours, there has been a difference of opinion as to the availability of the remedy. Chief Justice Marshall in Strode v. The Stafford Justices, 1 Brock. 162, 23 Fed. Cas. 236, overruled an objection to a writ of error coram nobis to set aside a fourteen-year-old judgment because of the death of one party prior to its rendition. In explication, the Chief Justice pointed out that the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 84, § 22, limited to five years the bringing of any writ of error and forbade it “for any error in fact.” In allowing the coram nobis, he held that the section showed the writ of error referred to was a writ on appeal and therefore the error in fact could not be examined except by coram nobis. The Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held the motion available for claims of insanity. The Third and Fourth Circuits have made similar rulings in cases similar to this. The Fifth Circuit remanded for inquiry into a movant’s allegation upon a similar motion that witnesses against him had been coerced by officers to commit perjury in testifying against him. In many other cases federal courts have taken cognizance of motions in the nature of coram nobis but denied them because the circumstances did not make coram nobis available. There are few cases where the power to consider a motion for coram nobis relief has been denied.
The contention is made that § 2255 of Title 28, U. S. C., providing that a prisoner “in custody” may at any time move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate it, if “in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,” should be construed to cover the entire field of remedies in the nature of coram nobis in federal courts. We see no compelling reason to reach that conclusion. In United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, 219, we stated the purpose of § 2255 was “to meet practical difficulties” in the administration of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. We added: “Nowhere in the history of Section 2255 do we find any purpose to impinge upon prisoners’ rights of collateral attack upon their convictions.” We know of nothing in the legislative history that indicates a different conclusion. We do not think that the enactment of § 2255 is a bar to this motion, and we hold that the District Court has power to grant such a motion.
Continuation of litigation after final judgment and exhaustion or waiver of any statutory right of review should be allowed through this extraordinary remedy only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice. There are suggestions in the Government’s brief that the facts that justify coram nobis procedure must have been unknown to the judge. Since respondent’s youth and lack of counsel were so known, it is argued, the remedy of coram nobis is unavailable. One finds similar statements as to the knowledge of the judge occasionally in the literature and cases of coram nobis. Such an attitude may reflect the rule that deliberate failure to use a known remedy at the time of trial may be a bar to subsequent reliance on the defaulted right. The trial record apparently shows Morgan was without counsel. United States v. Morgan, 202 F. 2d 67, 69. He alleges he was nineteen, without knowledge of law and not advised as to his rights. The record is barren of the reasons that brought about a trial without legal representation for the accused. As the plea was “guilty” no details of the hearing appear. Cf. De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U. S. 663. In this state of the record we cannot know the facts and thus we must rely on respondent’s allegations.
In the Mayer case this Court said that coram nobis included errors “of the most fundamental character.” Under the rule of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 468, decided prior to respondent’s conviction, a federal trial without competent and intelligent waiver of counsel bars a conviction of the accused. Where it cannot be deduced from the record whether counsel was properly waived, we think, no other remedy being then available and sound reasons existing for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief, this motion in the nature of the extraordinary writ of coram nobis must be heard by the federal trial court. Otherwise a wrong may stand uncorrected which the available remedy would right. Of course, the absence of a showing of waiver from the record does not of itself invalidate the judgment. It is presumed the proceedings were correct and the burden rests on the accused to show otherwise. Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at 468; Adams v. McCann, supra, at 281; cf. Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 218.
Although the term has been served, the results of the conviction may persist. Subsequent convictions may carry heavier penalties, civil rights may be affected. As the power to remedy-an invalid sentence exists, we think, respondent is entitled to an opportunity to attempt to show that this conviction was invalid.
Affirmed.
New York Penal Law, § 1941.
28 U. S. C. § 2255:
“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”
Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 203-204:
“The writ of habeas corpus commands general recognition as the essential remedy to safeguard a citizen against imprisonment by State or Nation in violation of his constitutional rights. To make this protection effective for unlettered prisoners without friends or funds, federal courts have long disregarded legalistic requirements in examining applications for the writ and judged the papers by the simple statutory test of whether facts are alleged that entitle the applicant to relief.”
Such a motion is a step in the criminal case and not, like habeas corpus where relief is sought in a separate case and record, the beginning of a separate civil proceeding. Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 494. While at common law the writ of error coram nobis was issued out of chancery like other writs, Stephens, Principles of Pleading (3d Amer. ed.), 142, the procedure by motion in the case is now the accepted American practice. Pickett’s Heirs v. Legerwood, 7 Pet. 144, 147; Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U. S. 141, 151; United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 67. As it is such a step, we do not think that Rule 60 (b), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., expressly abolishing the writ of error comm nobis in civil cases, applies. This motion is of the same general character as one under 28 U. S. C. § 2255. See Reviser’s Note. Cf. United States v. Kerschman, 201 F. 2d 682, 684. And see contra to the above note, People v. Kemnetz, 296 Ill. App. 119, 15 N. E. 2d 883.
United States v. Bradford, 194 F. 2d 197, 201; see also Tinder v. United States, 345 U. S. 565.
28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a): “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
Reviser’s Note:
“The revised section extends the power to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction, to all courts established by Act of Congress, thus making explicit the right to exercise powers implied from the creation of such courts.”
1 Stat. 81-82:
“That all the before-mentioned courts of the United Statesj shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. . . .”
See United States Alkali Assn. v. United States, 325 U. S. 196, 201; cf. United States v. Beatty, 232 U. S. 463, 467.
2 Tidd’s Practice (4th Amer. ed.) 1136-1137:
“If a judgment in the King’s Bench be erroneous in matter of fact only, and not in point of law, it may be reversed in the same court, by writ of error coram nobis, or quae coram nobis resident; so called, from its being founded on the record and process, which are stated in the writ to remain in the court of the lord the king, before the king himself; as where the defendant, being under age, appeared by attorney, or the plaintiff or defendant was a married woman at the time of commencing the suit, or died before verdict, or interlocutory judgment: for error in fact is not the error of the judges, and reversing it is not reversing their own judgment. So, upon a judgment in the King’s Bench, if there be error in the process, or through the default of the clerks, it may be reversed in the same court, by writ of error coram nobis: . . . .”
Stephens, Principles of Pleading (3d Amer. ed.), 143; 2 Bishop, New Criminal Procedure (2d ed.), 1181.
See citations in n. 10, and United States v. Plumer, 27 Fed. Cas. 561, 572, Mr. Justice Clifford; O’Connell v. The Queen, 11 Cl. & Fin. (H. L. Rep.) 155, 233, 252.
Archbold (7th ed., Chitty, 1840) 350, 389; 1 Holdsworth, History of English Law (1927), 224.
A collection of these cases appears in an article by Abraham L. Freedman, Esq., 3 Temple L. Q. 365, 372. See Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 416.
Ex parte Toney, 11 Mo. 661; Adler v. State, 35 Ark. 517; Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318; Matter of Hogan v. Court, 296 N. Y. 1, 9, 68 N. E. 2d 849, 852-853. See also a discussion of the New York cases by Judge Stanley H. Fuld, The Writ of Error Coram Nobis, 117 New York L. J. 2212, 2230, 2248, issues of June 5, 6, 7, 1947; Note, 34 Cornell L. Q. 596. Spence v. Dowd, 145 F. 2d 451; cf. Hysler v. Florida, 315 U. S. 411; Taylor v. Alabama, 335 U. S. 252; People v. Green, 355 Ill. 468, 189 N. E. 500.
“. . . and even if it be assumed that in the case of errors in certain matters of fact, the district courts may exercise in criminal cases — as an incident to their powers expressly granted — a correctional jurisdiction at subsequent terms analogous to that exercised at common law on writs of error coram nobis (See Bishop, New Crim. Pro., 2d ed., § 1369), as to which we express no opinion, that authority would not reach the present case. This jurisdiction was of limited scope; the power of the court thus to vacate its judgments for errors of fact existed, as already stated, in those cases where the errors were of the most fundamental character, that is, such as rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Id., p. 69. See also Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 416; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 673.
In United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469, 475, note 4, we referred to the slight need for a remedy like coram nobis in view of the modern substitutes.
Allen v. United States, 162 F. 2d 193; Robinson v. Johnston, 118 F. 2d 998, 1001, vacated and remanded for further proceedings, 316 U. S. 649.
Roberts v. United States, 158 F. 2d 150; United States v. Steese, 144 F. 2d 439. See also United States v. Monjar, 64 F. Supp. 746.
Garrison v. United States, 154 F. 2d 106; cf. Pierce v. United States, 157 F. 2d 848.
Tinkoff v. United States, 129 F. 2d 21; Barber v. United States, 142 F. 2d 805; Spaulding v. United States, 155 F. 2d 919; United States v. Moore, 166 F. 2d 102; Crowe v. United States, 169 F. 2d 1022; Bice v. United States, 177 F. 2d 843; United States v. Rockower, 171 F. 2d 423; Farnsworth v. United States, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 121, 198 F. 2d 600. Cf. Strang v. United States, 53 F. 2d 820.
United States v. Kerschman, 201 F. 2d 682; Gilmore v. United States, 129 F. 2d 199.
56 Yale L. J. 197, 233; 34 Cornell L. Q. 598; Robinson v. Johnston, 118 F. 2d 998, 1001, vacated and remanded for further proceedings, 316 U. S. 649.
Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 486; see Gayes v. New York, 332 U. S. 145, 149, note 3; note, 58 A. L. R. 1286.
Until Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, there was no uniform practice in the federal courts to have the orders show the judges’ conclusion that there had been a competent waiver of counsel. Cf. United States v. Steese, 144 F. 2d 439, 443.
See note 15, supra. Barber v. United States, 142 F. 2d 805, 807; Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 416; Powell, Appellate Proceedings (1872), 108; Black, Judgments (2d ed.), 460.
See also Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275; Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60; Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 44.
Cf. Brown v. Allen, supra, at 485-486.
Fiswick v. United States, 329 U. S. 211; Note, 59 Yale L. J. 786.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of the respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of cer-tiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light of Chambers v. Maroney, ante, p. 42.
Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, he would affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Chambers v. Maroney, ante, p. 55.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the running of the two-year statute of limitations governing suits based on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA or Act), as added, 84 Stat. 1127, and amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1681 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V). The time prescription appears in §1681p, which sets out a general rule and an exception. Generally, an action to enforce any liability created by the Act may be brought “within two years from the date on which the liability arises.” The exception covers willful misrepresentation of “any information required under [the Act] to be disclosed to [the plaintiff]”: When such a representation is material to a claim under the Act, suit may be brought “within two years after [the plaintiff’s] discovery ... of the misrepresentation.”
Section 1681p’s exception is not involved in this case; the complaint does not allege misrepresentation of information that the FCRA “required] ... to be disclosed to [the plaintiff].” Plaintiff-respondent Adelaide Andrews nevertheless contends, and the Ninth Circuit held, that §1681p’s generally applicable two-year limitation commenced to run on Andrews’ claims only upon her discovery of defendant-petitioner TRW Inc.’s alleged violations of the Act.
We hold that a discovery rule does not govern §1681p. That section explicitly delineates the exceptional case in which discovery triggers the two-year limitation. We are not at liberty to make Congress’ explicit exception the general rule as well.
I
A
Congress enacted the FCRA in 1970 to promote efficiency -in the Nation’s banking system and to protect consumer privacy. See 15 U. S. C. § 1681(a) (1994 ed.). As relevant here, the Act seeks to accomplish those goals by requiring credit reporting agencies to maintain “reasonable procedures” designed “to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” contained in credit reports, § 1681e(b), and to “limit the furnishing of [such reports] to” certain statutorily enumerated purposes, § 1681e(a); 15 U. S. C. § 1681b (1994 ed. and Supp. V). The Act creates a private right of action allowing injured consumers to recover “any actual damages” caused by negligent violations and both actual and punitive damages for willful noncompliance. See 15 U. S. C. §§ 1681n, 168 lo (1994 ed.).
B
The facts of this case are for the most part undisputed. On June 17, 1993, Adelaide Andrews visited a radiologist’s office in Santa Monica, California. She filled out a new patient form listing certain basic information, including her name, birth date, and Social Security number. Andrews handed the form to the office receptionist, one Andrea Andrews (the Impostor), who copied the information and thereafter moved to Las Vegas, Nevada. Once there, the Impostor attempted on numerous occasions to open credit accounts using Andrews’ Social Security number and her own last name and address.
On four of those occasions, the company from which the Impostor sought credit requested a report from TRW. Each time, TRW’s computers registered a match between Andrews’ Social Security number, last name, and first initial and therefore responded by furnishing her file. TRW thus disclosed Andrews’ credit history at the Impostor’s request to. a bank on July 25, 1994; to a cable television company on September 27, 1994; to a department store on «October 28, 1994; and to another credit provider on January 3,1995. All recipients but the cable company rejected the Impostor’s applications for credit.
Andrews did not learn of these disclosures until May 31, 1995, when she sought to refinance her home mortgage and in the process received a copy of her credit report reflecting the Impostor’s activity. Andrews concedes that TRW promptly corrected her file upon learning of its mistake. She alleges, however, that the blemishes on her report not only caused her inconvenience and emotional distress, they also forced her to abandon her refinancing efforts and settle for an alternative line of credit on less favorable terms.
On October 21, 1996, almost 17 months after she discovered the Impostor’s fraudulent conduct and more than two years after TRW’s first two disclosures, Andrews filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Her complaint stated two categories of FCRA claims against TRW, only the first of which is relevant here. See App. 15-17. Those claims alleged that TRW’s four disclosures of her information in response to the Impostor’s credit applications were improper because TRW failed to verify, predisclosure, that Adelaide Andrews of Santa Monica initiated the requests or was otherwise involved in the underlying transactions. Andrews asserted that by processing requests that matched her profile on Social Security number, last name, and first initial but did not correspond on other key identifiers, notably birth date, address, and first name, TRW had facilitated the Impostor’s identity theft. According to Andrews, TRW’s verification failure constituted a willful violation of §1681e(a), which requires credit reporting agencies to maintain “reasonable procedures” to avoid improper disclosures. She sought injunctive relief, punitive damages, and compensation for the “expenditure of time and money, commercial impairment, inconvenience, embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress” that TRW had allegedly inflicted upon her. App. 15-16.
TRW moved for partial summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the FCRA’s- statute of limitations had expired on Andrews’ claims based on the July 25 and September 27, 1994, disclosures because both occurred more than two years before she brought suit. Andrews countered that her claims as to all four disclosures were timely because the limitations period did not commence until May 31, 1995, the date she learned of TRW’s alleged wrongdoing. The District Court, agreeing with TRW that § 1681p does not incorporate a general discovery rule, held that relief stemming from the July and September 1994 disclosures was time barred. Andrews v. Trans Union Corp., 7 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1066-1067 (CD Cal. 1998).
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this ruling, applying what it considered to be the “general federal rule . . . that a federal statute of limitations begins to run when a party knows or has reason to know that she was injured.” 225 F. 3d 1063, 1066 (2000). The court rejected the District Court’s conclusion that the text of § 168 lp, and in particular the limited exception set forth in that section, precluded judicial attribution of such a rule to the FCRA. “[TJQnless Congress has expressly legislated otherwise,” the Ninth Circuit declared, “the equitable doctrine of discovery is read into every federal statute of limitations.” Id., at 1067 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finding no such express directive, the Court of Appeals held that “none of [Andrews’] injuries were stale when suit was brought.” Id., at 1066. Accordingly, the court reinstated Andrews’ improper disclosure claims and remanded them for trial.
In holding that § 1681p incorporates a general discovery rule, the Ninth Circuit parted company with four other Circuits; those courts have concluded that a discovery exception other than the one Congress expressed may not be read into the Act. See Clark v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 54 F. 3d 669 (CA10 1995); Rylewicz v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 888 F. 2d 1175 (CA7 1989); Houghton v. Insurance Crime Prevention Institute, 795 F. 2d 322 (CA3 1986); Clay v. Equifax, Inc., 762 F. 2d 952 (CA11 1985). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 532 U. S. 902 (2001), and now reverse.
II
The Court of Appeals rested its decision on the premise that all federal statutes of limitations, regardless of context, incorporate a general discovery rule “unless Congress has expressly legislated otherwise.” 225 F. 3d, at 1067. To the extent such a presumption exists, a matter this case does not oblige us to decide, the Ninth Circuit conspicuously overstated its scope and force.
The Appeals Court principally relied on our decision in Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392 (1946). See 225 F. 3d, at 1067. In that case, we instructed with particularity that “where a plaintiff has been injured by fraud and remains in ignorance of it without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part, the bar of the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered.” Holmberg, 327 U. S., at 397 (internal quotation marks omitted). Holmberg thus stands for the proposition that equity tolls the statute of limitations in cases of fraud or concealment; it does not establish a general presumption applicable across all contexts. The only other cases in which we have recognized a prevailing discovery rule, moreover, were decided in two contexts, latent disease and medical malpractice, “where the cry for [such a] rule is loudest,” Rotella v. Wood, 528 U. S. 549, 555 (2000). See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U. S. 111 (1979); Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163 (1949).
We have also observed that lower federal courts “generally apply a discovery accrual rule when a statute is silent on the issue.” Rotella, 528 U. S., at 555; see also Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U. S. 179, 191 (1997) (citing Connors v. Hallmark & Son Coal Co., 935 F. 2d 336, 342 (CADC 1991), for the proposition that “federal courts generally apply [a] discovery accrual rule when [the] statute does not call for a different rule”). But we have not adopted that position as our own. And, beyond doubt, we have never endorsed the Ninth Circuit’s view that Congress can convey its refusal to adopt a discovery rule only by explicit command, rather than by implication from the structure or text of the particular statute.
The Ninth Circuit thus erred in holding that a generally applied discovery rule controls this case. The PCRA does not govern an area of the law that cries out for application of a discovery rule, nor is the statute “silent on the issue” of when the statute of limitations begins to run. Section 1681p addresses that precise question; the provision reads:
“An action to enforce any liability created under [the Act] may be brought... within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has materially and willfully misrepresented any information required under [the Act] to be disclosed to an individual and the information so misrepresented is material to the establishment of the defendant’s liability to that individual under [the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after discovery by the individual of the misrepresentation.” .
We conclude that the text and structure of §1681p evince Congress’ intent to preclude judicial implication of a discovery rule.
“Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent.” Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U. S. 608, 616-617 (1980). Congress provided in the FCRA that the two-year statute of limitations runs from “the date on which the liability arises,” subject to a single exception for cases involving a defendant’s willful misrepresentation of material information. § 1681p. The most natural reading of § 1681p is that Congress implicitly excluded a general discovery rule by explicitly including a more limited one. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163, 168 (1993) (“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”). We would distort §1681p’s text by converting the exception into the rule. Cf. United States v. Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347, 352 (1997) (“explicit listing of exceptions” to running of limitations period considered indicative of Congress’ intent to preclude “courts [from] reading] other unmentioned, open-ended, ‘equitable’ exceptions into the statute”).
At least equally telling, incorporating a general discovery rule into § 1681p would not merely supplement the explicit exception contrary to Congress’ apparent intent; it would in. practical effect render that exception entirely superfluous in all but the most unusual circumstances. A consumer will generally not discover the tortious conduct alleged here— the improper disclosure of her credit history to a potential user — until she requests her file from a credit reporting agency. If the agency responds by concealing the offending disclosure, both a generally applicable discovery rule and the misrepresentation exception would operate to toll the statute of limitations until the concealment is revealed. Once triggered, the statute of limitations would run under either for two years from the discovery date. In this paradigmatic setting, then, the misrepresentation exception would have no work to do.
Both Andrews and the Government, appearing as amicus in her support, attempt to generate some role for the express exception independent of that filled by a general discovery rule. They conceive of the exception as a codification of the judge-made doctrine of équitable estoppel, which, they argue, operates only after the discovery rule has triggered the limitations period, preventing a defendant from benefiting from its misrepresentation by tolling that period until the concealment is uncovered.
To illustrate this supposed separate application, Andrews and the Government frame the following scenario: A credit reporting agency injures a consumer by disclosing her file for an improper purpose. The consumer has no reason to suspect the violation until a year later, when she applies for and is denied credit as a result of the agency’s wrongdoing. At that point, the Government asserts, “the consumer would presumably be put on inquiry notice of the violation, and the discovery rule would start the running of the normal limitation period.” Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 22 (emphasis deleted); see Tr. of Oral Arg. 35-36 (argument in accord by Andrews’ counsel). Some days or months later, the consumer follows up on her suspicions by requesting a copy of her credit report, to which the agency responds by concealing the initial improper disclosure. According to Andrews and the Government, the misrepresentation exception would then operate to toll the already-commenced limitations period until the agency reveals its wrongdoing.
We reject this argument for several reasons. As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by this effort to distinguish the practical function of a discovery rule and the express exception, because we doubt that the supporting scenario is likely to occur outside the realm of theory. The fatal weakness in the narrative is its assumption that a consumer would be charged with constructive notice of an improper disclosure upon denial of a credit application. If the consumer habitually paid her bills on time, the denial might well lead her to suspect a prior credit agency error. But the credit denial would place her on “inquiry notice,” and the discovery rule would trigger the limitations period at that point, only if a reasonable person in her position would have learned of the injury in the exercise of due diligence. See Stone v. Williams, 970 F. 2d 1043, 1049 (CA2 1992) (“The duty of inquiry having arisen, plaintiff is charged with whatever knowledge an inquiry would have revealed.”); 2 C. Gorman,' Limitation of Actions §11.1.6, p. 164 (1991) (“It is obviously unreasonable to charge the plaintiff with failure to search for the missing element of the cause of action if such element would not have been revealed by such search.”).
In the usual circumstance, the plaintiff will gain knowledge of her injury from the credit reporting agency. The scenario put forth by Andrews and the Government, however, requires the assumption that, even if the consumer exercised reasonable diligence by requesting her credit report without delay, she would not in fact learn of the disclosure because the credit reporting agency would conceal it. The uncovering of that concealment would remain the triggering event for both the discovery rule and the express exception. In this scenario, as in the paradigmatic one, the misrepresentation exception would be superfluous.
In any event, both Andrews and the Government concede that the independent function one could attribute to the express exception would arise only in “rare and egregious easefs].” Brief for Respondent 32-33; see Brief for United States , et al. as Amici Curiae 24 (implied discovery rule would apply in “vast majority” of cases). The result is that a rule nowhere contained in the text of § 1681p would do the bulk of that provision’s work, while a proviso accounting for more than half of that text would lie dormant in all but the most unlikely situations.
It is “a cardinal principle of statutory construction” that “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.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955) (“It is our duty ‘to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’” (quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883))). “[W]ere we to adopt [Andrews’] construction of the statute,” the express exception would be rendered “insignificant, if not wholly superfluous.” Duncan, 533 U. S., at 174. We are “reluctant to treat statutory terms as surplusage in any setting,” ibid, (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted), and we decline to do so here.
Andrews advances two additional arguments in defense of the decision below, neither of which we find convincing. She contends, first, that the words “date on which the liability arises” — the phrase Congress used to frame the general rule in § 1681p — “literally expres[s]” a discovery rule because liability does not “arise” until it “presentís] itself” or comes to the attention of the potential plaintiff. Brief for Respondent 13. The dictionary definition of the word “arise” does not compel such a reading; to the contrary, it can be used to support either party’s position. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 117 (1966) (arise defined as “to come into being”; “to come about”; or “to become apparent in such a way as to demand attention”); Black’s Law Dictionary 138 (rev. 4th ed. 1968) (“to come into being or notice”). And TRW offers a strong argument that we have in fact construed that word to imply the result Andrews seeks to avoid. See Brief for Petitioner 16-20 (citing, inter alia, McMahon v. United States, 342 U. S. 25 (1951) (statute .of limitations triggered on date “cause of action arises” incorporates injury-occurrence rule)). On balance, we conclude, the phrase “liability arises” is not particularly instructive, much less dispositive of this case.
Similarly unhelpful, in our view, is Andrews’ reliance on the legislative history of § 1681p. She observes that early versions of that provision, introduced in both the House and Senate, keyed the start of the limitations period to “the date of the occurrence of the violation.” S. 823, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., §618 (1969); H. R. 16340, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., §27 (1970); H. R. 14765,91st Cong., 1st Sess., §617 (1969). From the disappearance of that language in the final version of § 1681p, Andrews infers a congressional intent to reject the rule that the deleted words would have plainly established.
As TRW notes, however, Congress also heard testimony urging it to enact a statute of limitations that runs from “the date on which the violation is discovered” but declined to do so. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 188 (1970). In addition, the very change to § 1681p’s language on which Andrews relies could be read to refute her position. The misrepresentation exception was added at the same time Congress changed the language “date of the occurrence of the violation” to “liability arises.” Compare S. 823, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., §618 (1969); H. R. 16340, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., §27 (1970); H. R. 14765, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., §617 (1969), with H. R. Rep. No. 91-1587, p. 22 (1970). We doubt that Congress, when it inserted a carefully worded exception to the main rule, intended simultaneously to create a general discovery rule that would render that exception superfluous. In sum, the evidence of the early incarnations of § 1681p, like the “liability arises” language on which Congress ultimately settled, fails to convince us that Congress intended sub silentio to adopt a general discovery rule in addition to the limited one it expressly provided.
Ill
In this Court, Andrews for the first time presents an alternative argument based on the “liability arises” language of §1681p. Brief for Respondent 22-25. She contends that even if § 1681p does not incorporate a discovery rule, “liability” under the FCRA does not necessarily “arise” when a violation of the Act occurs. Noting that the FCRA’s substantive provisions tie “liability” to the presence of “actual damages,” §§1681n, 1681o, and that “arise” means at least “to come into existence,” Andrews concludes that “liability arises” only when actual damages materialize. Not until then, she maintains, will all the essential elements of a claim coalesce: “duty, breach, causation, and injury.” Brief for Respondent 23; see Hyde v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 861 F. 2d 446, 449 (CA5 1988) (“The requirement that a consumer sustain some injury in order to establish a cause of action suggests that the statute should be triggered when the agency issues an erroneous report to an institution with which the consumer is dealing.”).
Accordingly, Andrews asserts, her claims are timely: The disputed “liability” for actual damages did not “arise” until May 1995, when she suffered the emotional distress, missed opportunities, and inconvenience cataloged in her complaint; prior to that time, “she had no FCRA claim to bring,” Brief for Respondent 24 (emphasis deleted). Cf. Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U. S. 192, 200-201 (1997) (rejecting construction of statute under which limitations period would begin running before cause of action existed in favor of “standard rule” that the period does not commence earlier than the date “the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief”).
We do not reach this issue because it was not raised or briefed below. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 18-19. We note, however, that the Ninth Circuit has not embraced Andrews’ alternative argument, see 225 F. 3d, at 1066 (“Liability under the [Act] arises when a consumer reporting agency fails to comply with § 168le.”), and the Government does not join her in advancing it here.
Further, we doubt that the argument, even if valid, would aid Andrews in this case. Her claims alleged willful violations of § 1681e(a) and are thus governed by § 1681n. At the time of the events in question, that provision stated: “Any consumer reporting agency... which willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under [the Act] with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of . . . any actual damages” and “such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow.” 15 U. S. C. § 1681n (1994 ed.). Punitive damages, which Andrews sought in this case, could presumably be awarded at the moment of TRW’s alleged wrongdoing, even if “actual damages” did not accrue at that time. On Andrews’ theory, then, at least some of the liability she sought to enforce arose when the violations occurred, and the limitations period therefore began to run at that point.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Congress has revised the FCRA extensively since the events at issue, but has not altered the provisions material to this case.
Under 1996 amendments to § 1681n, a plaintiff may also recover statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 for willful violations. See 15 U. S. C. § 1681n(a)(l)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V).
The second alleged that TRW had collected information about the Impostor’s activities and inaccurately attributed that activity to Andrews, in violation of its obligation under § 1681e(b) to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom [a] report relates.” A jury resolved this claim in favor of TRW.
The complaint also stated FCRA claims against Trans Union Corporation, another credit reporting agency involved in the Impostor’s conduct. In addition, Andrews brought a state-law claim against each defendant. The resolution of these claims is not at issue here.
The District Court also granted summary judgment to TRW on the two remaining improper disclosure claims, reasoning that TRW maintained adequate procedures and that the disputed disclosures had been made for a permissible purpose as defined by § 1681b. See Andrews v. Trans Union Corp., 7 F. Supp. 2d, at 1068-1071. The Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling. 225 F. 3d 1063, 1067-1068 (2000). Such questions, the Appeals Court held, “needed determination by a jury not a judge.” Id., at 1068.
Similarly, even if we agreed that the discovery and equitable estoppel doctrines could comfortably coexist in this setting, we would reject-the contention that we are therefore free to incorporate both into the FCRA. As we have explained, see supra, at 28-29, we read Congress’ codification of one judge-made doctrine not as a license to imply others, but rather as an intentional rejection of those it did not codify.
The opinion concurring in the judgment rips Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U. S. 192, 201 (1997), from its berth, see post, at 36, 38; we here set the record straight. The question presented in Bay Area Laundry was whether a statute of limitations could commence to run on one day while the right to sue ripened on a later day. We answered that question, and only that question, “no,” unless the statute indicates otherwise. See 522 U. S., at 200-201. Continuing on beyond the place where the concurrence in the judgment leaves off, we clarified:
“Unless Congress has told us otherwise in the legislation at issue, a cause of action does not become ‘complete and present’ for limitations purposes until the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief. See Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U. S. 258, 267 (1993) (“While it is theoretically possible for a statute to create a cause of action that accrues at one time for the purpose of calculating when the statute of limitations begins to run, but at another time for the purpose of bringing suit, we will not infer such an odd result in the absence of any such indication in the statute.”).” Id., at 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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the jurisdictional requirements of § 2 (a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a), and of §§ 3 and 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 14 and 18. It presents the questions whether a firm engaged in entirely intrastate sales of asphaltic concrete, a product that can be marketed only locally, is a corporation “in commerce” within the meaning of each of these sections, and whether such sales are “in commerce” and “in the course of such commerce” within the meaning of §§ 2 (a) and 3 respectively. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held these jurisdictional requirements satisfied, without more,, by the fact that sales of asphaltic concrete are made for use in construction of interstate highways. 487 F. 2d 202 (1973). We reverse.
I
Asphaltic concrete is a product used to surface roads and highways. It is manufactured at “hot plants” by combining, at temperatures of approximately 375° F, about 5% liquid petroleum asphalt with about 95% aggregates and fillers. The substance is delivered by truck to construction sites, where it is placed at temperatures of about 275° F. Because it must be hot when placed and because of its great weight and relatively low value, asphaltic concrete can be sold and delivered profitably only within a radius of 35 miles or so from the hot plant.
Petitioners Union Oil Co., Gulf Oil Corp., and Edging-ton Oil Co., defendants below, produce liquid petroleum asphalt from crude oil at their California refineries. The companies sell liquid asphalt to their subsidiaries and other firms throughout the Western States. The market in liquid asphalt is interstate, and each oil company concedes that it engages in interstate commerce.
Petitioner Union Oil sells some of its liquid asphalt to its wholly owned subsidiary, Sully-Miller Contracting Co., which uses it to manufacture asphaltic concrete at 11 hot plants in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, Cal. Gulf Oil sells all of its liquid asphalt to its wholly owned subsidiary, petitioner Industrial Asphalt, Inc. Industrial distributes the liquid asphalt to third parties and also uses it to produce asphaltic concrete at 55 hot plants in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Edgington Oil sells its liquid asphalt to, inter alia, Sully-Miller, Industrial, and respondents.
Respondents, Copp Paving Co., Inc., Copp Equipment Co., Inc., and Ernest A. Copp, operate a hot plant in Artesia, Cal., where they produce asphaltic concrete both for Copp's own use as a paving contractor and for sale to other contractors. Copp’s operations and asphaltic concrete sales are limited to the southern half of Los Angeles County, where it competes with Sully-Miller and Industrial in the asphaltic concrete market. All three firms sell a more than de minimis share of their asphaltic concrete for use in the construction of local segments of the interstate highway system. Neither Copp, Industrial, nor Sully-Miller makes any interstate sales of the product.
Copp filed this complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California against the oil companies, Sully-Miller, and Industrial, seeking injunctive relief and treble damages. The complaint, as amended, alleged that the various defendants had committed a catalog of antitrust violations with respect to both the asphalt oil and asphaltic concrete markets. Claiming harm to itself as a consumer of liquid asphalt, Copp alleged: that the defendants had fixed prices and allocated the asphalt oil market geographically, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1; that they had sold liquid asphalt at discriminatory prices to Copp and other purchasers, in violation of § 2 (a) of the Robinson-Patman Act; and that Gulf Oil had violated § 7 of the Clayton Act by acquiring Industrial. Also claiming harm to itself as a competitor in the asphaltic concrete market, Copp further alleged: that the defendants had fixed prices, divided the market geographically, and employed various methods of monopolizing and attempting to gain a monopoly in the Los Angeles area market, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; that, in violation of § 3 of the Clayton Act, Industrial and Sully-Miller had conditioned sales of asphaltic concrete in areas where Copp did not compete on customers’ agreeing to buy only from the defendants in areas where Copp did compete, and had “tied” sales of asphaltic concrete to sales of other commodities and to favorable extensions of credit; that, in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act, Gulf Oil had acquired Industrial and Union Oil had acquired Sully-Miller, these acquisitions apparently having the effect of lessening competition in the Los Angeles asphaltic concrete market; and, finally, that Industrial and Sully-Miller had discriminated in the prices at which they sold asphaltic concrete, charging higher prices in areas where Copp did not compete, this in violation of § 2 (a).
Because of the liquid asphalt claims, the case was one of the Western Liquid Asphalt cases transferred, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1407, to the District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The defendants thereafter moved for summary judgment in favor of Sully-Miller, against which Copp had alleged only violations arising from conduct in the asphaltic concrete market. The motion also sought to limit the issues as to the other defendants to those involving liquid asphalt.
The District Court ordered full discovery as to jurisdiction over Copp’s asphaltic concrete claims. At the conclusion of discovery, Copp’s jurisdictional showing rested solely on the fact that some of the streets and roads in the Los Angeles area are segments of the federal interstate highway system, and on a stipulation that a greater than de minimis amount of asphaltic concrete is used in their construction and repair. The District Court thereupon entered an order dismissing all claims against Sully-Miller and those claims against the other defendants involving the marketing of asphaltic concrete.
In its opinion accompanying this order the court explicitly discussed only the jurisdictional requirements of the Sherman Act. On the facts presented to it, the court found that asphaltic concrete is made wholly from components produced and purchased intrastate and that the product's market is exclusively and necessarily local. Because of these factors, the court concluded that the alleged restraints of trade in asphaltic concrete could not be deemed within the flow of interstate commerce, despite use of the product in interstate highways. • Moreover, Copp had failed to show, either by deduction from the evidence or by the evidence itself, that the alleged restraints as to asphaltic concrete would affect any interstate market. It had neither shown a necessary or probable adverse consequence to the construction of interstate highways and hence to the flow of commerce, nor had it suggested or supported a theory by which restraints on local trade in asphaltic concrete affect the interstate liquid asphalt market. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction of Copp’s asphaltic concrete claims under the Sherman Act and therefore that Copp also had failed to support jurisdiction under the Robinson-Patman and Clayton Acts.
On Copp’s interlocutory appeal, 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b), the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding as to the Sherman Act claims “that the production of asphalt for use in interstate highways rendered the producers ‘instrumental-ities’ of interstate commerce and placed them ‘in’ that commerce as a matter of law.” 487 F. 2d, at 204. Having so concluded, the court held that jurisdiction properly attached to Copp’s Clayton and Robinson-Patman Act claims as well, since those Acts were intended to supplement the purpose and effect of the Sherman Act. Id., at 205-206.
We granted certiorari, despite the interlocutory character of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, because of the importance of the issues both to this litigation and to proper interpretation of the jurisdictional reach of the antitrust laws, and because of ostensible conflicts with decisions of other circuits. We limited the grant, however, to the questions arising under the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts. 415 U. S. 988 (1974).
II
The text of each of the statutory provisions involved here is set forth in the margin. In brief, § 2 (a) of the Robinson-Patman Act forbids “any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce” to discriminate in price “where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce” and where the discrimination has substantial anticompetitive effects “in any line of commerce.” Section 3 of the Clayton Act makes it unlawful “for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce” to make tie-in sales or enter exclusive-dealing arrangements, where the effect “may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.” Section 7 of the Clayton Act forbids certain acquisitions by a corporation “engaged in commerce” of the assets or stock “of another corporation engaged also in commerce,” where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition “in any line of commerce in any section of the country.”
The explicit reach of these provisions extends only to persons and activities that are themselves “in commerce,” the term “commerce” being defined in § 1 of the Clayton Act, insofar as relevant here, as “trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations . . . .” 15 U. S. C. § 12. This “in commerce” language differs distinctly from that of § 1 of the Sherman Act, which includes within its scope all prohibited conduct “in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . . .” The jurisdictional reach of § 1 thus is keyed directly to effects on interstate markets and the interstate flow of goods. Moreover, our cases have recognized that in enacting § 1 Congress “wanted to go to the utmost extent of its Constitutional power in restraining trust and monopoly agreements . . . .” United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 558 (1944). Consistently with this purpose and with the plain thrust of the statutory language, the Court has held that, however local its immediate object, a “contract, combination ... or conspiracy” nonetheless may constitute a restraint within the meaning of § 1 if it substantially and adversely affects interstate commerce. E. g., Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 234 (1948). “If it is interstate commerce that feels the pinch, it does not matter how local the operation which applies the squeeze.” United States v. Women’s Sportswear Mfrs. Assn., 336 U. S. 460, 464 (1949).
In contrast to § 1, the distinct “in commerce” language of the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Act provisions with which we are concerned here appears to denote only persons or activities within the flow of interstate commerce — the practical, economic continuity in the generar tion of goods and services for interstate markets and their transport and distribution to the consumer. If this is so, the jurisdictional requirements of these provisions cannot be satisfied merely by showing that allegedly anticompetitive acquisitions and activities affect commerce. Unless it appears (i) that Sully-Miller engages in interstate commercial activities (§7), (ii) that Industrial’s alleged exclusive-dealing arrangements and discriminatory sales occur in the course of its interstate activities (§§ 2 (a) and 3), and (iii) that at least one of Industrial’s allegedly discriminatory sales was made in interstate commerce (§2 (a)), Copp’s claims must fail.
Copp argues, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, that it had made exactly this sort of “in commerce” showing. Copp does not contend that Industrial and Sully-Miller in fact make interstate asphaltic concrete sales or are otherwise directly involved in national markets. Cf. United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 336 n. 12 (1963). Nor does it contend that the local market in asphaltic concrete is an integral part of the interstate market in other component commodities or products. Instead, Copp’s “in commerce” argument turns entirely on the use of asphaltic concrete in the construction of interstate highways.
In support of this argument, Copp relies primarily on cases decided under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the first of these, Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U. S. 125 (1943), the Court held that because interstate roads and railroads are indispensable instrumentalities of interstate commerce, employees engaged in the construction or repair of such roads are employees “in commerce” to whom, by its terms, the Fair Labor Standards Act extends. Subsequently in Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, 345 U. S. 13 (1953), the Court held that since interstate highways are instrumentalities of commerce, employees engaged in the manufacture of materials used in their construction are properly deemed to be engaged “in the production of goods for commerce,” within the meaning of that phrase in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Copp reasons that since the connection between manufacture of road materials and interstate commerce was enough for application of the Fair Labor Standards Act, it also should be sufficient to warrant invocation of the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Act provisions against sellers and sales of such materials.
But we are concerned in this case with significantly different statutes. As in Overstreet and Alstate, there is no question of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to include otherwise ostensibly local activities within the reach of federal economic regulation, when such activities sufficiently implicate interstate commerce. The question, rather, is how far Congress intended to extend its mandate under the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts. The answer depends on the statutory language, read in light of its purposes and legislative history. See FTC v. Bunte Bros., 312 U. S. 349 (1941).
Congress has deemed interstate highways critical to the national economy and has authorized extensive federal participation in their financing and regulation. Nothing, however, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act or other legislation evinces an intention to apply the full range of antitrust laws to persons who, as part of their local business, supply materials used in construction of local segments of interstate roads. Nor does the fact that interstate highways are instrumentalities of commerce somehow render the suppliers of materials instrumentalities of commerce as well, in the sense used in Overstreet. No different conclusion can be drawn from Alstate. The statute involved there explicitly reached persons employed “in the production of goods for commerce.” Congress could and, according to the Court in Alstate, did find that the federal concerns embodied in the Fair Labor Standards Act required its application to employees producing materials for use in interstate highways. But neither this nor the Court’s holding in Alstate places such employees, or the sellers and sales of such materials, “in commerce” as a matter of law for purposes of the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts.
Copp’s “in commerce” argument rests essentially on a purely formal “nexus” to commerce: the highways are instrumentalities of interstate commerce; therefore any conduct of petitioners with respect to an ingredient of a highway is per se “in commerce.” Copp thus would have us expand the concept of the flow of commerce by incorporating categories of activities that are perceptibly connected to its instrumentalities. But whatever merit this categorical inclusion-and-exclusion approach may have when dealing with the language and purposes of other regulatory enactments, it does not carry over to the context of the Robinson-Patman and Clayton Acts. The chain of connection has no logical endpoint. The universe of arguably included activities would be broad and its limits nebulous in the extreme. See Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, supra, at 17-18 (Douglas, J., dissenting). More importantly, to the extent that those limits could be defined at all, the definition would in no way be anchored in the economic realities of interstate markets, the intensely practical concerns that underlie the purposes of the antitrust laws. See United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S. 218, 231 (1947).
In short, assuming, arguendo, that the facially narrow language of the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts was intended to denote something more than the relatively restrictive flow-of-commerce concept, we think the nexus approach would be an irrational way to proceed. The justification for an expansive interpretation of the “in commerce” language, if such an interpretation is viable at all, must rest on a congressional intent that the Acts reach all practices, even those of local character, harmful to the national marketplace. This justification, however, would require courts to look to practical consequences, not to apparent and perhaps nominal connections between commerce and activities that may have no significant economic effect on interstate markets. We hold, therefore, that Sully-Miller’s and Industrial’s sales to interstate highway contractors are not sales “in commerce” as a matter of law within the jurisdictional ambit of Robinson-Patman Act § 2 (a) and Clayton Act §§ 3 and 7.
Ill
Our rejection of the “nexus to commerce” theory requires that the Ninth Circuit’s judgment be reversed. Copp also advances, somewhat obliquely, a second theory to support that judgment. It contends that, despite the facially narrow “in commerce” language of the Robinson-Patman and Clayton Act provisions, Congress intended those provisions to manifest the full degree of its commerce power. Therefore, it is argued, the language should not be limited to the flow-of-commerce concept defined by this Court and other courts, but rather should be held to extend, as does § 1 of the Sherman Act, to all persons and activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. We find this theory equally unavailing on the record here.
A
As to § 2 (a) of the Robinson-Patman Act at least, the extraordinarily complex legislative history fails to support Copp’s argument. When the Patman bill was passed by the House, it contained, in addition to the present narrow language of § 2 (a), the following provision:
“[I]t shall also be unlawful for any person, whether in commerce or not, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers ... where . . . such discrimination may substantially lessen competition ....”
The Conference Committee, however, deleted this “effects on commerce” provision, leaving only the “in commerce” language of § 2 (a). Whether Congress took this action because it wanted to reach only price discrimination in interstate markets or because of its then understanding of the reach of the commerce power, its action strongly militates against a judgment that Congress intended a result that it expressly declined to enact. Moreover, even if the legislative history were ambiguous, the courts in nearly four decades of litigation have interpreted the statute in a manner directly contrary to an “effects on commerce” approach. With almost perfect consistency, the Courts of Appeals have read the language requiring that “either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination [be] in commerce” to mean that § 2 (a) applies only where “ 'at least one of the two transactions which, when compared, generate a discrimination ... cross [es] a state line.’ ” In the face of this longstanding interpretation and the continued congressional silence, the legislative history does not warrant our extending § 2 (a) beyond its clear language to reach a multitude of local activities that hitherto have been left to state and local regulation. See FTC v. Bunte Bros., 312 U. S. 349 (1941).
B
With respect to §§ 3 and 7 of the Clayton Act, the situation is not so clear. Both provisions were intended to complement the Sherman Act and to facilitate achievement of its purposes by reaching, in their incipiency, acts and practices that promise, in their full growth, to impair competition in interstate commerce. E. g., United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 589 (1957); Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., 258 U. S. 346 (1922). The United States argues in its amicus brief that, given this purpose, the “in commerce” language of §§ 3 and 7 should be seen as no more than a historical anomaly. When these sections were originally enacted, it was thought that Congress’ Commerce Clause power reached only those subjects within the flow of commerce, then defined rather narrowly by the Court. Thus, it is argued, the “in commerce” language was thought to be coextensive with the reach of the Commerce Clause and to bring within the ambit of the Act all activities over which Congress could exercise its constitutional authority. Since passage of the Act, this Court’s decisions have read Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause more expansively, extending it beyond the flow of commerce to all activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S., at 229-233. The United States concludes that the scope of the Clayton Act, like that of the Sherman Act, should be held to have expanded correspondingly, both because of Congress’ clear intention to reach as far as it could and because Congress’ purpose to foster competition in interstate commerce could not otherwise wholly be achieved.
This argument from the history and practical purposes of the Clayton Act is neither without force nor without at least a measure of support. But whether it would justify radical expansion of the Clayton Act’s scope beyond that which the statutory language defines — expansion, moreover, by judicial decision rather than amendatory legislation — is doubtful. In any event, this case does not present an occasion to decide the question. Even if the Clayton Act were held to extend to acquisitions and sales having substantial effects on commerce, a court cannot presume that such effects exist. The plaintiff must allege and prove that apparently local acts in fact have adverse consequences on interstate markets and the interstate flow of goods in order to invoke federal antitrust prohibitions. See United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S., at 230-234.
Copp was allowed full discovery as to all interstate commerce issues. It relied primarily on the nexus theory rejected above, and presented no evidence of effect on interstate commerce. Instead it argued merely that such effects could be presumed from the use of asphaltic concrete in interstate highways. The District Court eon-eluded, on the basis of the record before it, that petitioners’ alleged antitrust violations had no “substantial impact on interstate commerce.” There may be circumstances in which activities, like those of Sully-Miller and Industrial, would have such effects on commerce. On the record in this case, however, the conclusion of the District Court that no such circumstances existed here cannot be considered erroneous. . This being so, the “effects on commerce” theory, even if legally correct, must fail for want of proof.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Hereafter, for simplicity, cited as § 2 (a) of the Robinson-Patman Act.
Respondents are collectively referred to hereinafter as Copp.
Although Industrial’s Nevada hot plant is sufficiently close to the California and Arizona borders to allow sales and deliveries to those States, Industrial has disavowed such sales, without contradiction. App. 117.
15 U. S. C. § 15.
In re Western Liquid Asphalt, 303 F. Supp. 1053 (JPML 1969); In re Western Liquid Asphalt, 309 F. Supp. 157 (JPML 1970). As explained infra, the case here concerns only asphaltic concréte, not liquid asphalt.
1972 CCH Trade Cases ¶ 74,013.
The court held the asphalt oil claims against the oil companies and Industrial within its jurisdiction because of the interstate character .of that market. That ruling is not before us.
The court reserved the question of summary judgment in favor of defendant Sully-Miller, holding that question not properly before it under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b).
28 U. S. C. § 1254 (1). See Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 405 U. S. 251 (1972).
Because of our limited grant and because of the Ninth Circuit’s reservation of judgment as to Sully-Miller, see n. 6, supra, Union Oil and Industrial are the only defendants who have participated in argument here.
Robinson-Patman Act, §2 (a), Act of June 19, 1936, c. 592, 49 Stat. 1526,15 U. S. C. § 13 (a):
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce . . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce . . . .”
Clayton Act, Act of Oct. 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stát. 730, as amended:
Section 3 (15 U. S. C. §14):
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities ... on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”
Section 7 (15 U. S. C. § 18):
“No corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital ... of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly. . .
52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq.
E. g., Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 249-258 (1964).
The jurisdictional inquiry under general prohibitions like these Acts and § 1 of the Sherman Act, turning as it does on the circumstances presented in each case and requiring a particularized judicial determination, differs significantly from that required when Congress itself has defined the specific persons and activities that affect commerce and therefore require federal regulation. Compare United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S. 218, 232-233 (1947), with, e. g., Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183 (1968); and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964).
23 U. S. C. § 101 et seq.
H. R. 8442, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. (1936) (emphasis added).
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2951, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. (1936).
Compare F. Rowe, Price Discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act 77-83 (1962) with Note, Restraint of Trade — Robinson-Patman Act, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 765, 770-772 (1973).
Hiram Walker, Inc. v. A & S Tropical, Inc., 407 F. 2d 4, 9 (CA5), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 901 (1969); Belliston v. Texaco, Inc., 455 F. 2d 175, 178 (CA10), cert. denied, 408 U. S. 928 (1972).
No decision of this Court implies any contrary approach. In Moore v. Mead’s Fine Bread Co., 348 U. S. 115 (1954), the plaintiff sold bread locally, in competition with Mead’s, a firm with bakeries in several States. Moore alleged that Mead’s sold bread in his town at a price lower than that which it charged for bread delivered from its in-state plant to customers in an adjoining State. The Tenth Circuit held that Mead’s activities were essentially local, and that if § 2 (a) applied to them it would exceed Congress’ commerce power. The Court (Douglas, J.) unanimously reversed, stating that Congress clearly has power to reach the local activities of a firm that finances its predatory practices through multistate operations. This language, however, spoke to the commerce power rather than to jurisdiction under § 2 (a). In fact, Mead’s did have interstate sales and its price discrimination thus fell within the literal language of the statute.
See Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 314-315 (1949).
1972 CGH Trade Cases ¶ 74-013, p. 92,208. Copp makes no specific objection here to the District Court’s use of summary judgment procedure, see Brief for Respondents 11-12, nor to the form of the judgment. Moreover, there is no indication that Copp was foreclosed from presenting all available evidence concerning the interstate commerce issues, at least as to §§ 3 and 7. Cf. McBeath v. Inter-American Citizens for Decency Comm., 374 F. 2d 359, 363 (CA5 1967). In any event, assuming that the interstate commerce requirements of §§3 and 7 are properly deemed issues of subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than simply necessary elements of the federal claims, cf., e. g., United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186 (1954); Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219 (1948); 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.36 [2.-2], p. 299 (2d ed. 1974), there is, as the dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice; Douglas notes, an identity between the “jurisdictional” issues and certain issues on the merits, and hence, under Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731 (1947), no objection to reserving the jurisdictional issues until a hearing on the merits. By the same token, however, there is no objection to use, in appropriate cases, of summary judgment procedure to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the interstate commerce elements.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits as to whether a misjoinder under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is subject to the harmless-error rule, and to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in this case to support convictions for mail fraud under 18 U. S. C. § 1341.
I
A
James Lane and three partners opened the El Toro Restaurant in Amarillo, Texas, in the summer of 1978. The business never operated at a profit, however, and sales began to decline that fall. In November, Lane purchased fire insurance covering the building’s contents and improvements and any related business losses. Simultaneously, he hired Sidney Heard, a professional arsonist, to burn the building in order to escape the lease and partnership. On February 27, 1979, Heard set a fire that caused smoke damage to the building’s contents. Lane first settled with the insurer on the contents and improvements. He then submitted an income statement that falsely indicated the restaurant had operated at a profit. After the insurance adjuster mailed the statement to the insurer’s headquarters, Lane settled his business interruption claim.
In early 1980, Lane again hired Heard to set fire to a duplex that Lane was moving to a vacant lot in Amarillo. Lane obtained a fire insurance policy on the building, listing the owner as L & L Properties, a partnership between his son Dennis Lane and Andrew Lawson. An accomplice of Heard’s burned the duplex on May 1, 1980.
Thereafter, on three occasions Dennis Lane signed proof-of-loss claims for repairs and submitted them to an insurance adjuster, who issued drafts in return totaling $12,000. Each time, the adjuster later mailed the proof-of-loss to the insurer’s headquarters. The adjuster issued a final settlement draft for $12,250 on September 16, 1980. Two days later, he mailed a memorandum to headquarters explaining why repairs had exceeded previous estimates by some $10,000. He enclosed invoices supplied by Dennis Lane listing various materials and furniture purportedly purchased to repair and refurbish the duplex. In fact, these invoices had been fabricated by James Lane, Heard, and Heard’s secretary.
The Lanes and Lawson met with Heard several weeks after the duplex fire to discuss a proposal to establish and burn a flower shop in Lubbock, Texas. Heard and Dennis Lane picked out a suitable building in July 1980, and an accomplice of Heard’s, William Lankford, prepared ficticious invoices for merchandise and delivered some artificial flowers to the building later in August. In November, James Lane insured the contents for $50,000. Heard, however, was later arrested for an unrelated crime, and the planned arson never took place.
In March 1981, an Amarillo newspaper article connected Dennis Lane with a scheme to burn the flower shop with Heard; that same day, James Lane canceled the insurance policy. On May 12, 1981, Dennis Lane appeared before a federal grand jury investigating Heard. He testified that Heard had nothing to do with the flower shop or with his own dealings with Lankford.
B
James Lane and Dennis Lane were indicted in multiple counts for mail fraud in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341, conspiracy in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371, and perjury in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1623. Count 1 charged James Lane with mail fraud with regard to the El Toro Restaurant fire. Counts 2 through 4 charged both Lanes with mail fraud related to the duplex fire, and Count 5 charged them with conspiracy to commit mail fraud in connection with the flower shop arson plan. In Count 6, Dennis Lane was charged with perjury before the grand jury.
Prior to trial in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Lanes filed motions for severance contending that the charged offenses were misjoined in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), but the motions were denied and the trial proceeded jointly before a jury. When evidence relating to the El Toro Restaurant fire was admitted, the trial court instructed the jury not to consider that evidence against Dennis Lane. App. 21. The trial judge repeated this instruction in the final charge, together with an instruction regarding the separate consideration to be given each defendant and each count. Ibid. The Lanes renewed their severance motions at the end of the Government’s evidence and at the close of all evidence, but the motions were again denied. The jury returned convictions on all counts.
On appeal, the Lanes argued that misjoinder under Rule 8(b) had occurred. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that Counts 2 through 6 were properly joined, but agreed “that Count 1 should not have been joined with the others because it was not part of the same series of acts or transactions as Counts 2 through 6.” 735 F. 2d 799, 803-804 (1984). The court refused to consider the Government’s argument that the error, if any, was harmless, stating only that “Rule 8(b) misjoinder is prejudicial per se in this circuit.” Id., at 806 (citing United States v. Levine, 546 F. 2d 658 (CA5 1977)). The court reversed the Lanes’ convictions and remanded for new trials.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals rejected the Lanes’ contention that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions for mail fraud under Counts 2 through 4 because each charged mailing occurred after each related payment had been received, and thus after each scheme had reached fruition. The Court of Appeals distinguished our holding in United States v. Maze, 414 U. S. 395 (1974), and instead relied on United States v. Sampson, 371 U. S. 75 (1962), to hold that mailings occurring after receipt of an insurance payment may nevertheless be “in execution of fraud” as required by 18 U. S. C. § 1341 where they are “designed to lull the victims into a false sense of security and postpone investigation.” 735 F. 2d, at 807-808.
The court found sufficient evidence for the properly instructed jury to “infer that the mailings were intended to and did have a lulling effect” because they helped persuade the insurer that “the claims were legitimate.” Id., at 808. It emphasized that had the proof-of-loss forms not been mailed shortly after issuance of the insurance drafts, the insurer might have been alerted to the possibility of a fraud. Ibid. Similarly, the false invoices submitted by Dennis Lane “gave the impression of a perfectly innocent claim.” Ibid.
The Government’s petition for rehearing was denied. 741 F. 2d 1381 (1984). We granted certiorari, 469 U. S. 1206 (1985). We reverse in part and affirm in part.
I — I HH
The Court of Appeals held that misjoinder is inherently prejudicial.” 735 F. 2d, at 804. The Circuits are divided on the question whether misjoinder requires automatic reversal, or whether the harmless-error rule governs. Most Circuits that have adopted the per se approach have relied on McElroy v. United States, 164 U. S. 76 (1896), where this Court applied the joinder statute then in force and reversed convictions of jointly tried defendants after rejecting the Government’s argument that there was no showing of prejudice. Id., at 81.
McElroy, however, was decided long before the adoption of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8 and 52, and prior to the enactment of the harmless-error statute, 28 U. S. C. §2111, which provides that on appeal we are to ignore “errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Under Rule 52(a), we are similarly instructed that any error “which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
The Court’s holding in Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), made a significant change in the law of harmless error. There, Justice Black, speaking for the Court, emphasized that even “some constitutional errors [may] be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” Id., at 22. In rejecting the automatic reversal rule, the Court stated:
“We are urged by petitioners to hold that all federal constitutional errors, regardless of the facts and circumstances, must always be deemed harmful. ... We decline to adopt any such rule.” Id., at 21-22 (emphasis added).
Justice Black went on to note that all 50 States follow the harmless-error approach, and
“the United States long ago through its Congress established . . . the rule that judgments shall not be reversed for ‘errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’ 28 U. S. C. §2111. None of these rules on its face distinguishes between federal constitutional errors and errors of state law or federal statutes and rules.” Id., at 22 (footnote omitted).
Since Chapman, we have “consistently made clear that it is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 509 (1983). In Hasting, we again emphasized that
“given the myriad safeguards provided to assure a fair trial, and taking into account the reality of the human fallibility of the participants, there can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and . . . the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.” Id., at 508-509.
In this case, the argument for applying harmless-error analysis is even stronger because the specific joinder standards of Rule 8 are not themselves of constitutional magnitude. Clearly, Chapman and Hasting dictate that the harmless-error rule governs here.
The applicability of harmless error to misjoinder also follows from Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750 (1946), a case similar to the one at hand. There, some 32 defendants were charged with one conspiracy, when in fact there had been at least eight separate conspiracies. Nineteen defendants were jointly tried, and seven were convicted. The Court applied the harmless-error statute to an error resulting from a variance from the indictment, and held the error was not harmless in that case. Emphasizing the numerous conspiracies involving unrelated defendants, as well as seriously flawed jury instructions, the Kotteakos Court reversed the convictions in light of each of the 32 defendants’ “right not to be tried en masse for the conglomeration of distinct and separate offenses” involved. Id., at 775.
Although the Court’s review in that case was from the perspective of a variance from the indictment, rather than mis-joinder, the Court recognized that misjoinder was implicated, and suggested that the harmless-error rule could similarly apply in that context. Id., at 774-775.
A holding directly involving misjoinder again indicated the harmless-error rule should apply. In Schaffer v. United States, 362 U. S. 511 (1960), three different groups of defendants were charged with participating in separate criminal acts with one other group of three defendants. The indictment also charged all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy, making joinder under Rule 8 proper. At the close of the Government’s case, however, the District Court concluded there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy and dismissed that count. The court then denied a motion for severance after concluding that defendants failed to show prejudice from the joint trial; the Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court recognized that “the charge which originally justified joinder turn[ed] out to lack the support of sufficient evidence.” Id., at 516. Essentially, at that point in the trial, there was a clear error of misjoinder under Rule 8 standards. Nevertheless, the Schaffer Court held that once the Rule 8 requirements were met by the allegations in the indictment, severance thereafter is controlled entirely by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, which requires a showing of prejudice. Id., at 515-516. The Court then affirmed the finding of no prejudice. Although the Court did not reach the harmless-error rule because Rule 8(b) had initially been satisfied, the Court’s language surely assumed the rule was applicable.
A plain reading of these cases shows they dictate our holding. Applying the 1919 statute treated in Kotteakos, which governed only “technical errors,” 28 U. S. C. §391 (1946 ed.), the Court emphasized the clear intent of Congress “was simple: To substitute judgment for automatic application of rules.” 328 U. S., at 759-760. “In the final analysis judgment in each case must be influenced by conviction resulting from examination of the proceedings in their entirety, tempered but not governed in any rigid sense of stare decisis by what has been done in similar situations.” Id., at 762. The Court flatly rejected per se rules regarding particular errors because “any attempt to create a generalized presumption to apply in all cases would be contrary not only to the spirit of [the statute] but also to the expressed intent of its legislative sponsors.” Id., at 765.
Schaffer discussed the current harmless-error statute, which was enacted in 1949 after Kotteakos and deleted the qualifying word “technical” regarding errors governed by the rule. See 28 U. S. C. §2111. The Court again rejected any per se rule for joinder errors requiring reversal, refusing to “fashion a hard-and-fast formula that. . . [the] joinder [wa]s error as a matter of law.” 362 U. S., at 516. Citing Kotteakos, the Court pointed out that there “[t]he dissent agreed that the test of injury resulting from joinder ‘depends on the special circumstances of each case.’” 362 U. S., at 517 (quoting 328 U. S., at 777 (Douglas, J., dissenting)).
In common with other courts, the Court has long recognized that joint trials “conserve state funds, diminish inconvenience to witnesses and public authorities, and avoid delays in bringing those accused of crime to trial.” Bruton v. United States, 891 U. S. 123, 134 (1968). Rule 8 accommodates these interests while protecting against prejudicial joinder. But we do not read Rule 8 to mean that prejudice results whenever its requirements have not been satisfied.
Under Rule 52(a), the harmless-error rule focuses on whether the error “affect[ed] substantial rights.” In Kotteakos the Court construed a harmless-error statute with similar language, and observed:
“The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 328 U. S., at 765.
Invoking the Kotteakos test, we hold that an error involving misjoinder “affects substantial rights” and requires reversal only if the misjoinder results in actual prejudice because it “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Id., at 776. Only by so holding can we bring Rules 8 and 52(a) “into substantial harmony, not into square conflict.” Id., at 775.
Of course, “we are not required to review records to evaluate a harmless-error claim, and do so sparingly, [but] we plainly have the authority to do so.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S., at 510 (footnote omitted).
In the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt shown here, we are satisfied that the claimed error was harmless. When evidence oh misjoined Count 1 was introduced, the District Court provided a proper limiting instruction, and in the final charge repeated that instruction and admonished the jury to consider each count and defendant separately. Moreover, the same evidence on Count 1 would likely have been admissible on joint retrial of Counts 2 through 6 to show James Lane’s intent under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Any error therefore failed to have any “substantial influence” on the verdict. Kotteakos, supra, at 765.
I — I I — I I — I
Respondents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain their convictions. To find a violation of the mail fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1341, the charged “mailings” must be “for the purpose of executing the scheme.” Kann v. United States, 323 U. S. 88, 94 (1944). Mailings occurring after receipt of the goods obtained by fraud are within the statute if they “were designed to lull the victims into a false sense of security, postpone their ultimate complaint to the authorities, and therefore make the apprehension of the defendants less likely than if no mailings had taken place.” United States v. Maze, 414 U. S., at 403. See United States v. Sampson, 371 U. S. 75 (1962).
Only Counts 2 through 4, involving the duplex fire, are at issue. The Lanes argue that each mailing occurred after irrevocable receipt of the related payment, and thus after each scheme to defraud came to fruition. This argument misconstrues the nature of the indictment, which charged an overall scheme to defraud based on the events surrounding the duplex fire. Counts 2 through 4 merely relate to separate mailings concerning partial payments that were a part of the whole scheme. The jury could properly find the scheme, at the earliest, was not completed until receipt of the last payment on September 16, 1980, which finally settled their claim. Hence, the mailings charged in Counts 2 and 3 clearly took place while the scheme was still continuing.
Moreover, the jury could reasonably have found that the scheme was not completed until the final mailing on September 18, 1980, charged in Count 4, because that mailing was intended (as were the two earlier ones) to “lull” the insurer into a false sense of security. The jury was properly instructed that each charged mailing must have been made both “for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud,” App. 22, and prior to the scheme’s completion, id., at 23, and further that mailings “which facilitate concealment of the scheme” are covered by the statute. Id., at 24.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, ordering a new trial based on misjoinder of Count 1 with Counts 2 through 6, is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the action is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Six Circuits have adopted a per se approach holding that misjoinder is always reversible error. See United States v. Turkette, 632 F. 2d 896, 906, and n. 35 (CA1 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 452 U. S. 576 (1981); United States v. Graci, 504 F. 2d 411, 414 (CA3 1974); United States v. Bova, 493 F. 2d 33 (CA5 1974); United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F. 2d 647, 654, 657-658 (CA8), cert. denied sub nom. Phillips v. United States, 459 U. S. 1040 (1982); United States v. Eagleston, 417 F. 2d 11, 14 (CA10 1969); United States v. Ellis, 709 F. 2d 688, 690 (CA11 1983).
Six have subjected misjoinder claims to harmless-error analysis. See United States v. Ajlouny, 629 F. 2d 830, 843 (CA2 1980), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1111 (1981); United States v. Seidel, 620 F. 2d 1006 (CA4 1980); United States v. Hatcher, 680 F. 2d 438, 442 (CA6 1982); United States v. Varelli, 407 F. 2d 735, 747-748 (CA7 1969); United States v. Martin, 567 F. 2d 849, 854 (CA9 1977); Baker v. United States, 131 U. S. App. D. C. 7, 21-23, 401 F. 2d 958, 972-974 (1968). Most of these courts had previously taken the view that misjoinder is prejudicial per se.
Each proof-of-loss form stated that the “loss did not originate by any act, design or procurement on the part of your insured or this affiant” and that “no attempt to deceive [the] company as to the extent of the loss has been made.”
Rule 8(b) provides:
“(b) Joinder of Defendants. Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.”
The Court of Appeals also rejected James Lane’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to Count 1. That holding was not challenged in the Lanes’ cross-petition.
Although the Government continues to believe that Count 1 was properly joined with Counts 2 through 6, it does not challenge that holding here.
See n. 1, swpra.
Justice Stevens’ partial dissent argues that McElroy conclusively determined misjoinder is prejudicial per se, and that Rule 8 was intended to represent a restatement of existing law, including the “rule of the McElroy case.” Post, at 467. Rule 8, however, is simply a procedural rule with certain technical requirements, and Justice Stevens’ opinion refers to the Advisory Committee on Rules’ citation of McElroy, see post, at 468, n. 3, making clear they were referring only to those technical requirements of prior law. Nowhere is there any indication Rule 8 was intended to enshrine any substantive “principle” of McElroy that misjoinder requires reversal, nor is there any citation of McElroy’s specific holding.
Improper joinder does not, in itself, violate the Constitution. Rather, misjoinder would rise to the level of a constitutional violation only if it results in prejudice so great as to deny a defendant his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial.
Justice Stevens’ partial dissent suggests Chapman is irrelevant to our analysis because that case involved a constitutional violation, whereas the error here is of a noneonstitutional nature. Post, at 472. It is difficult to see any logic in the argument that although the harmless-error rule may be applicable to constitutional violations, it should not be applied to violations of mere procedural rules. Justice Stevens recognizes that the standard for harmless-error analysis adopted in Chapman concerning constitutional errors is considerably more onerous than the standard for non-constitutional errors adopted in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750 (1946). See post, at 472-473, n. 11. The heightened regard we have for constitutional protections surely warrants a conclusion that nonconstitu-tional provisions must be treated at least comparably, and in Hasting we emphasized even “most constitutional violations” must be ignored if they are harmless. 461 U. S., at 509.
The Court pointed out that “the problem is not merely one of variance . . . but is also essentially one of proper joinder.” 328 U. S., at 774. Even so, the Court indicated the harmless-error rule must apply, although perhaps with “restraint.” Id., at 775.
Contrary to these clear holdings, Justice Stevens’ partial dissent advocates a rule-by-rule review establishing bright-line per se rules whether to conduct harmless-error analysis. Post, at 472-474. But on its face, Rule 52(a) admits of no broad exceptions to its applicability. Any assumption that once a “substantial right” is implicated it is inherently “affected” by any error begs the question raised by Rule 52(a). Assuming there is a “substantial right,” the inquiry remains whether the error “affects substantial rights” requiring reversal of a conviction. That kind of inquiry requires a review of the entire record. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S., at 509. It is simply too late in the day to argue that Congress intended to incorporate any per se rule of McElroy for misjoinder following Kotteakos, the subsequent enactment of an arguably broader statute, and this Court’s prejudice inquiry in Schaffer.
Respondents argue that application of the harmless-error rule to Rule 8(b) misjoinder will eviscerate Rule 14, which provides the trial court with discretion to grant a severance even if the joinder is proper under Rule 8 when it believes the defendants or the Government may be prejudiced by a joinder. We see no conflict with our holding and the applicability of Rule 14. Rule 14’s concern is to provide the trial court with some flexibility when a joint trial may appear to risk prejudice to a party; review of that decision is for an abuse of discretion. Rule 8(b), however, requires the granting of a motion for severance unless its standards are met, even in the absence of prejudice; review on appeal is for an error of law. Applying the harmless-error rule to Rule 8(b) misjoinder simply goes to the additional question whether the error requires setting aside the convictions. We need not decide whether the degree of prejudice necessary to support a Rule 14 motion for severance is identical to that necessary to require reversal for a Rule 8(b) error.
Justice Stevens’ partial dissent fails to recognize that the Rule 14 prejudice component involves a different inquiry from the Rule 8 technical requirements. Indeed, the express language of Rule 14, as well as the Advisory Committee Note, shows that Congress tolerates some Rule 8 joinders even when there is prejudice. The first hurdle in obtaining a severance under Rule 14 is a showing of prejudice, and if shown, it remains in the district court’s discretion whether to grant the motion.
We can agree with Justice Stevens’ partial dissent “that the harmless-error inquiry is entirely distinct from a sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry.” Post, at 476; our reliance on the Kotteakos test makes that clear. See supra, at 449. But that does not in any sense mean that overwhelming evidence of guilt is irrelevant; the threshold of overwhelming evidence is far higher than mere sufficiency to uphold conviction.
Nor may proper limiting instructions or jury charges never be “an adequate response” to a prejudice inquiry. Post, at 477. Contrary to the suggestion of the dissent, Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U. S. 539 (1947), provides direct support for the Court’s approach in this case. There the Court recognized that, in the context of mass trials (as in Kotteakos), limiting instructions on evidence admissible only as to one defendant might in some circumstances be inadequate to prevent prejudice. 332 U. S., at 559-560. But here, as in Blumenthal, we are not faced with any trial en masse of numerous defendants and unrelated crimes.
When there are few defendants and the trial court is aware of the potential for prejudice, “the risk of transference of guilt over the border of admissibility [may be] reduced to the minimum” by carefully crafted limiting instructions with a strict charge to consider the guilt or innocence of each defendant independently. Id., at 560. We cannot necessarily “assume that the jury misunderstood or disobeyed” such instructions. Id., at 553. Indeed, this Court’s conclusion in Schaffer that defendants failed to show prejudice was based directly on the fact that “the judge was acutely aware of the possibility of prejudice and was strict in his charge — not only as to the testimony the jury was not to consider, but also as to that evidence which was available in the consideration of the guilt of each [defendant] separately under the respective substantive counts.” 362 U. S., at 516.
The same caution was exercised by the trial judge here, and no different result should be required. The Government initially observes that because of the similarity of each arson scheme, “only the court of appeals’ narrow reading of Rule 8” led to its finding of misjoinder. At trial, Heard and Lankford — two principal actors — testified against both Lanes, who relied essentially on denials or character defenses. Moreover, the evidence as to Count 1 was distinct and easily segregated from evidence relating to Counts 2 through 6. The misjoinder error, if any, in these circumstances was harmless.
The statute provides in relevant part:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, ... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice . . . , places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, ... or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail . . . any such matter or thing, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The Government contends that undisputed testimony shows the insurance drafts issued to the Lanes, unlike normal business checks, were not payable on demand but only upon authorization from the insurer’s home office when they arrived at the insurer’s bank for collection. If the drafts deposited by the Lanes had been dishonored by the insurer’s banks, the amounts would have been charged against their account. The Lanes, therefore, may not have irrevocably received the proceeds of the fraud prior to the final mailing. See Brief for United States 30-31. The Court of Appeals, however, did not rely on this argument, and we decline to resolve this factual issue here.
Our conclusion that the delayed mailings at issue in this action were part of an ongoing scheme to defraud is in accord with our holding in United States v. Sampson, 371 U. S. 75 (1962). In that case, defendants purported to help businessmen obtain loans or sell their businesses in exchange for an “advance fee.” Id., at 77. Following the deposit of checks for these fees, the defendants’ plan called for the mailing of a form letter assuring the victims of the fraud that they were receiving the services they paid for. Id., at 78. The Court upheld defendants’ convictions for mail fraud because of the “lulling effect” of the delayed mailings.
We see no conflict with our holding in United States v. Maze, 414 U. S. 395 (1974). There, use of a stolen credit card led to the mailing of charge statements to a bank. We held that the fraud was completed upon the defrauder’s receipt of the goods, distinguishing Sampson because the mailing of the charge slips, rather than acting to “lull” the bank into acquiescence, instead “increased the probability that [the defrauder] would be detected and apprehended.” 414 U. S., at 403. Had the Lanes failed to submit timely proof-of-loss forms here, the insurer might very well have discovered the fraud.
The Lanes contend that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in this action also conflicts with United States v. Ledesma, 632 F. 2d 670 (CA7), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 998 (1980), which reversed a conviction involving the mailing of a fraudulent proof-of-loss form after receipt of insurance proceeds. In that case, however, the Seventh Circuit never discussed Sampson or the possibility that the delayed mailing had any “lulling” effect.
The Lanes argue that the Government must show that the charged mailings were specifically intended to lull, rather than showing simply a general intention on their part to defraud, in order to come within Sampson’s holding. We need not determine whether any such specific intent must be shown, as we agree with the Court of Appeals that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer specific intent to lull here under these instructions, which the Lanes did not challenge on appeal or in their cross-petition.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The question in this case is whether one must aid in the navigation of a vessel in order to qualify as a “seaman” under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. App. §688.
I — I
Jon Wilander worked for McDermott International, Inc., as a paint foreman. His duties consisted primarily of supervising the sandblasting and painting of various fixtures and piping located on oil drilling platforms in the Persian Gulf. On July 4, 1983, Wilander was inspecting a pipe on one such platform when a bolt serving as a plug in the pipe blew out under pressure, striking Wilander in the head. At the time, Wilander was assigned to the American-flag vessel MW Gates Tide, a “paint boat” chartered.to McDermott that contained equipment used in sandblasting and painting the platforms.
Wilander sued McDermott in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, seeking recovery under the Jones Act for McDermott’s negligence related to the accident. McDermott moved for summary judgment, alleging that, as a matter of law, Wilander was not a “seaman” under the Jones Act, and therefore not entitled to recovery. The District Court denied the motion. App. 19. In a bifurcated trial, the jury first determined Wilander’s status as a seaman. By special interrogatory, the jury found that Wilander was either permanently assigned to, or performed a substantial amount of work aboard, the Gates Tide, and that the performance of his duties contributed to the function of the Gates Tide or to the accomplishment of its mission, thereby satisfying the test for seaman status established in Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F. 2d 769 (CA5 1959). App. to Pet. for Cert. 16-17. The District Court denied McDermott’s motion for judgment based on the jury findings. Id., at 10-16.
The case then proceeded to trial on the issues of liability and damages. The jury found that McDermott’s negligence was the primary cause of Wilander’s injuries, but that Wilander had been 25% contributorily negligent. The jury awarded Wilander $337,500. The District Court denied McDermott’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, id., at 19-21, and both parties appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the determination of seaman status, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding under the Robison test. 887 F. 2d 88, 90 (1989). McDermott asked the court to reject the Robison requirement that a seaman “contribute] to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission,” Robison, supra, at 779, in favor of the more stringent requirement of Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Co., 742 F. 2d 1054 (CA7 1984). In that case, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — relying on cases from this Court requiring that a seaman aid in the navigation of a vessel — held that seaman status under the Jones Act may be conferred only on employees who make “a significant contribution to the maintenance, operation, or welfare of the transportation function of the vessel.” Id., at 1063 (emphasis added).
The Fifth Circuit here concluded that Wilander would not meet the requirements of the Johnson test, but reaffirmed the rule in Robison and held that Wilander was a “seaman” under the Jones Act. 887 F. 2d, at 90-91. We granted certiorari, 496 U. S. 935 (1990), to resolve the conflict between the Robison and Johnson tests on the issue of the transportation/navigation function requirement, and now affirm.
II
A
In 1903, in The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, this Court summarized the state of seamen’s remedies under general maritime law. Writing for the Court, Justice Brown reviewed the leading English and American authorities and declared the law settled on several propositions:
“1. That the vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is wounded, in the service of the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure, and to his wages, at least so long as the voyage is continued.
“2. That the vessel and her owner.are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship....
“3. That all the members of the crew... are, as between themselves, fellow servants, and hence seamen cannot recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of another member of the crew beyond the expense of their maintenance and cure.
“4. That the seaman is not allowed to recover an indemnity for the negligence of the master, or any member of the crew....” Id., at 175.
The Osceola affirmed a seaman’s general maritime right to maintenance and cure, wages, and to recover for unseaworthiness, but excluded seamen from the general maritime negligence remedy.
Congress twice attempted to overrule The Osceola and create a negligence action for seamen. The Seamen’s Act of 1915, 38 Stat. 1164, dealt with proposition 3 of The Osceola, the fellow servant doctrine. Section 20 of the 1915 Act provided: “That in any suit to recover damages for any injury sustained on board vessel or in its service seamen having command shall not be held to be fellow-servants with those under their authority.” 38 Stat. 1185. The change was ineffective. Petitioner in Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U. S. 372 (1918), a fireman on board the steamship J. L. Luckenbach, attempted to recover from the ship’s owner for injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of a superior officer. The Court explained that the 1915 Act was “irrelevant.” Id., at 384. The Act successfully established that the superior officer was not Chelentis’ fellow servant, but Congress had overlooked The Osceola’s fourth proposition. The superior officer was no longer a fellow servant, but he was still a member of the crew. Under proposition 4, there was no recovery for negligence. 247 U. S., at 384.
Congress tried a different tack in 1920. It passed the Jones Act, which provides a cause of action in negligence for “any seaman” injured “in the course of his employment.” 46 U. S. C. App. § 688. The Act thereby removes the bar to negligence articulated in The Osceola.
The Jones Act does not define “seaman.” Neither does The Osceola; it simply uses the term as had other admiralty courts. We assume that the Jones Act uses “seaman” in the same way. For one thing, the Jones Act provides what The Osceola precludes. “The only purpose of the Jones Act was to remove the bar created by The Osceola, so that seamen would have the same rights to recover for negligence as other tort victims.” G. Gilmore & C. Black, Law of Admiralty 328-329 (2d ed. 1975). See also Warner v. Goltra, 293 U. S. 155, 159 (1934). The Jones Act, responding directly to The Osceola, adopts without further elaboration the term used in The Osceola. Moreover, “seaman” is a maritime term of art. In the absence of contrary indication, we assume that when a statute uses such a term, Congress intended it to have its established meaning. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 263 (1952); Gilbert v. United States, 370 U. S. 650, 658 (1962). Our first task, therefore, is to determine who was a seaman under the general maritime law when Congress passed the Jones Act.
B
Since the first Judiciary Act, federal courts have determined who is eligible for various seamen’s benefits under general maritime law. Prior to the Jones Act, these benefits included the tort remedies outlined in The Osceola and a lien against the ship for wages. See generally Gilmore & Black, supra, at 35-36, 281; The John G. Stevens, 170 U. S. 113, 119 (1898); The Osceola, supra, at 175. Certain early cases limited seaman status to those who aided in the navigation of the ship. The narrow rule was that a seaman — sometimes referred to as a mariner — must actually navigate: “[T]he persons engaged on board of her must have been possessed of some skill in navigation. They must have been able to ‘hand, reef and steer,’ the ordinary test of seamanship.” The Canton, 5 F. Cas. 29, 30 (No. 2,388) (D Mass. 1858). See also Gurney v. Crockett, 11 F. Cas. 123, 124 (No. 5,874) (SDNY 1849).
Notwithstanding the aid in navigation doctrine, federal courts throughout the last century consistently awarded seamen’s benefits to those whose work on board ship did not direct the vessel. Firemen, engineers, carpenters, and cooks all were considered seamen. See, e. g., Wilson v. The Ohio, 30 F. Cas. 149 (No. 17,825) (ED Pa. 1834) (firemen); Allen v. Hallet, 1 F. Cas. 472 (No. 223) (SDNY 1849) (cook); Sageman v. The Brandywine, 21 F. Cas. 149 (No. 12,216) (D Mich. 1852) (female cook); The Sultana, 23 F. Cas. 379 (No. 13,602) (D Mich. 1857) (clerk). See generally M. Norris, Law of Seamen §2.3 (4th ed. 1985); Engerrand & Bale, Seaman Status Reconsidered, 24 S. Tex. L. J. 431, 432-433 (1983).
Some courts attempted to classify these seamen under a broad conception of aid in navigation that included those who aided in navigation indirectly by supporting those responsible for moving the vessel: “[T]he services rendered must be necessary, or, at least, contribute to the preservation of the vessel, or of those whose labour and skill are employed to navigate her.” Trainer v. The Superior, 24 F. Cas. 130, 131 (No. 14,136) (ED Pa. 1834). This fiction worked for cooks and carpenters — who fed those who navigated and kept the ship in repair — but what of a cooper whose job it was to make barrels to aid in whaling? As early as 1832, Justice Story, sitting on circuit, held that “[a] ‘cooper’ is a seaman in contemplation of law, although he has peculiar duties on board of the ship.” United States v. Thompson, 28 F. Cas. 102 (No. 16,492) (CC Mass.). Justice Story made no reference to navigation in declaring it established that: “A cook and steward are seamen in the sense of the maritime law, although they have peculiar duties assigned them. So a pilot, a surgeon, a ship-carpenter, and a boatswain, are deemed seamen, entitled to sue in the admiralty.” Ibid.
By the middle of the 19th century, the leading admiralty treatise noted the wide variety of those eligible for seamen’s benefits: “Masters, mates, sailors, surveyors, carpenters, coopers, stewards, cooks, cabin boys, kitchen boys, engineers, pilots, firemen, deck hands, waiters, —women as well as men, — are mariners.” E. Benedict, American Admiralty §278, p. 158 (1850). Benedict concluded that American admiralty courts did not require that seamen have a connection to navigation. “The term mariner includes all persons employed on board ships and vessels during the voyage to assist in their' navigation and preservation, or to promote the purposes of the voyage.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Moreover, Benedict explained, this was the better rule; admiralty courts throughout the world had long recognized that seamen’s benefits were properly extended to all those who worked on board vessels in furtherance of the myriad purposes for which ships set to sea:
“It is universally conceded that the general principles of law must be applied to new kinds of property, as they spring into existence in the progress of society, according to their nature and incidents, and the common sense of the community. In the early periods of maritime commerce, when the oar was the great agent of propulsion, vessels were entirely unlike those of modern times — and each nation and period has had its peculiar agents of commerce and navigation adapted to its own wants and its own waters, and the names and descriptions of ships and vessels are without number. Under the class of mariners in the armed ship are embraced the officers and privates of a little army. In the whale ship, the sealing vessel — the codfishing and herring fishing vessel — the lumber vessel — the freighting vessel — the passenger vessel — there are other functions besides these of mere navigation, and they are performed by men who know nothing of seamanship — and in the great invention of modern times, the steamboat, an entirely new set of operatives, are employed, yet at all times and in all countries, all the persons who have been necessarily or properly employed in a vessel as co-labourers to the great purpose of the voyage, have, by the law, been clothed with the legal rights of mariners — no matter what might be their sex, character, station or profession.” Id., §241, pp. 133-134.
By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, federal courts abandoned the navigation test altogether, including in the class of seamen those who worked on board and maintained allegiance to the ship, but who performed more specialized functions having no relation to navigation. The crucial element in these cases was something akin to Benedict’s “great purpose of the voyage.” Thus, in holding that a fisherman, a chambermaid, and a waiter were all entitled to seamen’s benefits, then-judge Brown, later the author of The Osceola, eschewed reference to navigation: “[A]ll hands employed upon a vessel, except the master, are entitled to a [seaman’s lien for wages] if their services are in furtherance of the main object of the enterprise in which she is engaged.” The Minna, 11 F. 759, 760 (ED Mich. 1882). Judge Learned Hand rejected a navigation test explicitly in awarding seamen’s benefits to a bartender: “As I can see in principle no reason why there should be an artificial limitation of rights to those engaged in the navigation of the ship, to the exclusion of others who equally further the purposes of her voyage,... I shall decide that the libelant has a lien for his wages as bartender.” The J. S. Warden, 175 F. 314, 315 (SDNY 1910). In Miller v. The Maggie P., 32 F. 300, 301 (ED Mo. 1887), the court explained that the rule that maritime employment must be tied to navigation had been “pronounced to be inadmissible and indecisive by later decisions.” See also The Ocean Spray, 18 F. Cas. 558, 560-561 (No. 10,412) (D Ore. 1876) (sealers and interpreters; citing Benedict, supra)-, The Carrier Dove, 97 F. 111, 112 (CA1 1899) (fisherman); United States v. Atlantic Transport Co., 188 F. 42 (CA2 1911) (horseman); The Virginia Belle, 204 F. 692, 693-694 (ED Va. 1913) (engineer who assisted in fishing); The Baron Napier, 249 F. 126 (CA4 1918) (muleteer). See generally Norris, Law of Seamen §2.3; Engerrand & Bale, 24 S. Tex. L. J., at 434-435, and nn. 29-30. An 1883 treatise declared: “All persons employed on a vessel to assist in the main purpose of the voyage are mariners, and included under the name of seamen.” M. Cohen, Admiralty 239.
We believe it settled at the time of The Osceola and the passage of the Jones Act that general maritime law did not require that a seaman aid in navigation. It was only necessary that a person be employed on board a vessel in furtherance of its purpose. We conclude therefore that, at the time of its passage, the Jones Act established no requirement that a seaman aid in navigation. Our voyage is not over, however.
C
As had the lower federal courts before the Jones Act, this Court continued to construe “seaman” broadly after the Jones Act. In International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U. S. 50 (1926), the Court held that a stevedore is a “seaman” covered under the Act when engaged in maritime employment. Haverty was a longshore worker injured while stowing freight in the hold of a docked vessel. The Court recognized that “as the word is commonly used, stevedores are not ‘seamen.’” Id., at 52. “But words are flexible.... We cannot believe that Congress willingly would have allowed the protection to men engaged upon the same maritime duties to vary with the accident of their being employed by a stevedore rather than by the ship.” Ibid.
Congress would, and did, however. Within six months of the decision in Haverty, Congress passed the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 44 Stat. (part 2) 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. §§901-950. The Act provides recovery for injury to a broad range of land-based maritime workers, but explicitly excludes from its coverage “a master or member of a crew of any vessel.” 33 U. S. C. § 902(3)(G). This Court recognized the distinction, albeit belatedly, in Sivanson v. Marra Brothers, Inc., 328 U. S. 1 (1946), concluding that the Jones Act and the LHWCA are mutually exclusive. The LHWCA provides relief for land-based maritime workers, and the Jones Act is restricted to “a master or member of a crew of any vessel”: “We must take it that the effect of these provisions of the [LHWCA] is to confine the benefits of the Jones Act to the members of the crew of a vessel plying in navigable waters and to substitute for the right of recovery recognized by the Haverty case only such rights to compensation as are given by the [LHWCA].” Id., at 7. “[Mjaster or member of a crew” is a refinement of the term “seaman” in the Jones Act; it excludes from LHWCA coverage those properly covered under the Jones Act. Thus, it is odd but true that the key requirement for Jones Act coverage now appears in another statute.
With the passage of the LHWCA, Congress established a clear distinction between land-based and sea-based maritime workers. The latter, who owe their allegiance to a vessel and not solely to a land-based employer, are seamen. Ironically, on the same day that the Court decided Swanson it handed down Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 (1946). With reasoning remarkably similar to that in Haverty, the Court extended to a stevedore the traditional seamen’s remedy of unseaworthiness in those cases where the stevedore “is doing a seaman’s work and incurring a seaman’s hazards.” 328 U. S., at 99. It took Congress a bit longer to react this time. In 1972, Congress amended the LHWCA to bar longshore and harbor workers from recovery for breach of the duty of seaworthiness. See 86 Stat. 1263, 33 U. S. C. § 905(b); Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U. S. 19, 28 (1990). Whether under the Jones Act or general maritime law, seamen do not include land-based workers.
The LHWCA does not change the rule that a seaman need not aid in navigation. “Member of a crew” and “seaman” are closely related terms. Indeed, the two were often used interchangeably in general maritime cases. See, e. g., The Osceola, 189 U. S., at 175; The Buena Ventura, 243 F. 797, 799 (SDNY 1916). There is nothing in these cases, or the LHWCA, to indicate that members of a crew are required to navigate. The “member of a crew” exception in the LHWCA overrules Haverty; “master or member of a crew” restates who a “seaman” under the Jones Act is supposed to be: a sea-based maritime employee.
H h — l > — I
The source of the conflict we resolve today is this Court’s inconsistent use of an aid in navigation requirement. The inconsistency arose during the 19 years that passed between the enactment of the LHWCA in 1927 and the decision in Swanson in 1946 — 19 years during which the Court did not recognize the mutual exclusivity of the LHWCA and the Jones Act. Thus, Jamison v. Encamacion, 281 U. S. 635, 639 (1930), and Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 282 U. S. 234, 238 (1931), decided after passage of the LHWCA but before Swanson, reiterated the Haverty rule that stevedores are covered under the Jones Act. In Warner v. Goltra, 293 U. S. 155 (1934), the Court held that the master of a vessel is a “seaman” under the Act. In so holding, the Court relied on the salutary principle that statutory language “must be read in the light of the mischief to be corrected and the end to be attained.” Id., at 158. As the Jones Act is a remedial statute, there is no reason that the master of a vessel who suffers a maritime injury should be any less protected than a crew member. Id., at 162. All of this was unnecessary, of course. Had the Court recognized, as it did subsequently in Swanson, that the LHWCA further defines Jones Act coverage, the answer was to be found in the plain language of “master or member of a crew of any vessel.”
"Warner is important for our purposes because it is the Court’s first look at the term “seaman” in the Jones Act as it applies to sea-based employees. The Court adopted a definition of “seaman” consistent with that of the lower federal courts in the later pre-Jones Act cases: “[A] seaman is a mariner of any degree, who lives his life upon the sea. It is enough that what he does affects ‘the operation and welfare of the ship when she is upon a voyage.’ The Buena Ventura, 243 Fed. 797, 799, where a wireless operator was brought within the term.” Warner, supra, at 157. There is no reference to navigation. The Court quoted The Buena Ventura again, specifically on the point of the expanded definition of “seaman”: “The word ‘seaman’ undoubtedly once meant a person who could ‘hand, reef and steer,’ a mariner in the true sense of the word. But as the necessities of ships increased, so the word ‘seaman’ enlarged its meaning.” The Buena Ventura, supra, at 799, quoted in Warner, supra, at 157, n. 1. Warner plainly rejected an aid in navigation requirement under the Jones Act.
The confusion began with South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 309 U. S. 251 (1940). Decedent was drowned while working as a deckhand on board a lighter used to fuel steamboats and other marine equipment. His primary duty was to move coal from the boat to other vessels being fueled. Petitioner maintained that decedent’s widow was not entitled to recovery under the LHWCA because decedent was a “member of the crew” of the lighter. In holding that decedent’s widow was entitled to LHWCA coverage, the Court explained that the “member of a crew” exception was meant to exclude only “those employees on the vessel who are naturally and primarily on board to aid in her navigation.” Id., at 260. Without defining further precisely what aiding in navigation entailed, the Court seemed to be harkening back to an earlier, discarded notion of seaman status.
But the Court was not defining “seaman” under the Jones Act; it was construing “member of a crew” under the LHWCA. Bassett was decided before Swanson, at a time when the Court viewed “seaman” as a broader term than “member of a crew.” The Bassett Court stated explicitly that it did not equate “member of a crew” under the LHWCA with “seaman” under the Jones Act: “[The LHWCA], as we have seen, was to provide compensation for a class of employees at work on a vessel in navigable waters who, although they might be classed as seamen (International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, [272 U. S. 50 (1926)]), were still regarded as distinct from members of a ‘crew.’” Bassett, supra, at 260. Bassett did not impose an aid in navigation requirement for seaman status under the Jones Act.
The Court emphasized this point a year later in a one-sentence summary reversal order in Cantey v. McLain Line, Inc., 312 U. S. 667 (1941). Cantey was a Jones Act case. In ruling that claimant was not entitled to Jones Act relief, the District Court found the facts of the case indistinguishable from those of Diomede v. Lowe, 87 F. 2d 296 (CA2), cert. denied, 301 U. S. 682 (1937). Cantey v. McLain Line, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 1023 (SDNY), aff’d, 114 F. 2d 1017 (CA2 1940). Diomede had held that a maritime worker was entitled to LHWCA coverage because he was not a “member of a crew.” Diomede, supra, at 298. The District Court in Cantey concluded that because, following Diomede, claimant was not a “member of a crew” under the LHWCA, he was not a “seaman” under the Jones Act. Cantey, supra, at 1023. The court was six years too early in recognizing the mutual exclusivity of the Jones Act and the LHWCA, and this Court consequently reversed. One of the cases cited in Bassett for the proposition that a “member of a crew” under the LHWCA must aid in navigation is Diomede. See Bassett, supra, at 260.
All of this should have made it clear that the aid in navigation test had no necessary connection to the Jones Act. But it did not. In Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U. S. 566 (1944), another pre-Swanson case, the Court once again addressed the “member of a crew” exception to the LHWCA. Decedent lived on board a barge with no motive power and confined to waters within a 30 mile radius of Philadelphia. His duties included taking general care of the barge. The Court held that decedent was a “member of a crew.”
The Court’s concerns were very different in Norton than they had been in Bassett. Certain maritime unions, appearing as amici curiae, emphasized that the liability of an employer under the LHWCA is exclusive. This means that those covered under the LHWCA because not “members of a crew” are not entitled to the superior remedies available to seamen under the Jones Act and general maritime law. See Norton, supra, at 570-571. Cognizant of its obligation not to narrow unduly the class for whom Congress provided recovery under the Jones Act, the Court explained that the Bas-sett aid in navigation test was not to be read restrictively:
“We said in the Bassett case that the term ‘crew’ embraced those ‘who are naturally and primarily on board’ the vessel ‘to aid in her navigation.’ Id., p. 260. But navigation is not limited to ‘putting over the helm.’ It also embraces duties essential for other purposes of the vessel. Certainly members of the crew are not confined to those who can ‘hand, reef and steer.’ Judge Hough pointed out in The Buena Ventura, 243 F. 797, 799, that ‘every one is entitled to the privilege of a seaman who, like seamen, at all times contributes to the labors about the operation and welfare of the ship when she is upon a voyage.’ And see The Minna, 11 F. 759; Disbrow v. Walsh Bros., 36 F. 607, 608 (bargeman). We think that ‘crew’ must have at least as broad a meaning under the Act.” Norton, supra, at 571-572.
The Court here expressed a view very close to the Swanson holding that “member of a crew” under the LHWCA is the same as “seaman” under the Jones Act. Norton adopted a conception of “member of a crew” consistent with the established view of “seaman” in pre-Jones Act cases, and consistent with the definition of “seaman” the Court announced in Warner. It is a conception far broader than that announced in Bassett, despite Norton’s ostensible interpretation of that case.
With Norton, we again reversed course, steering back toward the Warner and the pre-Jones Act definition of “seaman.” Unfortunately, the opinion carried with it the outmoded aid in navigation language. Of course, Norton was a pre-Swanson, pure LHWCA case.
Our Jones Act cases of the late 1950’s were not. In a series of brief decisions, the Court afforded seaman status to claimants working on board vessels whose jobs had not even an indirect connection to the movement of the vessel. Despite their results, these cases either assert an aid in navigation requirement or rely on Bassett. See Gianfala v. Texas Co., 350 U. S. 879 (1955) (summary reversal order) (citing Bassett; seaman status for a driller on board a submersible drilling barge); Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 352 U. S. 370, 374 (1957) (handyman on dredge anchored to shore met the aid in navigation test); Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co., 356 U. S. 252, 253 (1958) (per curiam) (citing Bassett; pile driver on submersible radar installation); Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U. S. 271 (1958) (per curiam) (citing Bassett; handyman on tug). These decisions, to the extent that they do not make seaman status contingent upon the seaman’s job on board the vessel, are consistent with the Warner and pre-Jones Act definition of “seaman.” And they do not conflict with the ^re-Swanson LHWCA cases, Bassett and Norton, because those cases do not concern the Jones Act. These late 1950’s Jones Act cases are befuddling, however, at least in part because they tie “seaman” under the Jones Act to “member of a crew” under the LHWCA, while ostensibly retaining the Bassett aid in navigation requirement.
Following Butler, we accepted no more of these cases, relegating to the lower courts the task of making some sense of the confusion left in our wake. Our wayward case law has led the lower courts to a “myriad of standards and lack of uniformity in administering the elements of seaman status.” Engerrand & Bale, 24 S. Tex. L. J., at 494. The Seventh Circuit expressed its frustration well: “Diderot may very well have had the previous Supreme Court cases in mind when he wrote, We have made a labyrinth and got lost in it. We must find our way out.’” Johnson, 742 F. 2d, at 1060. One of the problems that this Court’s Jones Act cases present to the lower courts is that the sundry jobs performed by the seamen in the cases of the late 1950’s will not lie with any rational conception of aid in navigation.
> I — I
We think the time has come to jettison the aid in navigation language. That language, which had long been rejected by admiralty courts under general maritime law, and by this Court in Warner, a Jones Act case, slipped back in through an interpretation of the LHWCA at a time when the LHWCA had nothing to do with the Jones Act.
We now recognize that the LHWCA is one of a pair of mutually exclusive remedial statutes that distinguish between land-based and sea-based maritime employees. The LHWCA restricted the definition of “seaman” in the Jones Act only to the extent that “seaman” had been taken to in-elude land-based employees. There is no indication in the Jones Act, the LHWCA, or elsewhere, that Congress has excluded from Jones Act remedies those traditional seamen who owe allegiance to a vessel at sea, but who do not aid in navigation.
In his dissent in Sieracki, Chief Justice Stone chastised the Court for failing to recognize the distinct nature of land-based and sea-based employment. Traditional seamen’s remedies, he explained, have been “universally recognized as... growing out of the status of the seaman and his peculiar relationship to the vessel, and as a feature of the maritime law compensating or offsetting the special hazards and disadvantages to which they who go down to sea in ships are subjected.” 328 U. S., at 104.- It is this distinction that Congress recognized in the LHWCA and the Jones Act. See id., at 106; Swanson v. Marra Brothers, Inc., 328 U. S. 1 (1946). It also explains why all those with that “peculiar relationship to the vessel” are covered under the Jones Act, regardless of the particular job they perform.
We believe the better rule is to define “master or member of a crew” under the LHWCA, and therefore “seaman” under the Jones Act, solely in terms of the employee’s connection to a vessel in navigation. This rule best explains our case law and is consistent with the pre-Jones Act interpretation of “seaman” and Congress’ land-based/sea-based distinction. All who work at sea in the service of a ship face those particular perils to which the protection of maritime law, statutory as well as decisional, is directed. See generally Robertson, A New Approach to Determining Seaman Status
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title IV of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 18 U. S. C. § 1623 (1976 ed., Supp. I), prohibits false declarations made under oath “in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States.” This case turns on the scope of the term ancillary proceeding in § 1623, a phrase not defined in that provision or elsewhere in the Criminal Code. More specifically, we must determine whether an interview in a private attorney’s office at which a sworn statement is given constitutes a proceeding ancillary to a court or grand jury within the meaning of the statute.
I
On June 16, 1976, petitioner Robert Dunn testified before a federal grand jury under a grant of immunity pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 6002. The grand jury was investigating illicit drug activity at the Colorado State Penitentiary where petitioner had been incarcerated. Dunn’s testimony implicated a fellow inmate, Phillip Musgrave, in various drug-related offenses. Following petitioner’s appearance, the grand jury indicted Musgrave for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine.
Several months later, on September 30, 1976, Dunn arrived without counsel in the office of Musgrave’s attorney, Michael Canges. In the presence of Canges and a notary public, petitioner made an oral statement under oath in which he recanted his grand jury testimony implicating Musgrave. Canges subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment against Musgrave, alleging that it was based on perjured testimony. In support of this motion, the attorney submitted a transcript of Dunn’s September 30 statement.
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing on Mus-grave’s motion to dismiss on October 21, 1976. At that hearing, petitioner, who was then represented by counsel, adopted the statement he had given in Canges’ office and testified that only a small part of what he had told the grand jury was in fact true. App. 46. As a result of petitioner’s testimony, the Government reduced the charges against Mus-grave to misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine. See 21 U. S. C. § 844.
Petitioner was subsequently indicted on five counts of making false declarations in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1623 (1976 ed., Supp. I). The indictment charged that Dunn’s testimony before the grand jury was inconsistent with statements made “on September 30, 1976, while under oath as a witness in a proceeding ancillary to United States v. Musgrave, . . . to the degree that one of said declarations was false . . . App. 5-6. In response to petitioner’s motion for a bill of particulars, the Government indicated that it would rely on the “inconsistent declarations” method of proof authorized by § 1623 (c). Under that subsection, the Government must establish the materiality and inconsistency of declarations made in proceedings before or ancillary to a court or grand jury, but need not prove which of the declarations is false. See n. 1, supra.
At trial, the Government introduced over objection pertinent parts of Dunn’s grand jury testimony, his testimony at the October 21 evidentiary hearing, and his sworn statement to Musgrave’s attorney. After the Government rested its case, petitioner renewed his objections in a motion for acquittal. He contended that the September 30 statement was not made in a proceeding ancillary to a federal court or grand jury as required by § 1623 (c). In addition, Dunn argued that use of his grand jury testimony to prove an inconsistent declaration would contravene the Government’s promise of immunity, in violatioxl of 18 U. S. C. § 6002 and the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the motion and submitted the case to the jury. Petitioner was convicted on three of the five counts of the indictment and sentenced to concurrent 5-year terms on each count.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 577 F. 2d 119 (1978). Although it agreed with petitioner that the interview in Canges’ office was not an ancillary proceeding under § 1623, the court determined that the October 21 hearing at which petitioner adopted his September statement was a proceeding ancillary to a grand jury investigation. 577 F. 2d, at 123. Acknowledging that the indictment specified the September 30 interview rather than the October 21 hearing as the ancillary proceeding, the Court of Appeals construed this discrepancy as a nonprejudicial variance between the indictment and proof at trial. Id., at 123-124. The court also upheld the use of petitioner’s immunized grand jury testimony to prove a § 1623 violation. In so ruling, the court stated that immunized testimony generally may not be used to establish an inconsistent declaration without a prior independent showing that the testimony is false. But, in the court’s view, petitioner’s unequivocal concession at the October hearing that he had testified falsely before the grand jury justified the Government’s reliance on that testimony. 577 F. 2d, at 125-126.
We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 1045 (1978). Because we disagree with the Court of Appeals’ ultimate disposition of the ancillary-proceeding issue, we reverse without reaching the question whether petitioner’s immunized testimony was admissible to prove a violation of § 1623.
II
A variance arises when the evidence adduced at trial establishes facts different from those alleged in an indictment. Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78 (1935). In the instant case, since the indictment specified the September 30 interview rather than the October 21 hearing as the ancillary proceeding, the Court of Appeals identified a variance between the pleadings and the Government’s proof at trial. However, reasoning that petitioner’s October 21 testimony was “inextricably related” to his September 30 declaration, the court concluded that petitioner could have anticipated that the prosecution would introduce the October testimony. 577 F. 2d, at 123. The court therefore determined that the variance was not fatal to the Government’s case. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 757 (1946).
In our view, it is unnecessary to inquire, as did the Court of Appeals, whether petitioner was prejudiced by a variance between what was alleged in the indictment and what was proved at trial. For we discern no such variance. The indictment charged inconsistency between petitioner’s statements in the September 30 interview and his grand jury testimony. That was also the theory on which the case was tried and submitted to the jury. Indeed, the October 21 testimony was introduced by the Government only in rebuttal to dispel any inference that petitioner’s grand jury testimony was true. See Tr. 82-83. But while there was no variance between the indictment and proof at trial, there was a discrepancy between the basis on which the jury rendered its verdict and that on which the Court of Appeals sustained petitioner’s conviction. Whereas the jury was instructed to rest its decision on Dunn’s September statement, the Tenth Circuit predicated its affirmance on petitioner’s October testimony. The Government concedes that this ruling was erroneous. Brief for United States 15, 35; Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. We agree.
To uphold a conviction on a charge that was neither alleged in an indictment nor presented to a jury at trial offends the most basic notions of due process. New constitutional principles are more firmly established than a defendant’s right to be heard on the specific charges of which he is accused. See Eaton v. Tulsa, 415 U. S. 697, 698-699 (1974) (per curiam); Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, 163-164 (1961); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196, 201 (1948); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 362 (1937). There is, to be sure, no glaring distinction between the Government’s theory at trial and the Tenth Circuit’s analysis on appeal. The jury might well have reached the same verdict had the prosecution built its case on petitioner’s October 21 testimony adopting his September 30 statement rather than on the September statement itself. But the offense was not so defined, and appellate courts are not free to revise the basis on which a defendant is convicted simply because the same result would likely obtain on retrial. As we recognized in Cole v. Arkansas, supra, at 201, “[i]t is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made.” Thus, unless the September 30 interview constituted an ancillary proceeding, petitioner’s conviction cannot stand.
Ill
Congress enacted § 1623 as part of the 1970 Organized Crime Control Act, Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, to facilitate perjury prosecutions and thereby enhance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and grand juries. S. Rep. No. 91-617, pp. 58-59 (1969). Invoking this broad congressional purpose, the Government argues for an expansive construction of the term ancillary proceeding. Under the Government’s analysis, false swearing in an affidavit poses the same threat to the factfinding process as false testimony in open court. Brief for United States 21. Thus, the Government contends that any statements made under oath for submission to a court, whether given in an attorney’s office or in a local bar and grill, fall within the ambit of § 1623. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. In our judgment, the term “proceeding,” which carries a somewhat more formal connotation, suggests that Congress had a narrower end in view when enacting § 1623. And the legislative history of the Organized Crime Contol Act confirms that conclusion.
Section 1623 was a response to perceived evidentiary problems in demonstrating perjury under the existing federal statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1621. As Congress noted, the strict common-law requirements for establishing falsity which had been engrafted onto the federal perjury statute often made prosecution for false statements exceptionally difficult. By relieving the Government of the burden of proving which of two or more inconsistent declarations was false, see § 1623 (c), Congress sought to afford “greater assurance that testimony obtained in grand jury and court proceedings will aid the cause of truth.” S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 59 (1969). But nothing in the language or legislative history of the statute suggests that Congress contemplated a relaxation of the Government’s burden of proof with respect to all inconsistent statements given under oath. Had Congress intended such a result, it presumably would have drafted § 1623 to encompass all sworn declarations irrespective of whether they were made in pro-eeedings before or ancillary to a court or grand jury. Particularly since Congress was aware that statements under oath were embraced by the federal perjury statute without regard to where they were given, the choice of less comprehensive language in § 1623 does not appear inadvertent.
That Congress intended § 1623 to sweep less broadly than the perjury statute is also apparent from the origin of the term ancillary proceeding. As initially introduced in Congress, the Organized Crime Control Act contained a version of § 1623 which encompassed only inconsistent statements made in any “trial, hearing, or proceeding before any court or grand jury.” When asked to comment on the proposed statute, the Department of Justice noted that the scope of the inconsistent declarations provision was “not as inclusive” as the perjury statute. See Hearings on S. 30 et al. before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 372 (1969) (hereinafter S. 30 Hearings). Significantly, the Justice Department did not suggest that the provision be made coextensive with the perjury statute. However, in subsequent Senate Subcommittee hearings, Assistant Attorney General Wilson indicated, without elaboration, that the Department advocated “including [under § 1623] other testimony, preliminary testimony and other statements, in the perjury field.” Id., at 389.
In response to that general suggestion, Senator McClellan, on behalf of the Subcommittee, sent a letter to the Assistant Attorney General clarifying its purpose:
“You also read Title IV not to cover 'pre-trial depositions, affidavits and certifications.’ This was not our intent in drafting the bill. We had hoped that it would be applicable, for example, to situations such as [the] kind of pre-trial depositions that the enforcement of S. 1861 would present. If we included in the statute the phrase 'proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury,’ do you feel that this intent would be adequately expressed?” Id., at 409.
The Government attaches great significance to the qualification, “for example,” in Senator McClellan’s letter. Because pretrial depositions were mentioned as illustrative, the Government interprets the term ancillary proceeding to subsume affidavits and certifications as well. But that is not the inference the Department of Justice originally drew from the Senator’s letter. Responding to the proposed modification of § 1623, Assistant Attorney General Wilson did not advert to affidavits or certifications but stated only that
“[inclusion of the phrase 'proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury’ in the false statement provision would in our opinion adequately bring within the coverage of the provision pre-trial depositions such as that contained in S. 1861.” S. 30 Hearings 411.
In our view, the Justice Department’s contemporaneous rather than its current interpretation offers the more plausible reading of the Subcommittee’s intent. Its attention having been drawn to the issue, had the Subcommittee wished to bring all affidavits and certifications within the statutory prohibition, Senator McClellan presumably would have so stated.
Finally, to construe the term ancillary proceeding in § 1623 as excluding statements given in less formal contexts than depositions would comport with Congress’ use of the phrase in a related provision of the Organized Crime Control Act. Title II of the Act, 18 U. S. C. § 6002, authorizes extension of immunity to any witness who claims his privilege against self-incrimination “in a proceeding . . . ancillary to” a court, grand jury, or agency of the United States, or before Congress or one of its committees. See n. 2, supra. Although neither the House nor Senate Report defines the precise scope of § 6002, they both specify pretrial depositions as the sole example of what would constitute an ancillary proceeding under that provision. H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 42 (1970); S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 145 (1969).
Thus, both the language and history of the Act support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that petitioner’s September 30 interview “lack[ed] the degree of formality” required by § 1623. 577 F. 2d, at 123. For the Government does not and could not seriously maintain that the interview in Canges’ office constituted a deposition. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. Mu'sgrave’s counsel made no attempt to comply with the procedural safeguards for depositions set forth in Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 15 and 18 U. S. C. § 3503. A court order authorizing the deposition was never obtained. Nor did petitioner receive formal notice of the proceeding or of his right to have counsel present. Indeed, petitioner did not even certify the transcript of the interview as accurate.
To characterize such an interview as an ancillary proceeding would not only take liberties with the language and legislative history of § 1623, it would also contravene this Court’s long-established practice of resolving questions concerning the ambit of a criminal statute in favor of lenity. Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814, 831 (1974); Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971); Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 83 (1955). This practice reflects not merely a convenient maxim of statutory construction. Rather, it is rooted in fundamental principles of due process which mandate that no individual be forced to speculate, at peril of indictment, whether his conduct is prohibited. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 108 (1972); United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617 (1954); Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 27 (1931). Thus, to ensure that a legislature speaks with special clarity when marking the boundaries of criminal conduct, courts must decline to impose punishment for actions that are not “ 'plainly and unmistakably’ ” proscribed. United States v. Gradwell, 243 U. S. 476, 485 (1917).
We cannot conclude here that Congress in fact intended or clearly expressed an intent that § 1623 should encompass statements made in contexts less formal than a deposition. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner’s September 30 declarations were not given in a proceeding ancillary to a court or grand jury within the meaning of the statute. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In pertinent part, 18 U. S. C. § 1623 (1976 ed., Supp. I) provides:
“(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
“(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
“(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
“(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
“In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.”
Under 18 U. S. C. § 6002:
“Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to—
“(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
“(2) an agency of the United States, or
“(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this part, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but ho testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.”
Each count alleged that a specific representation in the September 30 statement was inconsistent with a corresponding portion of petitioner’s grand jury testimony. See App. 3-11.
The District Court instructed the jury that in order to convict petitioner, it had to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner “while under oath, made irreconcilably contradictory declarations ... in any proceeding before or ancillary to a court or grand jury.” Tr. 179. The court did not define the term ancillary proceeding, but admonished the jury to render its verdict on the charges alleged in the indictment, which specified June 16, 1976, and September 30, 1976, as the proceedings at which inconsistent statements were given. Id., at 175-176; App. 3-11. Moreover, both the Assistant United States Attorney and defense counsel focused their summations on the September 30 statement. See Tr. 151, 167.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1621 provides:
“Whoever—
“(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
“(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
“is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.”
In particular, Congress focused on the two-witness rule, under which “the uncorroborated oath of one witness is not enough to establish the falsity of the testimony of the accused.” Hammer v. United States, 271 U. S. 620, 626 (1926); accord, Weiler v. United States, 323 U. S. 606, 608-610 (1945). See S. Rep. No. 91-617, pp. 57-59 (1969).
See id., at 110-111; n. 5, supra.
In its entirety, the original version of § 1623 (a) provided:
“Whoever, having taken an oath in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before any court or grand jury, in which a law of the United States authorizes the oath, knowingly falsifies fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” S. 30, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., § 401 (1969).
The provision of S. 1861 to which the Senator adverted involved use of depositions in racketeering investigations. It is currently codified as 18 U. S. C. § 1968.
In arguing that petitioner’s September 30 interview was an ancillary-proceeding, the Government relies on United States v. Stassi, 583 F. 2d 122 (CA3 1978), and United States v. Krogh, 366 F. Supp. 1255, 1256 (DC 1973). The defendant in Stassi was convicted under § 1623 of making statements in a Fed. Rule Crim. Proe. 11 guilty plea hearing that were irreconcilable with his declarations in an affidavit supporting a motion to vacate sentence. Without adverting to any legislative history, the Court of Appeals affirmed on the theory that a false affidavit “offends the administration of criminal justice as much as [other] false material declaration[s].” 583 F. 2d, at 127. Insofar as Stassi’s analysis is inconsistent with our decision here, we decline to follow it. And Krogh affords no support for the Government’s position in this case since the court there held only that a sworn deposition taken in the office of an Assistant United States Attorney General was a proceeding ancillary to a grand jury investigation.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 3503 (a) provides:
“Whenever due to exceptional circumstances it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of a prospective witness of a party be taken and preserved, the court at any time after the filing of an indictment or information may upon motion of such party and notice to the parties order that the testimony of such witness be taken by deposition . .. .”
The language of Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 15 (a) is substantially the same.
See 18 U. S. C. §§3503 (b), (c); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 15 (b).
See App. 46; 18 U. S. C. §3503 (d); Fed. Rule Crim Proc. 15 (d).
The Government points out that if this Court reverses petitioner’s conviction on the ground that the September 30 statement was not given in an ancillary proceeding, petitioner will be subject to reindictment for making declarations in the October 21 hearing inconsistent with his testimony in the June 16 grand jury proceeding. Thus, the Government urges us to reach the second question decided by the Court of Appeals concerning the use of petitioner’s immunized testimony to prove a violation of § 1623. Brief for United States 36-37. We decline to render an advisory opinion based on the Government’s suppositions not only that petitioner will be reindicted but also that he will be convicted after a trial at which the immunized testimony is introduced.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell joined.
Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. When the trial judge imposed the death sentence he stated that he was relying in part on information in a presentence investigation report. Portions of the report were not disclosed to counsel for the parties. Without reviewing the confidential portion of the presentence report, the Supreme Court of Florida, over the dissent of two justices, affirmed the death sentence. 313 So. 2d 675 (1975). We conclude that this procedure does not satisfy the constitutional command that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
I
On June 30, 1973, the petitioner assaulted his wife with a blunt instrument, causing her death. On January 10, 1974, after a trial in the Circuit Court of Citrus County, Fla., a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder.
The separate sentencing hearing required by Florida law in capital cases was held later on the same day. The State merely introduced two photographs of the decedent, otherwise relying on the trial testimony. That testimony, if credited, was sufficient to support a finding of one of the statutory aggravating circumstances, that the felony committed by petitioner “was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.”
In mitigation petitioner testified that he had consumed a vast quantity of alcohol during a day-long drinking spree which preceded the crime, and professed to have almost no recollection of the assault itself. His testimony, if credited, was sufficient to support a finding of at least one of the statutory mitigating circumstances.
After hearing this evidence the jury was instructed to determine by a majority vote (1) whether the State had proved one of the aggravating circumstances defined by statute, (2) whether mitigating circumstances outweighed any such aggravating circumstance, and (3) based on that determination, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life or death.
After the jury retired to deliberate, the judge announced that he was going to order a presentence investigation of petitioner. Twenty-five minutes later the jury returned its advisory verdict. It expressly found that the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances and advised the court to impose a life sentence. App. 131.
The presentence investigation report was completed by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission on January 28, 1974. On January 30, 1974, the trial judge entered findings of fact and a judgment sentencing petitioner to death. His ultimate finding was that the felony “was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; and that such aggravating circumstances outweighs the mitigating circumstance, to-wit: none.” Id., at 138. As a preface to that ultimate finding, he recited that his conclusion was based on the evidence presented at both stages of the bifurcated proceeding, the arguments of counsel, and his review of “the factual information contained in said pre-sentence investigation.” Ibid.
There is no dispute about the fact that the presentence investigation report contained a confidential portion which was not disclosed to defense counsel. Although the judge noted in his findings of fact that the State and petitioner’s counsel had been given “a copy of that portion [of the report] to which they are entitled,” ibid., counsel made no request to examine the full report or to be apprised of the contents of the confidential portion. The trial judge did not comment on the contents of the confidential portion. His findings do not indicate that there was anything of special importance in the undisclosed portion, or that there was any reason other than customary practice for not disclosing the entire report to the parties.
On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, petitioner argued that the sentencing court had erred in considering the presentence investigation report, including the confidential portion, in making the decision to impose the death penalty. The per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court did not specifically discuss this contention, but merely recited the trial judge’s finding, stated that the record had been carefully reviewed, and concluded that the conviction and sentence should be affirmed. The record on appeal, however, did not include the confidential portion of the presentence report.
Justice Ervin and Justice Boyd dissented on several grounds. They regarded the evidence as sufficient to establish a mitigating circumstance as a matter of law, and also concluded that it was fundamental error for the trial judge to rely on confidential matter not provided to the parties. They stated, in part:
“Additionally, it appears from the record that there was a 'confidential’ portion of the PSI report made available to the trial judge which was not provided to either Appellant or Appellee. In fact, it is unclear from the record whether this Court has been provided the 'confidential’ portion thereof for our review, a critical final step between conviction and imposition of the death penalty—one of the safeguards outlined in Dixon. [State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (1973).] What evidence or opinion was contained in the 'confidential’ portion of the report is purely conjectural and absolutely unknown to and therefore unrebuttable by Appellant. We have no means of determining on review what role such 'confidential’ information played in the trial judge’s sentence, and thus I would overturn Appellant’s death sentence on the basis of this fundamental error alone.” 313 So. 2d, at 678 (emphasis in original).
Petitioner’s execution was stayed pending determination of the constitutionality of the Florida capital-sentencing procedure. Following the decision in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, holding that the Florida procedure, on its face, avoids the constitutional deficiencies identified in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, the Court granted certiorari in this case, 428 U. S. 908, to consider the constitutionality of the trial judge’s use of a confidential presentence report in this capital case.
II
The State places its primary reliance on this Court’s landmark decision in Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241. In that case, as in this, the trial judge rejected the jury’s recommendation of mercy and imposed the death sentence in reliance, at least in part, on material contained in a report prepared by the court’s probation department. The New York Court of Appeals had affirmed the sentence, rejecting the contention that it was a denial of due process to rely on information supplied by witnesses whom the accused could neither confront nor cross-examine.
This Court referred to appellant’s claim as a “narrow contention,” id., at 243, and characterized the case as one which
“presents a serious and difficult question . . . relat[ing] to the rules of evidence applicable to the manner in which a judge may obtain information to guide him in the imposition of sentence upon an already convicted defendant.” Id., at 244.
The conviction and sentence were affirmed, over the dissent of two Justices.
Mr. Justice Black’s opinion for the Court persuasively reasons why material developed in a presentence investigation may be useful to a sentencing judge, and why it may not be unfair to a defendant to rely on such information even if it would not be admissible in a normal adversary proceeding in open court. We consider the relevance of that reasoning to this case in Part III of this opinion. Preliminarily, however, we note two comments by Mr. Justice Black that make it clear that the holding of Williams is not directly applicable to this case.
It is first significant that in Williams the material facts concerning the defendant’s background which were contained in the presentence report were described in detail by the trial judge in open court. Referring to this material, Mr. Justice Black noted:
“The accuracy of the statements made by the judge as to appellant’s background and past practices was not challenged by appellant or his counsel, nor was the judge asked to disregard any of them or to afford appellant a chance to refute or discredit any of them by cross-examination or otherwise.” Ibid.
In contrast, in the case before us, the trial judge did not state on the record the substance of any information in the confidential portion of the presentence report that he might have considered material. There was, accordingly, no similar opportunity for petitioner’s counsel to challenge the accuracy or materiality of any such information.
It is also significant that Mr. Justice Black’s opinion recognized that the passage of time justifies a re-examination of capital-sentencing procedures. As he pointed out:
“This whole country has traveled far from the period in which the death sentence was an automatic and commonplace result of convictions—even for offenses today deemed trivial.” Id., at 247-248.
Since that sentence was written almost 30 years ago, this Court has acknowledged its obligation to re-examine capital-sentencing procedures against evolving standards of procedural fairness in a civilized society.
III
In 1949, when the Williams case was decided, no significant constitutional difference between the death penalty and lesser punishments for crime had been expressly recognized by this Court. At that time the Court assumed that after a defendant was convicted of a capital offense, like any other offense, a trial judge had complete discretion to impose any sentence within the limits prescribed by the legislature. As long as the judge stayed within those limits, his sentencing discretion was essentially unreviewable and the possibility of error was remote, if, indeed, it existed at all. In the intervening years there have been two constitutional developments which require us to scrutinize a State’s capital-sentencing procedures more closely than was necessary in 1949.
First, five Members of the Court have now expressly recognized that death is a different kind of punishment from any other which may be imposed in this country. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 181-188 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); see id., at 231-241 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S., at 286-291 (Brennan, J., concurring), 306-310 (Stewart, J., concurring); see id., at 314-371 (Marshall, J., concurring). From the point of view of the defendant, it is different in both its severity and its finality. From the point of view of society, the action of the sovereign in taking the life of one of its citizens also differs dramatically from any other legitimate state action. It is of vital importance to the defendant and to the community that any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be, based on reason rather than caprice or emotion.
Second, it is now clear that the sentencing process, as well as the trial itself, must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause. Even though the defendant has no substantive right to a particular sentence within the range authorized by statute, the sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding at which he is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U. S. 128; Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605. The defendant has a legitimate interest in the character of the procedure which leads to the imposition of sentence even if he may have no right to object to a particular result of the sentencing process. See Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 521-523.
In the light of these developments we consider the justifications offered by the State for a capital-sentencing procedure which permits a trial judge to impose the death sentence on the basis of confidential information which is not disclosed to the defendant or his counsel.
The State first argues that an assurance of confidentiality to potential sources of information is essential to enable investigators to obtain relevant but sensitive disclosures from persons unwilling to comment publicly about a defendant’s background or character. The availability of such information, it is argued, provides the person who prepares the report with greater detail on which to base a sentencing recommendation and, in turn, provides the judge with a better basis for his sentencing decision. But consideration must be given to the quality, as well as the quantity, of the information on which the sentencing judge may rely. Assurances of secrecy are conducive to the transmission of confidences which may bear no closer relation to fact than the average rumor or item of gossip, and may imply a pledge not to attempt independent verification of the information received. The risk that some of the information accepted in confidence may be erroneous, or may be misinterpreted, by the investigator or by the sentencing judge, is manifest.
If, as the State argues, it is important to use such information in the sentencing process, we must assume that in some cases it will be decisive in the judge's choice between a life sentence and a death sentence. If it tends to tip the scales in favor of life, presumably the information would be favorable and there would be no reason why it should not be disclosed. On the other hand, if it is the basis for a death sentence, the interest in reliability plainly outweighs the State’s interest in preserving the availability of comparable information in other cases.
The State also suggests that full disclosure of the presentence report will unnecessarily delay the proceeding. We think the likelihood of significant delay is overstated because we must presume that reports prepared by professional probation officers, as the Florida procedure requires, are generally reliable. In those cases in which the accuracy of a report is contested, the trial judge can avoid delay by disregarding the disputed material. Or if the disputed matter is of critical importance, the time invested in ascertaining the truth would surely be well spent if it makes the difference between life and death.
The State further urges that full disclosure of presentence reports, which often include psychiatric and psychological evaluations, will occasionally disrupt the process of rehabilitation. The argument, if valid, would hardly justify withholding the report from defense counsel. Moreover, whatever force that argument may have in noncapital cases, it has absolutely no merit in a case in which the judge has decided to sentence the defendant to death. Indeed, the extinction of all possibility of rehabilitation is one of the aspects of the death sentence that makes it different in kind from any other sentence a State may legitimately impose.
Finally, Florida argues that trial judges can be trusted to exercise their discretion in a responsible manner, even though they may base their decisions on secret information. However acceptable that argument might have been before Furman v. Georgia, it is now clearly foreclosed. Moreover, the argument rests on the erroneous premise that the participation of counsel is superfluous to the process of evaluating the relevance and significance of aggravating and mitigating facts. Our belief that debate between adversaries is often essential to the truth-seeking function of trials requires us also to recognize the importance of giving counsel an opportunity to comment on facts which may influence the sentencing decision in capital cases.
Even if it were permissible to withhold a portion of the report from a defendant, and even from defense counsel, pursuant to an express finding of good cause for nondisclosure, it would nevertheless be necessary to make the full report a part of the record to be reviewed on appeal. Since the State must administer its capital-sentencing procedures with an even hand, see Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S., at 250-253, it is important that the record on appeal disclose to the reviewing court the considerations which motivated the death sentence in every case in which it is imposed. Without full disclosure of the basis for the death sentence, the Florida capital-sentencing procedure would be subject to the defects which resulted in the holding of unconstitutionality in Furman v. Georgia. In this particular case, the only explanation for the lack of disclosure is the failure of defense counsel to request access to the full report. That failure cannot justify the submission of a less complete record to the reviewing court than the record on which the trial judge based his decision to sentence petitioner to death.
Nor do we regard this omission by counsel as an effective waiver of the constitutional error in the record. There are five reasons for this conclusion. First, the State does not urge that the objection has been waived. Second, the Florida Supreme Court has held that it has a duty to consider "the total record,” Swan v. State, 322 So. 2d 485, 489 (1975), when it reviews a death sentence. Third, since two members of that court expressly considered this point on the appeal in this case, we presume that the entire court passed on the question. Cf. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 240-242, and n. 3. Fourth, there is no basis for presuming that the defendant himself made a knowing and intelligent waiver, or that counsel could possibly have made a tactical decision not to examine the full report. Cf. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501, 507-508. Fifth, since the judge found, in disagreement with the jury, that the evidence did not establish any mitigating circumstance, and since the presentence report was the only item considered by the judge but not by the jury, the full review of the factual basis for the judge’s rejection of the advisory verdict is plainly required. For if the jury, rather than the judge, correctly assessed the petitioner’s veracity, the death sentence rests on an erroneous factual predicate.
We conclude that petitioner was denied due process of law when the death sentence was imposed, at least in part, on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain.
IV
There remains only the question of what disposition is now proper. Petitioner’s conviction, of course, is not tainted by the error in the sentencing procedure. The State argues that we should merely remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court with directions to have the entire presentence report made a part of the record to enable that court to complete its reviewing function. That procedure, however, could not fully correct the error. For it is possible that full disclosure, followed by explanation or argument by defense counsel, would have caused the trial judge to accept the jury’s advisory verdict. Accordingly, the death sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Florida Supreme Court with directions to order further proceedings at the trial court level not inconsistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.141 (Supp. 1976). This Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242.
Fla.Stat. Ann. § 921.141 (5) (h) (Supp. 1976).
The statute provides, in part:
“(6) Mitigating circumstances.—Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:
“(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
“(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.” Fla. Stat. Ann. §§921.141 (6) (b), (f) (Supp. 1976).
Florida Rules Crim. Proc. 3.710-3.713 authorize the presentence investigation. The Rules apply to all cases in which the trial court has discretion in sentencing, and make no reference to the special capital-sentencing procedure at issue here.
In an appendix to its brief in this Court, the State has printed a copy of the confidential portion of the presentence report. Petitioner contests its authenticity. He also argues, alternatively, that we should not review its contents because it was not made a part of the certified record in the state courts or in this Court; that consideration of the contents of the report in the first instance in this Court flouts the procedural regularity mandated for capital sentencing by Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, and Proffitt v. Florida; or that, not having had an opportunity to present evidence to rebut the confidential portion of the report, it would be unfair and improper to require him to address its contents in this Court. Reply Brief for Petitioner 2-3.
It is not a function of this Court to evaluate in the first instance the possibly prejudicial impact of facts and opinions appearing in a pre-sentence report. We therefore do not consider the contents of the appendix to the State’s brief.
In fact, the only reference in the record to the confidential portion was the inference to be drawn from the ambiguous mention of the “ 'portion ... to which they are entitled,’ ” supra, at 353, in the judge’s written findings of fact issued on the day sentence was announced.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 171-173, 179-181; Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 299-300 (Brennan, J., concurring); McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 197-203; Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 519 n. 15.
See Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 251-252.
The fact that due process applies does not, of course, implicate the entire panoply of criminal trial procedural rights.
“Once it is determined that due process applies, the question remains what process is due. It has been said so often by this Court and others as not to require citation of authority that due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. ... Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been determined that some process is due; it is a recognition that not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481.
Our presumption that the reports are normally reliable is, of course, not inconsistent with our concern about the possibility that critical unverified information may be inaccurate and determinative in a particular case.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S., at 313-314 (White, J., concurring). This argument is inconsistent with the basis upon which the Florida capital-sentencing procedure was upheld, Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S., at 254.
The Supreme Court of Florida decided petitioner’s case before our decision in Proffitt v. Florida, supra, and before its own consideration of Proffitt, 315 So. 2d 461 (1975), or of Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 (1975). Therefore, we cannot join Mr. Justice Marshall’s criticism of the Florida courts for their failure to follow the teaching of those 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:
|
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.
This case concerns the constitutionality of certain regulations promulgated by appellant Procunier in his. capacity as Director of the California Department of Corrections. Appellees brought a class action on behalf of themselves and. all other inmates of penal institutions under the Department’s jurisdiction to challenge the rules relating to censorship of prisoner mail and the ban against the use of law' student's and legal paraprofessionals to conduct attorney-client, interviews with inmates. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 a three-judge United States District Court was convened to hear appellees’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief. That court entered summary judgment enjoining continued enforcement of the rules in question and ordering appellants to submit new regulations for the court’s approval. 354 F. Supp. 1092 (ND Cal. 1973). Appellants’ first revisions resulted in counterproposals by appellees.and a court order issued May 30, 1973, requiring further modification of the proposed rules. The second set of revised regulations was approved by the District Court on July 20, 1973, over appellees’ objections. While the first proposed revisions of the Department’s regulations were pending before the District Court, appellants brought this appeal to contest that court’s decision holding the original regulations unconstitutional.
We noted probable jurisdiction. 412 U. S. 948 (1973). We affirm.
I
- First we consider the constitutionality of the Director’s rules restricting the personal correspondence of prison inmates. Under • these regulations, correspondence between inmates of California penal institutions and persons other than licensed attorneys and holders of public office was censored for nonconformity to certain standards. Rule 2401 stated the Department’s general premise that personal correspondence by prisoners is “a privilege, not a right....” More detailed regulations implemented the Department’s policy. Rule 1201 directed inmates not to write letters in which they “unduly complain” or “magnify grievances.” Rule 1205 (d) defined as contraband writings “expressing inflammatory political', racial, religious or other views or beliefs....” Finally, Rule 2402 (8) provided that inmates “may not send or receive letters that pertain to criminal activity; are lewd, obscene, or defamatory; contain foreign matter, or are otherwise inappropriate.”
Prison employees screened both incoming and outgoing personal mail for violations of these regulations. No further criteria were provided to help members' of the mailroom staff decide' whether a particular letter contravened any prison rule or policy. When a prison employee found a letter objectionable, he could take one or more of the following actions: (1) refuse to mail or deliver the letter and return it to the author; (2) submit a disciplinary report, which could lead to suspension of mail privileges, or other sanctions; or (3) place a copy of the letter or a summary of its contents in the prisoner’s file, where it might be a factor in determining the inmate’s work and housing assignments and in setting a date for parole eligibility.
The District Court held that the regulations relating to prisoner mail authorized censorship of protected expression without adequate justification in violation of the First Amendment and that they were void for vagueness. The. court also noted that the regulations failed to provide minimum procedural safeguards against error and arbitrariness in the censorship of inmate correspondence. Consequently, it enjoined their continued enforcement.
Appellants contended that the District Court should have abstained from deciding these questions. In that court appellants advanced no reason for abstention other than the assertion that the federal court should defer to the California courts on the basis of comity. The District Court properly rejected this suggestion, noting’ that the mere possibility that a state court might declare the prison regulations unconstitutional is no ground for abstention. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433, 439 (1971).
Appellants now contend that we should vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to abstain on the basis of two arguments not presented to it. First, they contend that any vagueness challenge to an uninterpreted state statute or regulation is a proper case for abstention. According to appellants, “[t]he very statement'by the district court that the regulations are vague constitutes a compelling reason for abstention.” Brief for Appellants 8-9. As this Court made plain in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360 (1964), however, not every vagueness challenge to an uninterpreted state statute or regulation constitutes a proper case for abstention. But we need- not decide whether appellants’ contention is controlled by the analysis in Baggett, for the short answer to their argument is that these regulations were neither challenged nor invalidated solely on the ground of vagueness. Appellees also asserted, and the District Court found, that the rules relating to prisoner mail permitted censorship of constitutionally protected expression without adequate justification. In light of the successful First Amendment attack on these regulations, the District Court’s conclusion that they were also unconstitutionally vague hardly “constitutes a compelling reason for abstention.”
As a second ground for abstention appellants rely on Cal. Penal Code § 2600 (4), which assures prisoners the right to receive books, magazines, and periodicals. Although they did not advance this argument to- the District Court, appellants now contend that the interpretation of the.statute by the state courts and its application to the regulations governing prisoner mail might avoid or modify the constitutional questions decided below. Thus appellants seek to establish the essential prerequisite for.abstention — “an uncertain issue of state law,” the resolution of which may eliminate or materially alter the federal constitutional question. Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 534 (1965). We are not persuaded.
A state court interpretation of § 2600 (4) would not avoid or substantially modify the constitutional question presented here. That statute does not contain any provision purporting to regulate censorship of personal correspondence. It only preserves the right of inmates to receive “newspapers, periodicals, and books” and authorizes prison officials to exclude “obscene publications or writings, and mail containing information concerning where, how, or from whom such matter may' be ob-. tained.. (emphasis added). And the plain meaning of the language is reinforced by recent legislative history. In 1972, a bill was introduced in the California Legislan ture to restrict censorship of personal correspondence by adding an entirely, new subsection to § 2600. The legislature passed the bill, but it was vetoed by Governor Reagan. In light of this history, we think it plain that no reasonable interpretation of § 2600 (4) would avoid or modify the federal constitutional question decided below. Moreover, we are mindful of the high cost of abstention when the federal constitutional challenge concerns facial repugnance to the First Amendment. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 252 (1967); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S., at 379. We therefore proceed to the merits.
A
Traditionally, federal courts have adopted a broad hands-off attitude toward problems of prison administration. In part this policy is the product of various limitations on the scope of federal review of conditions in state penal institutions. More fundamentally, this attitude springs from complementary perceptions about the nature of the problems and the efficacy of judicial intervention. Prison administrators are responsible for maintaining-internal order and discipline, for securing their institutions against unauthorized access or escape, and for rehabilitating, to the extent that human nature and inadequate resources allow, the inmates placed in their custody. The Herculean obstacles to effective discharge of these duties are too apparent to warrant explication. Suffice it to say that the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptibly of resolution by decree. Most require expertise, comprehensive' planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within.the province. of the legislative and executive branches of.''government. For all of those reasons, courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. Judicial recognition of that fact reflects no more than a healthy sense of realism. Moreover, where state penal institutions are involved, federal courts have a further reason for deference to the appropriate prison authorities.,
But a policy of judicial restraint cannot encompass any failure to take cognizance of valid constitutional claims whether arising in a federal or státe institution. When a.prison regulation or practice offends á fundamental constitutional guarantee, federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483, 486 (1969). This is such a case. Although the District Court found the regulations relating to prisoner mail deficient in several respects, the first and principal basis for its decision was the constitutional, command of the First Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment..
The issue before us is the. appropriate standard of review for prison regulations restricting fr.eedom of speech. This Court has not previously addressed this question, and the tension between the traditional policy of judicial restraint regarding prisoner complaints and the need to protect constitutional rights has led the' federal courts to adopt a variety of widely inconsistent approaches to the problem. Some have maintained a hands-off posture in the face of constitutional challenges to censorship' of prisoner mail. E. g., McCloskey v. Maryland, 337 F. 2d 72 (CA4 1964); Lee v. Tahash, 352 F. 2d 970 (CA8 1965) (except insofar as mail censorship rules are applied to discriminate against a particular racial or religious group); Krupnick v. Crouse, 366 F. 2d 851 (CA10 1966); Pope v. Daggett, 350 F. 2d 296 (CA10 1965). Another, has required only that censorship of personal correspondence not lack support “in any rational and constitutionally- acceptable concept of a prison system.” Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F. 2d 178, 199 (CA2 1971), cert. denied sub nom. Oswald v. Sostre, 405 U. S. 978 (1972). At the other extreme some courts have- been willing tp require demonstration of a “compelling state interest” to justify censorship of' prisoner mail. E. g., Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F. 2d 529 (CA5 1968) (decided on both equal protection and First Amendment grounds); Morales v. Schmidt, 340 F. Supp. 544 (WD Wis. 1972); Fortune Society v. McGinnis, 319 F. Supp. 901. (SDNY 1970). Other.courts phrase the standard in similarly demanding terms of “clear and present danger.” E. g., Wilkinson v. Skinner, 462 F. 2d 670, 672-673 (CA2 1972). And.there are various intermediate positions, most notably the view that a “regulation or practice which restricts the right of Tree expression that a prisoner would have enjoyed if he had not been imprisoned must be related both reasonably and necessarily. to the advancement of some justifiable purpose.” E. g., Carothers v. Follette, 314 F. Supp. 1014, 1024 (SDNY 1970) (citations omitted). See also Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881, 896 (ND Miss. 1972); LeMon v. Zelker, 358 F. Supp. 554 (SDNY 1972).
This array, of disparate approaches áríd the absence of any generally accepted standard for testing the constitutionality of prisoner mail censorship regulations disserye both the' competing interests at stake. On the one hand, the First' Amendment interests implicated by censorship of inmate • correspondence are given only haphazard and inconsistent protection. On the other, the uncertainty of the constitutional standard makes it impossible for correctional officials to anticipate what is required of them and invites repetitive, piecemeal litigation on behalf of inmates. The result has been unnecessarily,to perpetuate the involvement of the federal courts in ■ affairs of prison administration. Our task is to formulate a standard of review for prisoner mail censorship.that will be responsive to these concerns.
B
We begin our analysis of the proper standard of review for constitutional challenges to censorship of prisoner mail, with a somewhat different premise from that taken by the other federal courts that have considered the question. For the most part, these courts have dealt with challenges to censorship of prisoner mail as involving broad questions of “prisoners’ rights.” This case is no exception. The District Court stated the issue in general terms as “the applicability of First Amendment rights to prison inmates...,” 354 F. Supp., at 1096, and the arguments of the parties reflect the assumption that the resolution of this case requires an assessment of the extent to which prisoners may claim First Amendment freedoms. In our view this inquiry is unnecessary. In determining the proper standard of review for prison restrictions on inmate correspondence, we have no occasion to consider the extent to which an individual’s right to free speech survives incarceration, for a narrower basis of decision is at hand. In the case of direct personal correspondence between inmates and those who have a particularized interest in communicating with them, mail censorship implicates' more than the right of prisoners.
Communication by letter is not accomplished by the act of writing words on paper. Rather, it is effected only when the letter is read by the addressee. Both parties to the correspondence have an interest in securing that result, and censorship of the communication between them necessarily impinges on the interest of each. Whatever the status of a prisoner’s claim to uncensored correspondence with an -outsider, it is plain that the latter’s interest is grounded in the First Amendment’s, guarantee of freedom of speech. And this does not depend.on whether the nonprisoner correspondent is the author or intended recipient of a particular letter, for the addressee as well as the sender of direct personal correspondence derives from the First and Fourteenth Amendments a protection against unjustified governmental interference with the intended communication. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301 (1965); accord, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762-765 (1972); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 143 (1943). We do not deal here with difficult questions of the so-called “right to hear” and third-party standing but with a particular means of communication ■ in which the interests of both parties.are inextricably meshed. The wife of a prison inmate who is not permitted to read all' that her husband wanted to say to her has suffered an abridgment of her interest in communicating with him as plain as that which results from censorship of her letter to him. In either event, censorship of prisoner mail works a consequential restriction on the First and Fourteenth Amendments rights of those who are not prisoners.
Accordingly, we reject any attempt to justify censorship of inmate correspondence merely by reference to Certain assumptions about the legal status of prisoners. Into this category of argument falls appellants’ contention that “an inmate’s rights with reference to social correspondence are something fundamentally different than those enjoyed by his free brother.” Brief for Appellants 19. This line of argument and the undemanding standard of review it is intended to support fail to recognize that the First Amendment liberties of free citizens are implicated in censorship of prisoner mail. We therefore turn for guidance, not to cases involving questions of “prisoners’ rights,” but to decisions of this Court dealing with the general problem of incidental restrictions on First Amendment liberties imposed in furtherance of legitimate governmental activities.
As the Court noted in Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969), First Amendment guarantees must be “applied in light of the special characteristics of the... environment.” Tinker concerned the interplay between the right -to freedom of speech, of public high school students and “the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.” Id., at 507. In overruling a school regulation prohibiting.the wearing of antiwar armbands, the Court undertook a careful analysis of the legitimate requirements of orderly school administration in order to ensure that the students were afforded maximum freedom of speech consistent with those requirements. The same approach was followed in Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169 (1972), where the Court considered the refusal of a state college to grant official recognition to a group of students who wished to organize a local chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a national student organization noted for political activism and campus disruption.. The Court found that neither the identification of the local student group with the national SDS, nor the purportedly dangerous political philosophy of the local group, nor the college administration’s fear of future, unspecified disruptive activities by the students could justify the incursion on the right of free association.'The Court also found, however, that this right could be limited if necessary to prevent campus disruption, id., at 189-190, n. 20, and remanded the case for determination of whether the students had in fact refused to accept reasonable regulations governing student conduct.
In United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968), the Court dealt with incidental restrictions on free speech occasioned by the exercise of the governmental power to conscript men for military service. O’Brien had burned his Selective Service registration certificate on the steps of a courthouse in order to dramatize his opposition to the draft and to our country’s involvement in Vietnam. He was convicted of violating a provision of the Selective Service law that had recently been amended to prohibit knowing destruction or mutilation of registration certificates. O’Brien argued that the purpose and effect of the amendment were to abridge free expression and that the statutory provision was therefore unconstitutional, both as enacted and as applied to him. Although O’Brien’s activity involved “conduct” rather than pure “speech,” the Court did not define away the First Amendment concern, and neither did it rule that the presence- of a communicative intent necessarily rendered O’Brien’s actions -immune to governmental regulation. Instead, it enunciated the following four-part test:
“[A] government regulation is sufficiently justified.if.it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an.important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression,of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest/’ Id., at 377'.
Of course, none of these precedents directly, controls the instant case. In O’Brien the Court considered a federal statute which on its face prohibited certain conduct having no necessary connection with freedom of speech. This led the Court to differentiate between “speech” and “nonspeech” elements of a single course of conduct, a distinction that has little relevance here. Both Tinker and Heady concerned First and Fourteenth Amendment liberties in the context of state educational institutions, a circumstance involving rather different governmental interests than are at. stake here. In broader terms,' however, these precedents involved incidental restrictions on First Amendment liberties by governmental action in furtherance of legitimate and substantial state interest other than suppression of expression. In this sense these cases aré generally analogous to our present inquiry.
' The case at hand arises in the context of prisons. One of. the primary functions of government is the preservation of societal order through enforcement of the criminal íaw, and th.e maintenance of penal institutions is an essential part of that task. The identifiable governmental interests at stake in this task are the preservation of internal order and discipline, the maintenance of institutional security against escape or unauthorized entry, and the rehabilitation of the prisoners. While the weightof professional opinion, seems to be that inmate freedom to correspond with outsiders advances rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation, the legitimate governmental interest in the order and security of penal institutions justifies the imposition of certain restraints on inmate correspondence. Perhaps the most obvious example of justifiable censorship of prisoner mail would be refusal to send or deliver letters concerning escape plans or containing other information concerning proposed criminal activity, whether within or without the prison. Similarly, prison officials may properly refuse to transmit encoded messages. Other less obvious possibilities come to mind, but it is not our purpose to survey the range of circumstances in which particular restrictions on prisoner mail might be warranted by the legitimate demands of prison administration as they exist from time to time in the various kinds of,penal institutions found in this country. Our. task is to determine the proper, standard for deciding whether a particular regulation or practice relating to inmate correspondence constitutes an impermissible restraint of First Amendment liberties.
Applying the teachings of our prior decisions to the instant context, we hold that censorship of prisoner mail is.justified if the following criteria are met. First, the regulation or practice in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. Prison officials may not censor inmate correspondence simply to eliminate unflattering or unwelcome opinions or factually inaccurate statements. Rather, they must show that a regulation authorizing mail censorship furthers one or more of the substantial governmental interests of security, order, and rehabilitation. Second, the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved. Thus a restriction on inmate correspondence that furthers an important or substantial interest of penal administration will nevertheless be invalid if its sweep is unnecessarily broad. This does not mean, of course, that, prison administrators may be required to show with certainty that adverse consequences would flow from the failure to censor a particular letter. Some latitude in anticipating the probable consequences of allowing certain speech in a prison environment is essential to the proper discharge of an administrator’s duty. But any regulation or practice that restricts inmate correspondence must be generally necessary to protect one or more of the legitimate governmental interests identified above.
c
On the basis of this standard, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. The regulations invalidated by that court authorized, inter alia, censorship of statements that “unduly complain” or “magnify grievances,” expression of “inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views,” and matter deemed “defamatory” or “otherwise inappropriate.” These regulations fairly invited prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship. Not surprisingly, some prison officials used the extraordinary latitude for discretion authorized by the regulations to suppress unwelcome criticism. For ex.ample, at one institution under the Department’s jurisdiction, the checklist used by the maiboom staff authorized rejection of letters “criticizing policy, rules or officials,” and the maiboom sergeant stated in a deposition that he would reject as “defamatory” letters “belittling staff or our judicial system or anything connected with Department of Corrections.” • Correspondence was also censored for “disrespectful comments,” “derogatory remarks,” and the like.
Appellants have failed to show that these broad restrictions on prisoner mail were in any way necessary to the furtherance of a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. Indeed, the heart of appellants’ position is not that the regulations are justified by a legitimate governmental interest but that they do not need to be. This misconception is not only stated affirmatively; it also• underlies appellants’ discussion of the particular regulations under attack. For example, appellants’ sole defense of the prohibition against matter that is “defamatory” or “otherwise inappropriate” is that ■it is “within the discretion of the prison administrators.” Brief for Appellants 21. Appellants contend that statements that “magnify grievances” or “unduly complain” are. censored “as a precaution against flash riots and in the''furtherance of inmate rehabilitatipn.” Id., at 22. But they do not suggest how the magnification of grievances or undue complaining,, which presumably. occurs in outgoing letters, could.possibly lead to flash riots, nor do they specify what contribution the-suppression of complaints makes to the rehabilitation of criminals. And appellants defend the ban against “inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views” on the ground that “[s]uch matter clearly presents a danger to prison security... Id., at 21. The regulation, however, is not narrowly drawn to reach only material that might be thought to encourage violence nor is its application limited to incoming letters. In short, the Department’s regulations authorized censorship of prisoner mail far broader than any legitimate interest of penal administration demands ¿nd were properly found invalid by the District Court.
D
We also agree with the District Court that the decision to censor or withhold délivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards. The interest of prisoners and their correspondents in uncensored communication by letter, grounded as it is in the First Amendment, is plainly a “liberty” interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment even' though qualified of necessity by the circumstance of imprisonment. As such, it-is protected from arbitrary governmental invasion. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972). The District Court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of a letter written by or addressed to him, that the author of that letter be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision, and that complaints be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence. These requirements do not appear to be unduly burdensome, nor do appellants so contend. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court with respect to the Department’s regulations relating to prisoner mail.
II
The District Court' also enjoined continued enforcement of Administrative Rule MV-IV-02, which provides in pertinent part:
“Investigators for an attorney-of-record will be confined-to not more than two. Such investigators must be licensed by the State or must be members of the State Bar. Designation must be made in writing by the Attorney.”
By restricting access to prisoners to members of the bar and licensed private investigators, this regulation imposed an absolute ban on the use by attorneys of law students and legal paraprofessionals to interview inmate clients. In fact, attorneys could not even, delegate to such persons the task of obtaining prisoners’ signatures on legal documents. The District Court reasoned that this rule constituted an unjustifiable restriction on the right of access to the courts. We agree.
The' constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights. This means that inmates must have a reasonable opportunity to seek and receive the assistance of attorneys. Regulations and practices that unjustifiably obstruct the availability of professional representation or other aspects of the right of access to the courts are invalid. Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 546 (1941).
The District Court found that the rule restricting attorney-client interviews to members of the bar and licensed private investigators inhibited adequate professional representation of indigent inmates. The remoteness of many California penal institutions makes a personal visit to an inmate client a time-consuming undertaking. The court reasoned that the ban against the use of law students or other paraprofessionals for attorney-client interviews would deter some lawyers from representing prisoners who could not afford to pay for their traveling time or that of licensed private investigators. And those lawyers who agreed to do so would waste time that might be employed more efficaciously in working, on the inmates’ legal problems. Allowing law students and paraprofessionals to interview inmates might well reduce the cost of legal representation for prisoners. The District Court therefore concluded that the régulation imposed a substantial burden on the right of access to the courts.
As the District Court recognized, this conclusion does not end the inquiry, for prison administrators are not required to adopt every proposal that may be thought to facilitate prisoner access to the courts. The extent to which that right is burdened by a particular regulation or practice must be weighed against the legitimate interests of penal administration, and the proper regard that judges should give to the expertise and discretionary authority of correctional officials. In this case the ban against the use of law students and other paraprofes-. sional personnel was absolute. Its prohibition was not limited to prospective interviewers who posed some color-able threat to security or to those inmates thought to be especially dangerous. Nor was it shown that a less restrictive regulation would unduly burden the administrative task of screening and monitoring visitors.
Appellants’ enforcement of the regulation in question also created an arbitrary distinction between law students employed by practicing attorneys, and those associated with law school programs providing legal assistance to prisoners. While the Department flatly prohibited interviews of any sort by law students working for attorneys, it freely allowed participants of a number of law school programs to enter the prisons and meet with inmates. These largely unsupervised students were admitted without any security check other than verification of their enrollment in a school program. Of course, the fact that appellants have allowed some persons to conduct attorney-client interviews with prisoners does not mean that they are required to admit others, but the arbitrariness of the distinction between the two categories of law students does reveal the absence of any real justification for the sweeping prohibition of Administrative Rule MV-IV-02. We cannot say that the District Court erred in invalidating this regulation.
This result is mandated by our decision in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969). There the Court struck down a prison regulation prohibiting any inmate from advising or assisting another in the preparation of legal documents. Given the inadequacy of alternative sources of legal assistance, the rule had the effect of denying to illiterate or poorly educated inmates any opportunity to vindicate possibly valid constitutional claims;. The Court found that the regulation impermissibly burdened the right of access to the courts despite the not insignificant state interest in preventing the establishment of personal power structures by unscrupulous jailhouse lawyers and the attendant problems of prison discipline that follow. The countervailing state interest in Johnson is, if anything, more persuasive than any interest advanced by appellants in the instant case.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Director’s Rule 2401 provided:
“The sending and receiving of mail is a privilege, not a right, and any violation of the rules governing mail privileges either by you or by your correspondents may cause suspension of the mail privileges.”
Director’s Rule 1201 provided:
“INMATE BEHAVIOR: Always conduct yourself in an orderly manner. Do not fight or take part in horseplay or physical encounters except as part of the regular athletic program. Do not agitate, unduly complain, magnify grievances, or behave in any way which might lead to violence.” ••
It is undisputed that the phrases “unduly complain” and "magnify grievances” were applied to personal correspondence.
Director’s Rule 1205 provided:
“The following is contraband:
“d. Any writings or voice recordings expressing inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views or beliefs when not in the immediate possession, of the originator, or when the originator’s possession is used to subvert prison discipline by display or circulation.”
Rule 1205 also provides that writings ’ “not defined as contraband under this rule, but which, if circulated among other inmates, would in the judgment of the warden or superintendent tend to subvert prison order, or discipline, may be placed in the inmate’s property, to which he shall have accfes under supervision.”
At the time of appellees’ amended complaint, Rule 2402 (8) included prohibitions against “prison gossip or discussion of other inmates.” Before the first opinion of the District Court, these provisions were deleted, and the phrase “contain foreign matter” was substituted in their stead.
In Baggett the Court considered the constitutionality of loyalty oaths required of certain state employees as a condition of employment.- For the purpose of applying the doctrine of abstention the Court distinguisherhbetween two kinds of vagueness attacks. Where the case turns on the-applicability of a state statute or regulation to a particular person of a defined course of conduct, resolution of the unsettled question of state law may eliminate any need for constitutional adjudication. 377 U. S., at 376-377. Abstention is therefore appropriate. Where, however, as in this case, the statute or regulation is challenged as vague because individuals to whom it plainly applies simply cannot understand what is required of them and do not wish to forswear all activity arguably within the scope of the vague terms, abstention is not required. Id., at 378. In such a case no single adjudication by a state court could eliminate the constitutional difficulty. Rather it would require “extensive adjudications, under the impact of a variety of factual situations,” to bring the challenged statute or regulation “within the bounds of permissible constitutional certainty.” Ibid!
Cal. Penal Code §2600 provides that “[a] sentence of imprisonment in. a state prison for. any term suspends all the civil rights of.the person so sentenced...,” and it' allows for partial restoration of those rights by the California Adult Authority. The.statute then declares, in pertinent part:
“This section shall be construed so as not to deprive such person of the following civil rights, in accordance with the laws of this state:
“ (4) To purchase, receive, and read any and ah newspapers, periodicals, and books accepted for distribution by the United States Post Office. Pursuant to the provisions of this section, prison authorities shall have the authority- to exclude obscene publications or writings, and mail containing information concerning where, how, or from whom such matter may be obtained; and any-matter of a character tending to incite murder, arson, riot, violent racism, or any other form of violence; and any matter concerning gambling or a lottery....”
Appellants argue that the correctness of their abstention argument is demonstrated by the District Court’s disposition of Count II of appellees’ amended complaint. In Count II appellees challenged the mail regulations on the ground that their application to correspondence between inmates and attorneys contravened the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellees later discovered that, a case was then pending before the Supreme Court of California in which the application of the prison rules to attorney-client mail was being attacked under subsection (2) of §2600, which provides:
“This section shall be construed so as not to deprive [an inmate] of the following civil rights, in accordance with the laws of this state:
“(2) To correspond, confidentially, with any member of the State Bar, or holder of public office, provided that the prison authorities may open and inspect such mail to search for contraband.”
The District Court did stay its hand, and the subsequent decision in In re Jordan, 7 Cal. 3d 930, 600 P. 2d 873 (1972) (holding that § 2600 (2) barred censorship of attorney-client correspondence), rendered Count II moot. This disposition of the claim relating to attorney-client mail is, however, quite irrelevant to appellants’ contention that the District Court should have abstained from deciding whether the mail regulations are constitutional as they apply to personal mail. Subsection (2) of § 2600 speaks directly to the issue of censorship of attorney-client mail but says nothing at all about personal correspondence, and appellants have not informed us of any. challenge to the censorship of ¡personal mail presently pending in the state coufts.
See Note, Decency and Fairness: An Emerging Judicial Role in Prison Reform, 57 Va. L. Rev. 841, 842-844 (1971).
They are also ill suited to act as the front-line agencies for the consideration and resolution of the infinite variety of prisoner complaints.- Moreover; the capacity of our criminal justice system to deal fairly -and fully with legitimate claims will.be impaired by a burgeoning increase of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
After hearing oral argument and on due examination of the records, we conclude that the totality of circumstances disclosed fails to support the substantial due process issues tendered in the petitions for certiorari, and so we dismiss the writs.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 841(b)(l)(B)(v) of Title 21 of the United States Code calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the offense of distributing more than one gram of a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).” We hold that it is the weight of the blotter paper containing LSD, and not the weight of the pure LSD, which determines eligibility for the minimum sentence.
Petitioners Richard L. Chapman, John M. Schoenecker, and Patrick Brumm were convicted of selling 10 sheets (1,000 doses) of blotter paper containing LSD, in violation of § 841(a). The District Court included the total weight of the paper and LSD in determining the weight of the drug to be used in calculating petitioners’ sentences. Accordingly, although the weight of the LSD alone was approximately 50 milligrams, the 5.7 grams combined weight of LSD and blotter paper re-suited in the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence of five years required by § 841(b)(l)(B)(v) for distributing more than 1 gram of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of LSD. The entire 5.7 grams was also used to determine the base offense level under the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (1990) (Sentencing Guidelines). Petitioners appealed, claiming that the blotter paper is only a carrier medium, and that its weight should not be included in the weight of the drug for sentencing purposes. Alternatively, they argued that if the statute and Sentencing Guidelines were construed so as to require inclusion of the blotter paper or other carrier medium when calculating the weight of the drug, this would violate the right to equal protection incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit en banc held that the weight of the blotter paper or other carrier should be included in the weight of the “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of LSD when computing the sentence for a defendant convicted of distributing LSD. The Court of Appeals also found that Congress had a rational basis for including the carrier along with the weight of the drug, and therefore the statute and the Sentencing Guidelines did not violate the Constitution. United States v. Marshall, 908 F. 2d 1312 (1990). We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 1011 (1990), and now affirm.
Title 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(B) provides that
“any person who violates subsection (a) of this section [making it unlawful to knowingly or intentionally manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance] shall be sentenced as follows:
“(1)(B) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving—
“(v) 1 gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD);
“such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment .which may not be less than 5 years . . .
Section 841(b)(1)(A)(v) provides for a mandatory minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment for a violation of subsection (a) involving “10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of [LSD].” Section 2D1.1(c) of the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (1991) parallels the statutory language and requires the base offense level to be determined based upon the weight of a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of” LSD.
According to the Sentencing Commission, the LSD in an average dose weighs 0.05 milligrams; there are therefore 20,000 pure doses in a gram. The pure dose is such an infinitesimal amount that it must be sold to retail customers in a “carrier.” Pure LSD is dissolved in a solvent such as alcohol, and either the solution is sprayed on paper or gelatin, or paper is dipped in the solution. The solvent evaporates, leaving minute amounts of LSD trapped in the paper or gel. Then the paper or gel is cut into “one-dose” squares and sold by the dose. Users either swallow the squares, lick them until the drug is released, or drop them into a beverage, thereby releasing the drug. Although gelatin and paper are light, they weigh much more than the LSD. The ten sheets of blotter paper carrying the 1,000 doses sold by petitioners weighed 5.7 grams; the LSD by itself weighed only about 50 milligrams, not even close to the one gram necessary to trigger the 5-year mandatory minimum of §841(b)(1)(B)(v).
Petitioners argue that § 841(b) should not require that the weight of the carrier be included when computing the appropriate sentence for LSD distribution, for the words “mixture or substance” are ambiguous and should not be construed to reach an illogical result. Because LSD is sold by dose, rather than by weight, the weight of the LSD carrier should not be included when determining a defendant’s sentence because it is irrelevant to culpability. They argue that including the weight of the carrier leads to anomalous results, viz: a major wholesaler caught with 19,999 doses of pure LSD would not be subject to the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, while a minor pusher with 200 doses on blotter paper, or even one dose on a sugar cube, would be subject to the mandatory minimum sentence. Thus, they contend, the weight of the carrier should be excluded, the weight of the pure LSD should be determined, and that weight should be used to set the appropriate sentence.
We think that petitioners’ reading of the statute — a reading that makes the penalty turn on the net weight of the drug rather than the gross weight of the carrier and drug together — is not a plausible one. The statute refers to a'“mixture or substance containing a detectable amount.” So long as it contains a detectable amount, the entire mixture or substance is to be weighed when calculating the sentence.
This reading is confirmed by the structure of the statute. With respect to various drugs, including heroin, cocaine, and LSD, it provides for mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving certain weights of a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of the drugs. With respect to other drugs, however, namely phencyclidine (PCP) or methamphetamine, it provides for a mandatory minimum sentence based either on the weight of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the drug, or on lower weights of pure PCP or methamphetamine. For example, § 841(b)(1)(A)(iv) provides for a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence for any person who distributes “100 grams or more of. . . PCP ... or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of. . . PCP. . . .” Thus, with respect to these two drugs, Congress clearly distinguished between the pure drug and a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of” the pure drug. But with respect to drugs such as LSD, which petitioners distributed, Congress declared that sentences should be based exclusively on the weight of the “mixture or substance.” Congress knew how to indicate that the weight of the pure drug was to be used to determine the sentence, and did not make that distinction with respect to LSD.
Petitioners maintain that Congress could not have intended to include the weight of an LSD carrier for sentencing purposes because the carrier will constitute nearly all of the weight of the entire unit, and the sentence will, therefore, be based on the weight of the carrier, rather than the drug. The same point can be made about drugs like heroin and cocaine, however, and Congress clearly intended the dilutant, cutting agent, or carrier medium to be included in the weight of those drugs for sentencing purposes. Inactive ingredients are combined with pure heroin or cocaine, and the mixture is then sold to consumers as a heavily diluted form of the drug. In some cases, the concentration of the drug in the mixture is very low. E. g., United States v. Buggs, 904 F. 2d 1070 (CA7 1990) (1.2% heroin); United States v. Dorsey, 198 U. S. App. D. C. 313, 591 F. 2d 922 (1978) (2% heroin); United States v. Smith, 601 F. 2d 972 (CA8) (2.7% and 8.5% heroin), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 879 (1979). But, if the carrier is a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the drug,” then under the language of the statute the weight of the mixture or substance, and not the weight of the pure drug, is controlling.
The history of Congress’ attempts to control illegal drug distribution shows why Congress chose the course that it did with respect to sentencing. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, divided drugs by schedules according to potential for abuse. LSD was listed in schedule 1(c), which listed “any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances,” including LSD. Pub. L. 91-513, § 202(c). That law did not link penalties to the quantity of the drug possessed; penalties instead depended upon whether the drug was classified as a narcotic or not.
The Controlled Substances Penalties Amendments Act of 1984, which was a chapter of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2068, first made punishment dependent upon the quantity of the controlled substance involved. The maximum sentence for distribution of five grams or more of LSD was set at 20 years. 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(iv) (1982 ed., Supp. II). The 1984 amendments were intended “to provide a more rational penalty structure for the major drug trafficking offenses,” S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 255 (1983), by eliminating sentencing disparaties caused by classifying drugs as narcotic and nonnarcotic. Id., at 256. Penalties were based instead upon the weight of the pure drug involved. See United States v. McGeehan, 824 F. 2d 677, 681 (CA8 1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1061 (1988).
The current penalties for LSD distribution originated in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207. Congress adopted a “market-oriented” approach to punishing drug trafficking, under which the total quantity of what is distributed, rather than the amount of pure drug involved, is used to determine the length of the sentence. H. R. Rep. No. 98-845, pt. 1, pp. 11-12, 17 (1986). To implement that principle, Congress set mandatory minimum sentences corresponding to the weight of a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of” the various controlled substances, including LSD. 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(b)(1) (A)(i)-(viii) and (B)(i)-(viii). It intended the penalties for drug trafficking to be graduated according to the weight of the drugs in whatever form they were found—cut or uncut, pure or impure, ready for wholesale or ready for distribution at the retail level. Congress did not want to punish retail traffickers less severely, even though they deal in smaller quantities of the pure drug, because such traffickers keep the street markets going. H. R. Rep. No. 99-845, supra, at pt. 1, p. 12.
We think that the blotter paper used in this case, and blotter paper customarily used to distribute LSD, is a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of LSD. In so holding, we confirm the unanimous conclusion of the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue. Neither the statute nor the Sentencing Guidelines define the terms “mixture” and “substance,” nor do they have any established common-law meaning. Those terms, therefore, must be given their ordinary meaning. See Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103, 108 (1990). A “mixture” is defined to include “a portion of matter consisting of two or more components that do not bear a fixed proportion to one another and that however thoroughly commingled are regarded as retaining a separate existence.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1449 (1986). A “mixture” may also consist of two substances blended together so that the particles of one are diffused among the particles of the other. 9 Oxford English Dictionary 921 (2d ed. 1989). LSD is applied to blotter paper in a solvent, which is absorbed into the paper and ultimately evaporates. After the solvent evaporates, the LSD is left behind in a form that can be said to “mix” with the paper. The LSD crystals are inside of the paper, so that they are commingled with it, but the LSD does not chemically combine with the paper. Thus, it retains a separate existence and can be released by dropping the paper into a liquid or by swallowing the paper itself. The LSD is diffused among the fibers of the paper. Like heroin or cocaine mixed with cutting agents, the LSD cannot be distinguished from the blotter paper, nor easily separated from it. Like cutting agents used with other drugs that are ingested, the blotter paper, gel, or sugar cube carrying LSD can be and often is ingested with the drug.
Petitioners argue that the terms “mixture” or “substance” cannot be given their dictionary meaning because then the clause could be interpreted to include carriers like a glass vial or an automobile in which the drugs are being transported, thus making the phrase nonsensical. But such nonsense is not the necessary result of giving the term “mixture” its dictionary meaning. The term does not include LSD in a bot-tie, or LSD in a car, because the drug is easily distinguished from, and separated from, such a “container.” The drug is clearly not mixed with a glass vial or automobile; nor has the drug chemically bonded with the vial or car. It may be true that the weights of containers and packaging materials generally are not included in determining a sentence for drug distribution, but that is because those items are also clearly not mixed or otherwise combined with the drug.
Petitioners argue that excluding the weight of the LSD carrier when determining a sentence is consistent with established principles of statutory construction. First, they argue that the rule of lenity requires an ambiguous statute of this type to be construed in favor of the defendant. Petitioners also argue that the statute should be construed to avoid a serious constitutional question and an interpretation of the statute that would require it to be struck down as violating due process.
The rule of lenity, however, is not applicable unless there is a “grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of the Act,” Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814, 831 (1974), such that even after a court has “‘seize[d] every thing from which aid can be derived,’” it is still “left with an ambiguous statute.” United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347 (1971) (quoting United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805)). “The rule [of lenity] comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers.” Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 596 (1961). See also, e. g., Moskal v. United States, supra, at 107-108. The statutory language and structure indicate that the weight of a carrier should be included as a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of LSD when determining the sentence for an LSD distributor. A straightforward reading of § 841(b) does not produce a result “so ‘absurd or glaringly unjust,’” United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 484 (1984) (citation omitted), as to raise a “reasonable doubt” about Congress’ intent. Moskal v. United States, supra, at 108. There is no reason to resort to the rule of lenity in these circumstances.
Petitioners also argue that constructions which cast doubt on a statute’s constitutionality should be avoided, citing Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 465-466 (1989). “ ‘[E]very reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,”’ Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988), but reading “mixture” to include blotter paper impregnated with LSD crystals is not only a reasonable construction of § 841(b), but it is one that does not raise “grave doubts” about the constitutionality of the provision. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401 (1916). The canon of construction that a court should strive to interpret a statute in a way that will avoid an unconstitutional construction is useful in close cases, but it is “ ‘not a license for the judiciary to rewrite language enacted by the legislature.’” United States v. Monsanto, 491 U. S. 600, 611 (1989). Petitioners’ argument is unavailing here for the reasons we explain below.
Petitioners argue that the due process of law guaranteed them by the Fifth Amendment is violated by determining the lengths of their sentences in accordance with the weight of the LSD “carrier,” a factor which they insist is arbitrary. They argue preliminarily that the right to be free from deprivations of liberty as a result of arbitrary sentences is fundamental, and therefore the statutory provision at issue may be upheld only if the Government has a compelling interest in the classification in question. But we have never subjected the criminal process to this sort of truncated analysis, and we decline to do so now. Every person has a fundamental right to liberty in the sense that the Government may not punish him unless and until it proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a criminal trial conducted in accordance with the relevant constitutional guarantees. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 535, 536, and n. 16 (1979). But a person who has been so convicted is eligible for, and the court may impose, whatever punishment is authorized by statute for his offense, so long as that penalty is not cruel and unusual, McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 92, n. 8 (1986); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 224 (1976), and so long as the penalty is not based on an arbitrary distinction that would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In this context, as we noted in Jones v. United States, 463 U. S. 354, 362, n. 10 (1983), an argument based on equal protection essentially duplicates an argument based on due process.
We find that Congress had a rational basis for its choice of penalties for LSD distribution. The penalty scheme set out in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is intended to punish severely large-volume drug traffickers at any level. H. R. Rep. No. 99-845, pt. 1, at 12, 17. It assigns more severe penalties to the distribution of larger quantities of drugs. By measuring the quantity of the drugs according to the “street weight” of the drugs in the diluted form in which they are sold, rather than according to the net weight of the active component, the statute and the Sentencing Guidelines increase the penalty for persons who possess large quantities of drugs, regardless of their purity. That is a rational sentencing scheme.
This is as true with respect to LSD as it is with respect to other drugs. Although LSD is not sold by weight, but by dose, and a carrier medium is not, strictly speaking, used to “dilute” the drug, that medium is used to facilitate the distribution of the drug. Blotter paper makes LSD easier to transport, store, conceal, and sell. It is a tool of the trade for those who traffic in the drug, and therefore it was rational for Congress to set penalties based on this chosen tool. Congress was also justified in seeking to avoid arguments about the accurate weight of pure drugs which might have been extracted from blotter paper had it chosen to calibrate sentences according to that weight.
Petitioners do not claim that the sentencing scheme at issue here has actually produced an arbitrary array of sentences, nor did their motions in District Court contain any proof of actual disparities in sentencing. Rather, they challenge the Act on its face on the ground that it will inevitably lead to arbitrary punishments. While hypothetical cases can be imagined involving very heavy carriers and very little LSD, those cases are of no import in considering a claim by persons such as petitioners, who used a standard LSD carrier. Blotter paper seems to be the carrier of choice, and the vast majority of cases will therefore do exactly what the sentencing scheme was designed to do — punish more heavily those who deal in larger amounts of drugs.
Petitioners argue that those selling different numbers of doses, and, therefore, with different degrees of culpability, will be subject to the same minimum sentence because of choosing different carriers. The same objection could be made to a statute that imposed a fixed sentence for distributing any quantity of LSD, in any form, with any carrier. Such a sentencing scheme — not considering individual degrees of culpability — would clearly be constitutional. Congress has the power to define criminal punishments without giving the courts any sentencing discretion. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27 (1916). Determinate sentences were found in this country’s penal codes from its inception, see United States v. Grayson, 438 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1978), and some have remained until the present. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §1111 (mandatory life imprisonment under federal first-degree-murder statute); 21 U. S. C. § 848(b) (mandatory life imprisonment for violation of drug “super-kingpin” statute); 18 U. S. C. §2114 (1982 ed.) (flat 25-year sentence for armed robbery of a postal carrier) (upheld against due process challenge in United States v. Smith, 602 F. 2d 834 (CA8), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 902 (1979), and Smith v. United States, 284 F. 2d 789, 791 (CA5 1960)). A sentencing scheme providing for “individualized sentences rests not on constitutional commands, but on public policy enacted into statutes.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604-605 (1978) (plurality opinion). See also Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 364 (1989). That distributors of varying degrees of culpability might be subject to the same sentence does not mean that the penalty system for LSD distribution is unconstitutional.
We likewise hold that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by §841, so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case. United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 92 (1975). The fact that there may be plausible arguments against describing blotter paper impregnated with LSD as a “mixture or substance” containing LSD does not mean that the statute is vague. This is particularly so since whatever debate there is would center around the appropriate sentence and not the criminality of the conduct. We upheld the defendant’s conviction in United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475 (1984), even though the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the defendant had resided had construed the statute as not applying to one in his position. Here, on the contrary, all of the Courts of Appeals that have decided the issue, and all except one District Court, United States v. Healy, 729 F. Supp. 140 (DC 1990), have held that the weight of the carrier medium must be included in determining the appropriate sentence.
We hold that the statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentence for trafficking in LSD, and that this construction is neither a violation of due process nor unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Chapman was sentenced to 96 months; Schoenecker was sentenced to 63 months; and Brumm was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Brief for Petitioners 4.
Likewise, under the Sentencing Guidelines, those selling the same number of doses would be subject to widely varying sentences depending upon which carrier medium was used. For example, those selling 100 doses would receive the following disparate sentences:
Brief for Petitioners 11 (footnotes omitted).
Even among dealers using blotter paper, the sentences can vary because the weight of the blotter paper varies from dealer to dealer. Petitioners’ blotter paper, containing 1,000 doses of LSD, weighed 5.7 grams, or 5.7 milligrams per dose. In United States v. Rose, 881 F. 2d 386, 387 (CA7 1989), 472 doses on blotter paper weighed 7.3 grams, or 15.4 milligrams per dose. In United States v. Elrod, 898 F. 2d 60 (CA6 1990), 1,990 doses on blotter paper weighed 11 grams, or 5.5 milligrams per dose. In United States v. Healy, 729 F. Supp. 140, 141 (DC 1990), 5,000 doses on blotter paper weighed 44.133 grams, or 8.8 milligrams per dose.
United States v. Larsen, 904 F. 2d 562 (CA10 1990); United States v. Elrod, 898 F. 2d 60 (CA6), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 835 (1990); United States v. Bishop, 894 F. 2d 981, 985-987 (CA8 1990); United States v. Daly, 883 F. 2d 313, 316-318 (CA4 1989), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 1116 (1990); United States v. Rose, 881 F. 2d 386 (CAT 1989); United States v. Taylor, 868 F. 2d 125, 127-128 (CA5 1989).
Petitioners point to the views of some Members of Congress that the use of the phrase “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of LSD” was less than precise. These views were manifested by the introduction of bills in the Senate that would have excluded LSD carrier mediums from the “mixture or substance” clause. Neither of the bills was enacted into law, and it is questionable whether they even amount to subsequent legislative history—itself an unreliable guide to legislative intent. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 566-567 (1988); Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725, 736, n. 10 (1978).
Every Court of Appeals to have addressed the issue has held that this sentencing scheme is rational. See United States v. Mendes, 912 F. 2d 434, 438-439 (CA10 1990); see United States v. Murphy, 899 F. 2d 714, 717 (CA8 1990); United States v. Bishop, 894 F. 2d, at 986-987; United States v. Holmes, 838 F. 2d 1175, 1177-1178 (CA11), cert. denied, 486 U. S. 1058 (1988); United States v. Klein, 860 F. 2d 1489, 1501 (CA9 1988); United States v. Hoyt, 879 F. 2d 505, 512 (CA9 1989); United States v. Savinovich, 845 F. 2d 834, 839 (CA9), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 943 (1988); United States v. Ramos, 861 F. 2d 228, 231-232 (CA9 1988).
We note that distributors of LSD make their own choice of carrier and could act to minimize their potential sentences. As it is, almost all distributors choose blotter paper, rather than the heavier and bulkier sugar cubes.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we decide whether the First Amendment allows a public-sector union to require objecting nonmembers to pay a special fee for the purpose of financing the union’s political and ideological activities.
I
A
Under California law, public-sector employees in a bargaining unit may decide by majority vote to create an “agency shop” arrangement under which all the employees are represented by a union selected by the majority. Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 3502.5(a) (West 2010). While employees in the unit are not required to join the union, they must nevertheless pay the union an annual fee to cover the cost of union services related to collective bargaining (so-called chargeable expenses). See Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507, 524 (1991); Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 760 (1961).
Our prior cases have recognized that such arrangements represent an “impingement” on the First Amendment rights of nonmembers. Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292, 307, n. 20 (1986). See also Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U. S. 177, 181 (2007) (“[A]gency-shop arrangements in the public sector raise First Amendment concerns because they force individuals to contribute money to unions as a condition of government employment”); Street, supra, at 749 (union shop presents First Amendment “questions of the utmost gravity”). Thus, in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), we held that a public-sector union, while permitted to bill nonmembers for chargeable expenses, may not require nonmembers to fund its political and ideological projects. And in Hudson, we identified procedural requirements that a union must meet in order to collect fees from nonmembers without violating their rights. 475 U. S., at 302-311. The First Amendment, we held, does not permit a public-sector union to adopt procedures that have the effect of requiring objecting nonmembers to lend the union money to be used for political, ideological, and other purposes not germane to collective bargaining. Id., at 305. In the interest of administrative convenience, however, we concluded that a union “cannot be faulted” for calculating the fee that nonmembers must pay “on the basis of its expenses during the preceding year.” Id., at 307, n. 18.
Hudson concerned a union’s regular annual fees. The present case, by contrast, concerns the First Amendment requirements applicable to a special assessment or dues increase that is levied to meet expenses that were not disclosed when the amount of the regular assessment was set.
B
In June 2005, respondent, the Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (SEIU), sent out its regular Hudson notice informing employees what the agency fee would be for the year ahead. The notice set monthly dues at 1% of an employee’s gross monthly salary but capped monthly dues at $45. Based on the most recently audited year, the SEIU estimated that 56.35% of its total expenditures in the coming year would be dedicated to chargeable collective-bargaining activities. Thus, if a nonunion employee objected within 30 days to payment of the full amount of union dues, the objecting employee was required to pay only 56.35% of total dues. The SEIU’s notice also included a feature that was not present in Hudson: The notice stated that the agency fee was subject to increase at any time without further notice.
During this time, the citizens of the State of California were engaged in ⅛ wide-ranging political debate regarding state budget deficits, and in particular the budget consequences of growing compensation for public employees backed by powerful public-sector unions. On June 13, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a special election to be held in November 2005, where voters would consider various ballot propositions aimed at state-level structural reforms. Two of the most controversial issues on the ballot were Propositions 75 and 76. Proposition 75 would have required unions to obtain employees’ affirmative consent before charging them fees to be used for political purposes. Proposition 76 would have limited state spending and would have given the Governor the ability under some circumstances to reduce state appropriations for public-employee compensation. The SEIU joined a coalition of public-sector unions in vigorously opposing these measures. Calling itself the “Alliance for a Better California,” the group would eventually raise “more than $10 million, with almost all of it coming from public employee unions, including $2.75 million from state worker unions, $4.7 million from the California Teachers Association, and $700,000 from school workers unions.”
On July 30, shortly after the end of the 30-day objection period for the June Hudson notice, the SEIU proposed a temporary 25% increase in employee fees, which it billed as an “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund.” App. 25. The proposal stated that the money was needed to achieve the union’s political objectives, both in the special November 2005 election and in the November 2006 election. Id., at 26. According to the proposal, money in the Fight-Back Fund would be used “for a broad range of political expenses, including television and radio advertising, direct mail, voter registration, voter education, and get out the vote activities in our work sites and in our communities across California.” Ibid. The proposal specifically stated that “[tjhe Fund will not be used for regular costs of the union—such as office rent, staff salaries or routine equipment replacement, etc.” Ibid. It noted that “all other public worker unions are in the process of raising the extraordinary funds needed to defeat the Governor.” Id., at 27. And it concluded: “Each of us must do our part to turn back these initiatives which would allow the Governor to destroy our wages and benefits and even our jobs, and threaten the well-being of all Californians.” Ibid. On August 27, the SEIU’s General Council voted to implement the proposal.
On August 31, the SEIU sent out a letter addressed to “Local 1000 Members and Fair Share Fee Payers,” announcing that, for a limited period, their fees would be raised to 1.25% of gross monthly salary and the $45-per-month cap on regular dues would not apply. Id., at 31. The letter explained that the union would use the fund to “defeat Proposition 76 and Proposition 75 on November 8,” and to “defeat another attack on [its] pension plan” in June 2006. Ibid. The letter also informed employees that, in the following year, the money would help “to elect a governor and a legislature who support public employees and the services [they] provide.” Ibid.
After receiving this letter, one of the plaintiffs in this case called the SEIU’s offices to complain that the union was levying the special assessment for political purposes without giving employees a fair opportunity to object. An SEIU area manager responded that “even if [the employee] objected to the payment of the full agency fee, there was nothing he could do about the September increase for the Assessment.” Knox v. Westly, No. 2:05-cv-02198, 2008 WL 850128, *3 (ED Cal., Mar. 28, 2008). “She also stated that ‘we are in the fight of our lives,’ that the Assessment was needed, and that there was nothing that could be done to stop the Union’s expenditure of that Assessment for political purposes.” Ibid. As a consolation, however, those employees who had filed timely objections after the regular June Hudson notice were required to pay only 56.35% of the temporary increase.
Petitioners filed this class-action suit on behalf of 28,000 nonunion employees who were forced to contribute money to the Political Fight-Back Fund. Some of the class members had filed timely objections after receiving the regular Hudson notice in June, and others had not. Those who had objected argued that it was wrong to require them to pay 56.35% of the temporary assessment, which had been billed as intended for use in making political expenditures that they found objectionable. Those who had not objected after receiving the June Hudson notice contended that they should have received a new opportunity to object when the SEIU levied the special assessment for its Political FightBack Fund.
The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, finding that the union “fully intended to use the 12 million additional dollars it anticipated to raise for political purposes.” 2008 WL 850128, *7. “Even if every cent of the assessment was not intended to be used for entirely political purposes,” the court stated, “it is clear that the Union’s intent was to depart drastically from its typical spending regime and to focus on activities that were political or ideological in nature.” Id., at *8. In light of this fact, the court held that it would be inappropriate for the union to rely on previous annual expenditures to estimate that 56.35% of the new fee would go toward chargeable expenses. The court ordered the SEIU to send out a new notice giving all class members 45 days to object and to provide those who objected with a full refund of their contributions to the Political Fight-Back Fund. Id., at *12.
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. Knox v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, 628 F. 3d 1115 (2010). According to the panel majority, Hudson prescribed the use of a balancing test. 628 F. 3d, at 1119-1120. The majority therefore inquired whether the procedure that the SEIU employed reasonably accommodated the interests of the union, the employer, and nonmembér employees. Id., at 1120-1123. Judge Wallace dissented,- arguing that the majority had misinterpreted Hudson and sanctioned the abridgment of the First Amendment rights of nonmembers. 628 F. 3d, at 1123-1139.
We granted certiorari. 564 U. S. 1035 (2011).
HH HH
The SEIU argues that we should dismiss this case as moot. In opposing the petition for certiorari, the SEIU defended the decision below on the merits. After certiorari was granted, however, the union sent out a notice offering a full refund to all class members, and the union then promptly moved for dismissal of the case on the ground of mootness. Such postcertiorari maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court must be viewed with a critical eye. See City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha, 531 U. S. 278, 283-284 (2001). The voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordinarily render a case moot because a dismissal for mootness would permit a resumption of the challenged conduct as soon as the case is dismissed. See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U S. 283, 289 (1982). And here, since the union continues to defend the legality of the Political Fight-Back fee, it is not clear why the union would necessarily refrain from collecting similar fees in the future.
The union argues that concerns about voluntary cessation are inapplicable in this case because petitioners do not seek any prospective relief. See Motion To Dismiss as Moot 11-12. But even if that is so, the union’s mootness argument fails because there is still a live controversy as to the adequacy of the SEIU’s refund notice. A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant “ ‘ “any effectual relief whatever” to the prevailing party.’” Erie v. Pap’s A. M., 529 U. S. 277, 287 (2000) (quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 12 (1992), in turn quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 (1895)). “[A]s long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.” Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 442 (1984).
The District Court ordered the SEIU to send out a “proper” notice giving employees an adequate opportunity to receive a full refund. 2008 WL 850128, *12. Petitioners argue that the notice that the SEIU sent was improper because it includes a host of “conditions, caveats, and confusions as unnecessary complications aimed at reducing the number of class members who claim a refund.” Brief for Petitioners in Opposition to Motion To Dismiss 19. In particular, petitioners allege that the union has refused to accept refund requests by fax or e-mail and has made refunds conditional upon the provision of an original signature and a Social Security number. Id., at 18-19. As this dispute illustrates, the nature of the notice may affect how many employees who object to the union’s special assessment will be able to get their money back. The union is not entitled to dictate unilaterally the manner in which it advertises the availability of the refund.
For this reason, we conclude that a live controversy remains, and we proceed to the merits.
1—< H-i )—l
A
Our cases have often noted the close connection between our Nation’s commitment to self-government and the rights protected by the First Amendment. See, e. g., Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U. S. 45, 52 (1982) (“At the core of the First Amendment are certain basic conceptions about the manner in which political discussion in a representative democracy should proceed”); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 93, n. 127 (1976) (per curiam) (“[T]he central purpose of the Speech and Press Clauses was to assure a society in which ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ public debate concerning matters of public interest would thrive, for only in such a society can a healthy representative democracy flourish”); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 552 (1965) (“Maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion is a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy”); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of Colo., 205 U. S. 454, 465 (1907) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
The First Amendment creates “an open marketplace” in which differing ideas about political, economic, and social issues can compete freely for public acceptance without improper government interference. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208 (2008). See also Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 51 (1988); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218-219 (1966). The government may not prohibit the dissemination of ideas that it disfavors, nor compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves. See R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-448 (1969) (per curiam); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 713-715 (1977); Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 797 (1988) (The First Amendment protects “the decision of both what to say and what not to say” (emphasis deleted)). And the ability of like-minded individuals to associate for the purpose of expressing commonly held views may not be curtailed. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984) (“Freedom of association... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate”); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 460-461 (1958).
Closely related to compelled speech and compelled association is compelled funding of the speech of other private speakers or groups. See Abood, 431 U. S., at 222-223. In United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U. S. 405 (2001), we considered the constitutionality of a state scheme that compelled such funding. The subject of the speech at issue— promoting the sale of mushrooms—was not one that is likely to stir the passions of many, but the mundane commercial nature of that speech only highlights the importance of our analysis and our holding.
The federal Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act required that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales. A large producer objected to subsidizing these generic ads, and even though we applied the less demanding standard used in prior cases to judge laws affecting commercial speech, we held that the challenged scheme violated the First Amendment. We made it clear that compulsory subsidies for private speech are subject to exacting First Amendment scrutiny and cannot be sustained unless two criteria are met. First, there must be a comprehensive regulatory scheme involving a “mandated association” among those who are required to pay the subsidy. Id., at 414. Such situations are exceedingly rare because, as we have stated elsewhere, mandatory associations are permissible only when they serve a “compelling state interes[t]... that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.” Roberts, supra, at 623. Second, even in the rare case where a mandatory association can be justified, compulsory fees can be levied only insofar as they are a “necessary incident” of the “larger regulatory purpose which justified the required association.” United Foods, supra, at 414.
B
When a State establishes an “agency shop” that exacts compulsory union fees as a condition of public employment, “[t]he dissenting employee is forced to support financially an organization with whose principles and demands he may disagree.” Ellis, supra, at 455. Because a public-sector union takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 48-49, the compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a “significant impingement on First Amendment rights.” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 455. Our cases to date have tolerated this “impingement,” and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.
“The primary purpose” of permitting unions to collect fees from nonmembers, we have said, is “to prevent nonmembers from free-riding on the union’s efforts, sharing the employment benefits obtained by the union’s collective bargaining without sharing the costs incurred.” Davenport, 551 U. S., at 181. Such free-rider arguments, however, are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections. Consider the following examples:
“If a community association engages in a clean-up campaign or opposes encroachments by industrial development, no one suggests that all residents or property owners who benefit be required to contribute. If a parent-teacher association raises money for the school library, assessments are not levied on all parents. If an association of university professors has as a major function bringing pressure on universities to observe standards of tenure and academic freedom, most professors would consider it an outrage to be required to join. If a medical association lobbies against regulation of fees, not all doctors who share in the benefits share in the costs.”
Acceptance of the free-rider argument as a justification for compelling nonmembers to pay a portion of union dues represents something of an anomaly—one that we have found to be justified by the interest in furthering “labor peace.” Hudson, 475 U. S., at 303. But it is an anomaly nevertheless.
Similarly, requiring objecting nonmembers to opt out of paying the nonchargeable portion of union dues—as opposed to exempting them from making such payments unless they opt in—represents a remarkable boon for unions. Courts “do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.” College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 682 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Once it is recognized, as our cases have, that a nonmember cannot be forced to fund a union’s political or ideological activities, what is the justification for putting the burden on the nonmember to opt out of making such a payment? Shouldn’t the default rule comport with the probable preferences of most nonmembers? And isn’t it likely that most employees who choose not to join the union that represents their bargaining unit prefer not to pay the full amount of union dues? An opt-out system creates a risk that the fees paid by nonmembers will be used to further political and ideological ends with which they do not agree. But a “[ujnion should not be permitted to exact a service fee from nonmembers without first establishing a procedure which will avoid the risk that their funds will be used, even temporarily, to finance ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining.” Hudson, supra, at 305 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although the difference between opt-out and opt-in schemes is important, our prior cases have given surprisingly little attention to this distinction. Indeed, acceptance of the opt-out approach appears to have come about more as a historical accident than through the careful application of First Amendment principles.
The trail begins with dicta in Street, where we considered whether a federal collective-bargaining statute authorized a union to impose compulsory fees for political activities. 367 U. S., at 774. The plaintiffs were employees who had affirmatively objected to the way their fees were being used, and so we took that feature of the case for granted. We held that the statute did not authorize the use of the objecting employees’ fees for ideological purposes, and we stated in passing that “dissent is not to be presumed—it must affirmatively be made known to the union by the dissenting employee.” Ibid. In making that offhand remark, we did not pause to consider the broader constitutional implications of an affirmative opt-out requirement. Nor did we explore the extent of First Amendment protection for employees who might not qualify as active “dissenters” but who would nonetheless prefer to keep their own money rather than subsidizing by default the political agenda of a state-favored union.
In later cases such as Abood and Hudson, we assumed without any focused analysis that the dicta from Street had authorized the opt-out requirement as a constitutional matter. Thus in Hudson we did not take issue with the union’s practice of giving employees annual notice and an opportunity to object to expected political expenditures. At the same time, however, we made it clear that the procedures used by a union to collect money from nonmembers must satisfy a high standard.
Contrary to the view of the Ninth Circuit panel majority, we did not call for a balancing of the “right” of the union to collect an agency fee against the First Amendment rights of nonmembers. 628 F. 3d, at 1119-1120. As we noted in Davenport, “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember-employees.” 551 U. S., at 185. A union’s “collection of fees from nonmembers is authorized by an act of legislative grace,” 628 F. 3d, at 1126 (Wallace, J., dissenting)—one that we have termed “unusual” and “extraordinary,” Davenport, supra, at 184, 187. Far from calling for a balancing of rights or interests, Hudson made it clear that any procedure for exacting fees from unwilling contributors must be “carefully tailored to minimize the infringement” of free speech rights. 475 U. S., at 303. And to underscore the meaning of this careful tailoring, we followed that statement with a citation to cases holding that measures burdening the freedom of speech or association must serve a “compelling interest” and must not be significantly broader than necessary to serve that interest.
IV
By authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembers and permitting the use of an opt-out system for the collection of fees levied to cover nonchargeable expenses, our prior decisions approach, if they do not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate. The SEIU, however, asks us to go farther. It asks us to approve a procedure under which (1) a special assessment billed for use in electoral campaigns was assessed without providing a new opportunity for nonmembers to decide whether they wished to contribute to this effort and (2) nonmembers who previously opted out were nevertheless required to pay more than half of the special assessment even though the union had said that the purpose of the fund was to mount a political campaign and that it would not be used for ordinary union expenses. This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible.
A
First, we see no justification for the union’s failure to provide a fresh Hudson notice. Hudson rests on the principle that nonmembers should not be required to fund a union’s political and ideological projects unless they choose to do so after having “a fair opportunity” to assess the impact of paying for nonchargeable union activities. 475 U. S., at 303. Giving employees only one opportunity per year to make this choice is tolerable if employees are able at the time in question to make an informed choice. But a nonmember cannot make an informed choice about a special assessment or dues increase that is unknown when the annual notice is sent. When a union levies a special assessment or raises dues as a result of unexpected developments, the factors influencing a nonmember’s choice may change. In particular, a nonmember may take special exception to the uses for which the additional funds are sought.
The present case provides a striking example. The special assessment in this case was billed for use in a broad electoral campaign designed to defeat two important and controversial ballot initiatives and to elect sympathetic candidates in the 2006 gubernatorial and legislative elections. There were undoubtedly nonmembers who, for one reason or another, chose not to opt out or neglected to do so when the standard Hudson notice was sent but who took strong exception to the SEIU’s political objectives and did not want to subsidize those efforts. These nonmembers might have favored one or both of the ballot initiatives; they might have wished to support the reelection of the incumbent Governor; or they might not have wanted to delegate to the union the authority to decide which candidates in the 2006 elections would receive a share of their money.
The effect on nonmembers was particularly striking with respect to the union’s campaign against Proposition 75 because that initiative would have bolstered nonmember rights. If Proposition 75 had passed, nonmembers would have been exempt from paying for the SEIU’s extensive political projects unless they affirmatively consented. Thus, the effect of the SEIU’s procedure was to force many nonmembers to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights.
As Hudson held, procedures for collecting fees from nonmembers must be carefully tailored to minimize impingement on First Amendment rights, and the procedure used in this case cannot possibly be considered to have met that standard. After the dues increase was adopted, the SEIU wrote to all employees in the relevant bargaining units to inform them of this development. It would have been a relatively simple matter for the union to cast this letter in the form of a new Hudson notice, so that nonmembers could decide whether they wanted to pay for the union’s electoral project.
The SEIU argues that we should not be troubled by its failure to provide a new notice because nonmembers who objected to the special assessment but were nonetheless required to pay it would have been given the chance to recover the funds in question by opting out when the next annual notice was sent. If the special assessment was used entirely or in part for nonchargeable purposes, they suggest, the percentage of the union’s annual expenditures for chargeable purposes would decrease, and therefore the amount of the dues payable by objecting nonmembers the following year would also decrease. This decrease, however, would not fully recompense nonmembers who did not opt out after receiving the regular notice but would have opted out if they had been permitted to do so when the special assessment was announced. And in any event, evenga full refund would not undo the violation of First Amendment rights. As we have recognized, the First Amendment does not permit a union to extract a loan from unwilling nonmembers even if the money is later paid back in full. See Hudson, 475 U. S., at 305; Ellis, 466 U. S., at 444. Here, for nonmembers who disagreed with the SEIU’s electoral objectives, a refund provided after the union’s objectives had already been achieved would be cold comfort.
To respect the limits of the First Amendment, the union should have sent out a new notice allowing nonmembers to opt in to the special fee rather than requiring them to opt out. Our cases have tolerated a substantial impingement on First Amendment rights by allowing unions to impose an opt-out requirement at all. Even if this burden can be justified during the collection of regular dues on an annual basis, there is no way to justify the additional burden of imposing yet another opt-out requirement to collect special fees whenever the union desires.
CD
rH
The SEIU’s treatment of nonmembers who opted out when the initial Hudson notice was sent also ran afoul of the First Amendment. The SEIU required these employees to pay 56.35% of the special assessment, just as they had been required to pay 56.35% of the regular annual dues. But the union proclaimed that the special assessment would be used to support an electoral campaign and would not be used for ordinary union expenses. Accordingly, there is no reason to suppose that 56.35% of the new assessment was used for properly chargeable expenses. On the contrary, if the union is to be taken at its word, virtually all of the money was slated for nonchargeable uses.
The procedure accepted in Hudson is designed for use when a union sends out its regular annual dues notices. The procedure is predicated on the assumption that a union’s allocation of funds for chargeable and nonchargeable purposes is not likely to vary greatly from one year to the next. No such assumption is reasonable, however, when a union levies a special assessment or raises dues as a result of events that were not anticipated or disclosed at the time when a yearly Hudson notice was sent. Accordingly, use of figures based on an audit of the union’s operations during an entire previous year makes no sense.
Nor would it be feasible to devise a new breakdown of chargeable and nonchargeable expenses for the special assessment. Determining that breakdown is problematic enough when it is done on a regular annual basis because auditors typically do not make a legal determination as to whether particular expenditures are chargeable. Instead, the auditors take the union’s characterization for granted and perform the simple accounting function of “ensuring] that the expenditures which the union claims it made for certain expenses were actually made for those expenses.” Andrews v. Education Assn. of Cheshire, 829 F. 2d 335, 340 (CA2 1987). Thus, if a union takes a very broad view of what is chargeable—if, for example, it believes that supporting sympathetic political candidates is chargeable and bases its classification on that view—the auditors will classify these political expenditures as chargeable. Objecting employees may then contest the union’s changeability determinations, but the onus is on the employees to come up with the resources to mount the legal challenge in a timely fashion. See, e. g., Lehnert, 500 U. S., at 513; Jibson v. Michigan Ed. Assn., 30 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA6 1994). This is already a significant burden for employees to bear simply to avoid having their money taken to subsidize speech with which they disagree, and the burden would become insupportable if unions could impose a new assessment at any time, with a new changeability determination to be challenged.
2
The SEIU argues that objecting nonmembers who were required to pay 56.35% of the special assessment, far from subsidizing the union’s political campaign, actually received a windfall. According to the union’s statistics, the actual percentage of regular dues and fees spent for chargeable purposes in 2005 turned out to be quite a bit higher (66.26%), and therefore, even if all of the money obtained through the special assessment is classified as nonchargeable, the union’s total expenditures for 2005 were at least 66.26% chargeable. See Brief for Respondent 5, n. 6. This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.
First, the SEIU’s understanding of the breadth of chargeable expenses is so expansive that it is hard to place much reliance on its statistics. In its brief, the SEIU argues broadly that all funds spent on “lobbying... the electorate” are chargeable. See id., at 51. But “lobbying... the electorate” is nothing but another term for supporting political causes and candidates, and we have never held that the First Amendment permits a union to compel nonmembers to support such political activities. On the contrary, as long ago as Street, we noted the important difference between a union’s authority to engage in collective bargaining and related activities on behalf of nonmember employees in a bargaining unit and the union’s use of nonmembers’ money “to support candidates for public office” or “to support political causes which [they] oppos[e].” 367 U. S., at 768.
The sweep of the SEIU’s argument is highlighted by its discussion of the use of fees paid by objecting nonmembers to defeat Proposition 76. According to the SEIU, these expenditures were “germane” to the implementation of its contracts because, if Proposition 76 had passed, it would have “effectively permitted the Governor to abrogate the Union’s collective bargaining agreements under certain circumstances, undermining the Union’s ability to perform its representation duty of negotiating effective collective bargaining agreements.” Brief for Respondent 49-50 (internal quotation marks omitted).
If we were to accept this broad definition of germaneness, it would effectively eviscerate the limitation on the use of compulsory fees to support unions’ controversial political activities. Public-employee salaries, pensions, and other benefits constitute a substantial percentage of the budgets of many States and their subdivisions. As a result, a broad array of ballot questions and campaigns for public office may be said to have an effect on present and future contracts between public-sector workers and their employers. If the concept of “germaneness” were as broad as the SEIU advocates, public-sector employees who do not endorse the unions’ goals would be essentially unprotected against being compelled to subsidize political and ideological activities to which they object.
Second, even if the SEIU’s statistics are accurate, it does not follow that it was proper for the union to charge objecting nonmembers 56.35%—or any other particular percentage—of the special assessment. Unless it is possible to determine in advance with some degree of accuracy the percentage of union funds that will be used during an upcoming year for chargeable purposes—and the SEIU argues that this is not possible—there is at least a risk that, at the end of the year, unconsenting nonmembers will have paid either too much or too little. Which side should bear this risk?
The answer is obvious: the side whose constitutional rights are not at stake. “Given the existence of acceptable alternatives, [a] union cannot be allowed to commit dissenters’ funds to improper uses even temporarily.” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 444. Thus, if unconsenting nonmembers pay too much, their First 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:
|
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in these cases is whether, consistent with the Seventh Amendment, Congress may create a new cause of action in the Government for civil penalties enforceable in an administrative agency where there is no jury trial.
I
After extensive investigation, Congress concluded, in 1970, that work-related deaths and injuries had become a “drastic” national problem. Finding the existing state statutory remedies as well as state common-law actions for negligence and wrongful death to be inadequate to protect the employee population from death and injury due to unsafe working conditions, Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA or Act), 84 Stat. 1590, 29 U. S. C. § 651 et seq. The Act created a new statutory duty to avoid maintaining unsafe or unhealthy working conditions, and empowers the Secretary of Labor to promulgate health and safety standards. Two new remedies were provided—permitting the Federal Government, proceeding before an administrative agency, (1) to obtain abatement orders requiring employers to correct unsafe working conditions and (2) to impose civil penalties on any employer maintaining any unsafe working condition. Each remedy exists whether or not an employee is actually injured or killed as a result of the condition, and existing state statutory and common-law remedies for actual injury and death remain unaffected.
Under the Act, inspectors, representing the Secretary of Labor, are authorized to conduct reasonable safety and health inspections. 29 U. S. C. § 657 (a). If a violation is discovered, the inspector, on behalf of the Secretary, issues a citation to the employer fixing a reasonable time for its abatement and, in his discretion, proposing a civil penalty. §§ 658, 659. Such proposed penalties may range from nothing for de minimis and nonserious violations, to not more than $1,000 for serious violations, to a maximum of $10,000 for willful or repeated violations, §§ 658 (a), 659 (a), 666 (a)-(c) and (j).
If the employer wishes to contest the penalty or the abatement order, he may do so by notifying the Secretary of Labor within 15 days, in which event the abatement order is automatically stayed. §§ 659 (a), (b), 666 (d). An evidentiary hearing is then held before an administrative law judge of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The Commission consists of three members, appointed for six-year terms, each of whom is qualified “by reason of training, education or experience” to adjudicate contested citations and assess penalties. §§ 651 (3), 659 (c), 661, 666 (i). At this hearing the burden is on the Secretary to establish the elements of the alleged violation and the propriety of his proposed abatement order and proposed penalty; and the judge is empowered to affirm, modify, or vacate any or all of these items, giving due consideration in his penalty assessment to “the size of the business of the employer..., the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations.” § 666 (i). The judge’s decision becomes the Commission’s final and appealable order unless within 30 days a Commissioner directs that it be reviewed by the full Commission. §§ 659 (c), 661 (i); see 29 CFR §§ 2200.90, 2200.91 (1976).
If review is granted, the Commission’s subsequent order directing abatement and the payment of any assessed penalty becomes final unless the employer timely petitions for judicial review in the appropriate court of appeals. 29 U. S. C. § 660 (a). The Secretary similarly may seek review of Commission orders, § 660 (b), but, in either case, “[t]he findings of the Commission with respect to questions of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.” § 660 (a). If the employer fails to pay the assessed penalty, the Secretary may commence a collection action in a federal district court in which neither the fact of the violation nor the propriety of the penalty assessed may be retried. § 666 (k). Thus, the penalty may be collected without the employer’s ever being entitled to a jury determination of the facts constituting the violation.
II
Petitioners were separately cited by the Secretary and ordered immediately to abate pertinent hazards after inspections of their respective worksites conducted in 1972 revealed conditions that assertedly violated a mandatory occupational safety standard promulgated by the Secretary under § 5 (a) (2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 654 (a) (2). In each case an employee’s death had resulted. Petitioner Irey was cited for a willful violation of 29 CFR § 1926.652 (b) and Table P-1 (1976)—a safety standard promulgated by the Secretary under the Act requiring the sides of trenches in “unstable or soft material” to be “shored,... sloped, or otherwise supported by means of sufficient strength to protect the employees working within them.” The Secretary proposed a penalty of $7,500 for this violation and ordered the hazard abated immediately.
Petitioner Atlas was cited for a serious violation of 29 CFR §§ 1926.500 (b) (1) and (f) (5) (ii) (1976), which require that roof opening covers, be “so installed as to prevent accidental displacement.” The Secretary proposed a penalty of $600 for this violation and ordered the hazard abated immediately.
Petitioners timely contested these citations and were afforded hearings before Administrative Law Judges of the Commission. The judges, and later the Commission, affirmed the findings of violations and accompanying abatement requirements and assessed petitioner Irey a reduced civil penalty of $5,000 and petitioner Atlas the civil penalty of $600 which the Secretary had proposed. Petitioners respectively thereupon sought judicial review in the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits, challenging both the Commission’s factual findings that violations had occurred and the constitutionality of the Act’s enforcement procedures.
A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Commission’s orders in the Irey case over petitioner’s and a dissenter’s contention that the failure to afford the employer a jury trial on the question whether he had violated OSHA was in violation of the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for jury trial in most civil suits at common law. 519 F. 2d 1200. On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, over four dissents, adhered to the original panel’s decision. Id., at 1215. It concluded that this Court’s rulings to date “leave no doubt that the Seventh Amendment is not applicable, at least in the context of a case such as this one, and that Congress is free to provide an administrative enforcement scheme without the intervention of a jury at any stage.” Id., at 1218.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s order in the Atlas case over a similar claim that the enforcement scheme violated the Seventh Amendment. 518 F. 2d 990. It stated:
“Where adjudicative responsibility rests only in the administering agency, 'jury trials would be incompatible with the whole concept of administrative adjudication and would substantially interfere with the [agency’s] role in the statutory scheme.’” Id., at 1011.
We granted the petitions for writs of certiorari limited to the important question whether the Seventh Amendment prevents Congress from assigning to an administrative agency, under these circumstances, the task of adjudicating violations of OSHA. 424 U. S. 964.
Ill
The Seventh Amendment provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved....” The phrase “Suits at common law” has been construed to refer to cases tried prior to the adoption of the Seventh Amendment in courts of law in which jury trial was customary as distinguished from courts of equity or admiralty in which jury trial was not. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 (1830). Petitioners claim that a suit in a federal court by the Government for civil penalties for violation of a statute is a suit for a money judgment which is classically a suit at common law, Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146, 151 (1891); and that the defendant therefore has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury determination of all issues of fact in such a case, see Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103, 115 (1909) (dictum) ; United States v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37, 47 (1914) (dictum). Petitioners then claim that to permit Congress to assign the function of adjudicating the Government’s rights to civil penalties for violation of the statute to a different forum—an administrative agency in which no jury is available—would be to permit Congress to deprive a defendant of his Seventh Amendment jury right. We disagree. At least in cases in which “public rights” are being litigated—e. g., cases in which the Government sues in its sovereign capacity to enforce public rights created by statutes within the power of Congress to enact—the Seventh Amendment does not prohibit Congress from assigning the factfinding function and initial adjudication to an administrative forum with which the jury would be incompatible.
Congress has often created new statutory obligations, provided for civil penalties for their violation, and committed exclusively to an administrative agency the function of deciding whether a violation has in fact occurred. These statutory schemes have been sustained by this Court, albeit often without express reference to the Seventh Amendment. Thus taxes may constitutionally be assessed and collected together with penalties, with the relevant facts in some instances being adjudicated only by an administrative agency. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 599-600 (1931); Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856). Neither of these cases expressly discussed the question whether the taxation scheme violated the Seventh Amendment. However, in Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391 (1938), the Court said, in rejecting a claim under the Sixth Amendment that the assessment and adjudication of tax penalties could not be made without a jury, that “the determination of the facts upon which liability is based may be by an administrative agency instead of a jury,” id., at 402. Similarly, Congress has entrusted to an administrative agency the task of adjudicating violations of the customs and immigration laws and assessing penalties based thereon. Lloyd Sabaudo Societa v. Elting, 287 U. S. 329, 335 (1932) (“[D]ue process of law does not require that the courts, rather than administrative officers, be charged... with determining the facts upon which the imposition of [fines] depends”); Oceanic Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320 (1909). See also Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, 451, 458 (1929).
In Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135 (1921), the Court sustained Congress’ power to pass a statute, applicable to the District of Columbia, temporarily suspending landlords’ legal remedy of ejectment and relegating them to an administrative factfinding forum charged with determining fair rents at which tenants could hold over despite the expiration of their leases. In that case the Court squarely rejected a challenge to the statute based on the Seventh Amendment, stating:
“The statute is objected to on the further ground that landlords and tenants are deprived by it of a trial by jury on the right to possession of the land. If the power of the Commission established by the statute to regulate the relation is established, as we think it is, by what we have said, this objection amounts to little. To regulate the relation and to decide the facts affecting it are hardly separable.” Id., at 158. (Emphasis added.)
In Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22 (1932), apparently referring to the above-cited line of authority, the Court stated:
“[T]he distinction is at once apparent between cases of private right and those which arise between the Government and persons subject to its authority in connection with the performance of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislative departments.... [T]he Congress, in exercising the powers confided to it may establish ‘legislative’ courts... to serve as special tribunals ‘to examine and determine various matters, arising between the government and others, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of it.’ But ‘the mode of determining matters of this class is completely within congressional control. Congress may reserve to itself the power to decide, may delegate that power to executive officers, or may commit it to judicial tribunals.’... Familiar illustrations of administrative agencies created for the determination of such matters are found in connection with the exercise of the congressional power as to interstate and foreign commerce, taxation, immigration, the public lands, public health, the facilities of the post office, pensions and payments to veterans.” Id., at 50-51. (Emphasis added.)
In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 (1937), the Court squarely addressed the Seventh Amendment issue involved when Congress commits the factfinding function under a new statute to an administrative tribunal. Under the National Labor Relations Act, Congress had committed to the National Labor Relations Board, in a proceeding brought by its litigating arm, the task of deciding whether an unfair labor practice had been committed and of ordering backpay where appropriate. The Court stated:
“The instant case is not a suit at common law or in the nature of such a suit. The proceeding is one unknown to the common law. It is a statutory proceeding. Reinstatement of the employee and payment for time lost are requirements [administratively] imposed for violation of the statute and are remedies appropriate to its enforcement. The contention under the Seventh Amendment is without merit.” Id., at 48-49. (Emphasis added.)
This passage from Jones & Laughlin has recently been explained in Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189 (1974), in which the Court held the Seventh Amendment applicable to private damages suits in federal courts brought under the housing discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Court rejected the argument that Jones & Laughlin held the Seventh Amendment inapplicable to any action based on a statutorily created right even if the action was brought before a tribunal which customarily utilizes a jury as its factfinding arm. Instead, we concluded that Jones & Laughlin upheld
“congressional power to entrust enforcement of statutory rights to an administrative process or specialized court of equity [] free from the strictures of the Seventh Amendment.” 415 U. S., at 194-195. (Emphasis added.)
Finally, in Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S. 363 (1974), in discussing Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135 (1921), and Jones & Laughlin, we stated:
“Block v. Hirsh merely stands for the principle that the Seventh Amendment is generally inapplicable in administrative proceedings, where jury trials would be incompatible with the whole concept of administrative adjudication.... We may assume that the Seventh Amendment would not be a bar to a congressional effort to entrust landlord-tenant disputes, including those over the right to possession, to an administrative agency. Congress has not seen fit to do so, however, but rather has provided that actions under § 16-1501 be brought as ordinary civil actions in the District of Columbia’s court of general jurisdiction. Where it has done so, and where the action involves rights and remedies recognized at common law, it must preserve to parties their right to a jury trial.” 416 U. S., at 383. (Emphasis added.)
In sum, the cases discussed above stand clearly for the proposition that when Congress creates new statutory “public rights,” it may assign their adjudication to an administrative agency with which a jury trial would be incompatible, without violating the Seventh Amendment’s injunction that jury trial is to be “preserved” in “suits at common law.” Congress is not required by the Seventh Amendment to choke the already crowded federal courts with new types of litigation or prevented from committing some new types of litigation to administrative agencies with special competence in the relevant field. This is the case even if the Seventh Amendment would have required a jury where the adjudication of those rights is assigned to a federal court of law instead of an administrative agency. Petitioners would nevertheless have us disregard the interpretation of Jones & Laughlin which we recently espoused in Curtis v. Loether and Pernell v. Southall Realty, reading it instead as a holding solely that the entire proceeding before the NLRB was really equitable in nature; and they would have us entirely disregard Block v. Hirsh, supra. They would have us disregard the dictum in Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22 (1932), that the adjudication of congressionally created public rights may be assigned to administrative agencies, as well as the similar holdings in Lloyd Sabaudo Societa v. Elting, 287 U. S. 329 (1932); Oceanic Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320 (1909); Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 272 (1856); Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589 (1931); and Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391 (1938).
None of the grounds tendered for so reinterpreting the Seventh Amendment is convincing. It is suggested that in some of the cases, Elting, Oceanic, Murray’s Lessee, Phillips, and Helvering, the Seventh Amendment was not expressly put in issue. But these cases are clear enough that in the context involved, there was no requirement that the courts be involved at all in the factfinding process in the first instance. It is difficult to believe that these holdings or dicta did not subsume the proposition that a jury trial was not required. Furthermore, there are the remaining cases where the Court expressly held or observed that the Seventh Amendment did not bar administrative factfindings. Jones & Laughlin, Block, Pernell, and Curtis.
Second, it is argued with some force that cases such as Murray’s Lessee, Elting, Oceanic, Phillips, and Helvering all deal with the exercise of sovereign powers that are inherently in the exclusive domain of the Federal Government and critical to its very existence—the power over immigration, the importation of goods, and taxation—and that the theory of those cases is inapplicable where the Government exercises other powers that petitioners apparently regard as less fundamental, less exclusive, and less vital to the existence of the Nation, such as the power to regulate commerce among the several States, the latter being the power Congress sought to exercise in enacting the statute at issue here. The difficulty with this argument is that the Court in these cases, and in others, did not appear to confine its holdings in this manner. In Murray’s Lessee the Court referred to “matters, involving public rights [that] congress may or may not bring within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem proper.” 18 How., at 284. In Oceanic, which sustained the administrative imposition of a fine for the wrongful importation of aliens, the Court said that its ruling was in accordance with “settled judicial construction” that “not only as to tariff but as to internal revenue, taxation and other subjects” Congress could “impose appropriate obligations and sanction their enforcement by reasonable money penalties, giving to executive officers the power to enforce such penalties without the necessity of invoking the judicial power.” 214 U. S., at 339. (Emphasis added.) Crowell spoke broadly of the distinction between cases of private right and those which arise between the Government and persons subject to its authority “in connection with the performance of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislative departments,” see supra, at 452, and gave “familiar illustrations” of the permissible use of administrative agencies in connection with the exercise of such congressional powers as “interstate and foreign commerce.” 285 U. S., at 51. Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, at 402-403, relying on Oceanic and similar cases, stated simply that “the determination of the facts upon which liability is based may be by an administrative agency instead of a jury.” It is also apparent that Jones & Laughlin, Pernell, and Curtis are not amenable to the limitations suggested by petitioners.
Third is the assertion that the right to jury trial was never intended to depend on the identity of the forum to which Congress has chosen to submit a dispute; otherwise, it is said, Congress could utterly destroy the right to a jury trial by always providing for administrative rather than judicial resolution of the vast range of cases that now arise in the courts. The argument is well put, but it overstates the holdings of our prior cases and is in any event unpersuasive. Our prior cases support administrative factfinding in only those situations involving “public rights,” e. g., where the Government is involved in its sovereign capacity under an otherwise valid statute creating enforceable public rights. Wholly private tort, contract, and property cases, as well as a vast range of other cases, are not at all implicated.
More to the point, it is apparent from the history of jury trial in civil matters that factfinding, which is the essential function of the jury in civil cases, Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 157 (1973), was never the exclusive province of the jury under either the English or American legal systems at the time of the adoption of the Seventh Amendment; and the question whether a fact would be found by a jury turned to a considerable degree on the nature of the forum in which a litigant found himself. Critical factfinding was performed without juries in suits in equity, and there were no juries in admiralty, Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 (1830); nor were there juries in the military justice system. The jury was the factfinding mode in most suits in the common-law courts, but it was not exclusively so: Condemnation was a suit at common law but constitutionally could be tried without a jury, Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367, 375-376 (1876); Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 593 (1897); United States v. Reynolds, 397 U. S. 14, 18 (1970). “[M]any civil as well as criminal proceedings at common law were without a jury.” Kohl v. United States, supra, at 376. The question whether a particular case was to be tried in a court of equity—without a jury—or a court of law—with a jury—did not depend on whether the suit involved factfinding or on the nature of the facts to be found. Factfinding could be a critical matter either at law or in equity. Rather, as a general rule, the decision turned on whether courts of law supplied a cause of action and an adequate remedy to the litigant. If it did, then the case would be tried in a court of law before a jury. Otherwise the case would be tried to a court of equity sitting without a jury. Thus, suits for damages for breach of contract, for example, were suits at common law with the issues of the making of the contract and its breach to be decided by a jury; but specific performance was a remedy unavailable in a court of law and where such relief was sought the case would be tried in a court of equity with the facts as to making and breach to be ascertained by the court.
The Seventh Amendment was declaratory of the existing law, for it required only that jury trial in suits at common law was to be “preserved.” It thus did not purport to require a jury trial where none was required before. Moreover, it did not seek to change the factfinding mode in equity or admiralty or to freeze equity jurisdiction as it existed in 1789, preventing it from developing new remedies where those available in courts of law were inadequate. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531 (1970), is instructive in this respect. We there held that a jury trial is required in stockholder derivative suits where, if the corporation itself had sued, a jury trial would have been available to the corporation. It is apparent, however, that prior to the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merging the law and equity functions of the federal courts, the very suit involved in Bernhard would have been in a court of equity sitting without a jury, not because the underlying issue was any different at all from the issue the corporation would have presented had it sued, but because the stockholder plaintiff who was denied standing in a court of law to sue on the issue was enabled in proper circumstances, starting in the early part of the 19th century, to sue in equity on behalf of the company.
The point is that the Seventh Amendment was never intended to establish the jury as the exclusive mechanism for factfinding in civil cases. It took the existing legal order as it found it, and there is little or no basis for concluding that the Amendment should now be interpreted to provide an impenetrable barrier to administrative factfinding under otherwise valid federal regulatory statutes. We cannot conclude that the Amendment rendered Congress powerless—when it concluded that remedies available in courts of law were inadequate to cope with a problem within Congress’ power to regulate—to create new public rights and remedies by statute and commit their enforcement, if it chose, to a tribunal other than a court of law—such as an administrative agency—in which facts are not found by juries. Indeed, as the Oceanic opinion said, the “settled judicial construction” was to the contrary “from the beginning.” 214 U. S., at 339. That case indicated, as had Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103 (1909), that the Government could commit the enforcement of statutes and the imposition and collection of fines to the judiciary, in which event jury trial would be required, see also United States v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37 (1914), but that the United States could also validly opt for administrative enforcement, without judicial trials. See also Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S., at 402-403, and Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S., at 50-51.
Thus, history and our cases support the proposition that the right to a jury trial turns not solely on the nature of the issue to be resolved but also on the forum in which it is to be resolved. Congress found the common-law and other existing remedies for work injuries resulting from unsafe working conditions to be inadequate to protect the Nation’s working men and women. It created a new cause of action, and remedies therefor, unknown to the common law, and placed their enforcement in a tribunal supplying speedy and expert resolutions of the issues involved. The Seventh Amendment is no bar to the creation of new rights or to their enforcement outside the regular courts of law.
The judgments below are affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the decision of these cases.
The Senate Report stated:
“The problem of assuring safe and healthful workplaces for our working men and women ranks in importance with any that engages the national attention today.... 14,500 persons are killed annually as a result of industrial accidents; accordingly, during the past four years more Americans have been killed where they work than in the Vietnam war. By the lowest count, 2.2 million persons are disabled on the job each year, resulting in the loss of 250 million man days of work-many times more than are lost through strikes.
“In addition to the individual human tragedies involved, the economic impact of industrial deaths and disability is staggering. Over $1.5 billion is wasted in lost wages, and the annual loss to the Gross National Product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned off to pay workmen’s compensation benefits and medical expenses.
“This ‘grim current scene’... represents a worsening trend, for the fact is that the number of disabling injuries per million man hours worked is today 20% higher than in 1958.” S. Rep. No. 91-1282, p. 2 (1970), Leg. Hist. 142.
See also H. R. Rep. No. 91-1291, pp. 14-15 (1970); Leg. Hist. 844-845 (“The issue of the health and safety of the American, working man and woman is the most crucial one in the whole environmental question... the worst problem confronting American workers”).
House and Senate debates are reprinted, along with the House, Senate, and Conference Reports, in a one-volume Committee Print entitled Legislative History of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (June 1971) (cited supra and hereafter as Leg. Hist.).
The statute provides in § 5 (a), 29 U. S. C. § 654 (a), that each employer:
“(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
“(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.”
Petitioners make no challenge to the absence of mandatory review by the Commission of the administrative law judge’s findings of fact.
The other Courts of Appeals which have passed on this issue have uniformly (and without a dissent) agreed with these results. Mohawk Excavating, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 549 F. 2d 859 (CA2 1977); Beall Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 507 F. 2d 1041 (CA8 1974); Brennan v. Winters Battery Mfg. Co., 531 F. 2d 317 (CA6 1975); Clarkson Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 531 F. 2d 451 (CA10 1976). See also Underhill Constr. Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 526 F. 2d 53, 57 n. 10 (CA2 1975).
Each petitioner also argued below that the enforcement scheme violates the constitutional requirements that juries decide fact issues in criminal cases—arguing that the fines involved are “penal” in nature. Each petitioner asked this Court in its petition for a writ of certiorari to review the unfavorable rulings of the courts below on this issue.
In light of our disposition of these cases we decline the respondents’ invitation to decide whether the dictum in these cases correctly divines the intent of the Seventh Amendment or whether, as the respondents argue, the Seventh Amendment has no application to Government litigation and leaves solely to the Sixth Amendment the function of interposing a jury between the Federal Government and an individual from whom it wishes to exact a fine. See Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U. S. 454 (1975).
These cases do not involve purely “private rights.” In cases which do involve only “private rights,” this Court has accepted factfinding by an administrative agency, without intervention by a jury, only as an adjunct to an Art. III court, analogizing the agency to a jury or a special master and permitting it in admiralty cases to perform the function of the special master. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 51-65 (1932). The Court there said: “On the common law side of the federal courts, the aid of juries is not only deemed appropriate but is required by the Constitution itself.” Id., at 51.
In Murray’s Lessee, the Court stated:
“[T]here are matters, involving public rights, which may be presented in such form that the judicial power is capable of acting on them, and which are susceptible of judicial determination, but which congress may or may not bring within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem proper." 18 How., at 284. (Emphasis added.)
In Oceanic, the Court stated:
“In accord with this settled judicial construction the legislation of Congress from the beginning, not only as to tariff, but as to internal revenue, taxation, and other subjects, has proceeded on the conception that it was within the competency of Congress, when legislating as to matters exclusively within its control, to impose appropriate obligations and sanction their enforcement by reasonable money penalties, giving to executive officers the power to enforce such penalties without the necessity of invoking the judicial power.” 214 U. S., at 339. (Emphasis added.)
The Court also rejected the Seventh Amendment claim in Jones & Laughlin on the separate ground that that Amendment is inapplicable where “recovery of money damages is an incident to [nonlegal] relief even though damages might have been recovered in an action at law,” 301 U. S., at 48-49, since in such cases courts of equity would historically have granted monetary relief. In Jones & Laughlin, the NLRB ordered reinstatement of a dismissed employee, an order analogous to injunctive relief historically obtainable only in a court of equity, and consequently this alternative ground was an adequate one to decide Jones & Laughlin. However, this alternative ground would have been insufficient to decide the more general question of the NLRB’s power to order backpay where, for one reason or another, no such equitable order was sought. See Radio Officers v. NLRB, 347 U. S. 17, 54 (1954); NLRB v. National Garment Co., 166 F. 2d 233 (CA8 1948); NLRB v. Brookside Industries, Inc., 308 F. 2d 224 (CA4 1962); Bon Hennings Logging Co. v. NLRB, 308 F. 2d 548 (CA9 1962); NLRB v. West Coast Casket Co., Inc., 205 F. 2d 902 (CA9 1953); Reliance Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 125 F. 2d 311 (CA7 1941); NLRB v. Carpenters, 238 F. 2d 832 (CA5 1956); Indianapolis Power & Light Co. v. NLRB, 122 F. 2d 757 (CA7 1941).
The Court had reference to Katchen v. Landy, 382 U. S. 323 (1966), in which this Court sustained the power of a bankruptcy court, exercising summary jurisdiction without a jury, to adjudicate the otherwise legal issues of voidable preferences. The Court did so on the ground that a bankruptcy court, exercising its summary jurisdiction, was a specialized court of equity and constituted a forum before which a jury would be out of place and would go far to dismantle the statutory scheme.
The holding in Pernell was that the Seventh Amendment applies to resolution of disputes of a “legal” nature—those regarding right to possession of real property when the resolution is entrusted to a forum which customarily employs a jury.
We note that the decision of the administrative tribunal in these cases on the law is subject to review in the federal courts of appeals, and on the facts is subject to review by such courts of appeals under a substantial-evidence test. Thus, these
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. 172]
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Until 2003, both petitioner Eric Thompson and his fiance, Miriam Re-galado, were employees of respondent North American Stainless (NAS). In February 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notified NAS that Regalado had filed a charge alleging sex discrimination. Three weeks later, NAS fired Thompson.
Thompson then filed a charge with the EEOC. After conciliation efforts proved unsuccessful, he sued NAS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., claiming that NAS had fired him in order to retaliate against Re-galado for filing her charge with the EEOC. The District Court granted summary judgment to NAS, concluding that Title VII “does not permit third party retaliation claims.” 435 F. Supp. 2d 633, 639 (ED Ky. 2006). After a panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court, the Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and affirmed by a 10-to-6 vote. 567 F.3d 804 (2009). The court reasoned that because Thompson did not “en-gag[e] in any statutorily protected activity, either on his own behalf or on behalf of Miriam Regalado,” he “is not included
[562 U.S. 173]
in the class of persons for whom Congress created a retaliation cause of action.” Id., at 807-808.
We granted certiorari. 561 U.S. 1041, 130 S. Ct. 3542, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1121 (2010).
I
Title VII provides that “ [i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has made a charge” under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The statute permits “a person claiming to be aggrieved” to file a charge with the EEOC alleging that the employer committed an unlawful employment practice, and, if the EEOC declines to sue the employer, it permits a civil action to “be brought . . . by the person claiming to be aggrieved ... by the alleged unlawful employment practice.” § 2000e-5(b), (f)(1).
It is undisputed that Regalado’s filing of a charge with the EEOC was protected conduct under Title VII. In the procedural posture of this case, we are also required to assume that NAS fired Thompson in order to retaliate against Regalado for filing a charge of discrimination. This case therefore presents two questions: First, did NAS’s firing of Thompson constitute unlawful retaliation? And second, if it did, does Title VII grant Thompson a cause of action?
II
With regard to the first question, we have little difficulty concluding that if the facts alleged by Thompson are true, then NAS’s firing of Thompson violated Title VII. In Burlington N.& S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2006), we held that Title VII’s antire-taliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. We reached that conclusion by contrasting the text of Title VII’s antiretaliation provision with its substantive antidiscrimination provision. Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin “ ‘with respect to . . . compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
[562 U.S. 174]
of employment,’ ” and discriminatory practices that would “ ‘deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.’ ” Id., at 62, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a); emphasis deleted). In contrast, Title VIPs antiretaliation provision prohibits an employer from “ ‘discriminating] against any of his employees’ ” for engaging in protected conduct, without specifying the employer acts that are prohibited. 548 U.S., at 62, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (quoting § 2000e-3(a); emphasis deleted). Based on this textual distinction and our understanding of the antiretaliation provision’s purpose, we held that “the antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.” Id., at 64, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345. Rather, Title VIPs antiretaliation provision prohibits any employer action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id., at 68, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiance would be fired. Indeed, NAS does not dispute that Thompson’s firing meets the standard set forth in Burlington. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. NAS raises the concern, however, that prohibiting reprisals against third parties will lead to difficult line-drawing problems concerning the types of relationships entitled to protection. Perhaps retaliating against an employee by firing his fiance would dissuade the employee from engaging in protected activity, but what about firing an employee’s girlfriend, close friend, or trusted coworker? Applying the Burlington standard to third-party reprisals, NAS argues, will place the employer at risk any time it fires any employee who happens to have a connection to a different employee who filed a charge with the EEOC.
Although we acknowledge the force of this point, we do not think it justifies a categorical rule that third-party reprisals
[562 U.S. 175]
do not violate Title VII. As explained above, we adopted a broad standard in Burlington because Title VII’s antiretaliation provision is worded broadly. We think there is no textual basis for making an exception to it for third-party reprisals, and a preference for clear rules cannot justify departing from statutory text.
We must also decline to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful. We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the Burlington standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize. As we explained in Burlington, 548 U.S., at 69, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345, “the significance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances.” Given the broad statutory text and the variety of workplace contexts in which retaliation may occur, Title VII’s antiretaliation provision is simply not reducible to a comprehensive set of clear rules. We emphasize, however, that “the provision’s standard forjudging harm must be objective,” so as to “avoi[d] the uncertainties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to determine a plaintiffs unusual subjective feelings.” Id., at 68-69, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345.
Ill
The more difficult question in this case is whether Thompson may sue NAS for its alleged violation of Title VII. The statute provides that “a civil action may be brought... by the person claiming to be aggrieved.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The Sixth Circuit concluded that this provision was merely a reiteration of the requirement that the plaintiff have Article III standing. 567 F.3d, at 808, n. 1. We do not understand how that can be. The provision unquestionably permits a person “claiming to be aggrieved” to bring “a civil action.” It is arguable that the aggrievement referred to is nothing more than the minimal Article III standing, which consists of injury in fact caused by the defendant
[562 U.S. 176]
and remediable by the court. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). But Thompson’s claim undoubtedly meets those requirements, so if that is indeed all that aggrievement consists of, he may sue.
We have suggested in dictum that the Title VII aggrievement requirement conferred a right to sue on all who satisfied Article III standing. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 93 S. Ct. 364, 34 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1972), involved the “person aggrieved” provision of Title VIII (the Fair Housing Act) rather than Title VII. In deciding the case, however, we relied upon, and cited with approval, a Third Circuit opinion involving Title VII, which, we said, “concluded that the words used showed ‘a congressional intention to define standing as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.’ ” Id., at 209, 93 S. Ct. 364, 34 L. Ed. 2d 415 (quoting Hackett v. McGuire Bros., Inc., 445 F.2d 442, 446 (1971)). We think that dictum regarding Title VII was too expansive. Indeed, the Ti'afficante opinion did not adhere to it in expressing its Title VIII holding that residents of an apartment complex could sue the owner for his racial discrimination against prospective tenants. The opinion said that the “person aggrieved” of Title VIII was coextensive with Article III “insofar as tenants of the same housing unit that is charged with discrimination are concerned,” 409 U.S., at 209, 93 S. Ct. 364, 34 L. Ed. 2d 415 (emphasis added). Later opinions, we must acknowledge, reiterate that the term “aggrieved” in Title VIII reaches as far as Article III permits, see Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 165-166, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 137 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1997); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 109, 99 S. Ct. 1601, 60 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1979), though the holdings of those cases are compatible with the “zone of interests” limitation that we discuss below. In any event, it is Title VII rather than Title VIII that is before us here, and as to that we are surely not bound by the Ti'afficante dictum.
We now find that this dictum was ill-considered, and we decline to follow it. If any person injured in the Article III sense by a Title VII violation could sue, absurd consequences
[562 U.S. 177]
would follow. For example, a shareholder would be able to sue a company for firing a valuable employee for racially discriminatory reasons, so long as he could show that the value of his stock decreased as a consequence. At oral argument Thompson acknowledged that such a suit would not he, Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6. We agree, and therefore conclude that the term “aggrieved” must be construed more narrowly than the outer boundaries of Article III.
At the other extreme from the position that “person aggrieved” means anyone with Article III standing, NAS argues that it is a term of art that refers only to the employee who engaged in the protected activity. We know of no other context in which the words carry this artificially narrow meaning, and if that is what Congress intended it would more naturally have said “person claiming to have been discriminated against” rather than “person claiming to be aggrieved.” We see no basis in text or prior practice for limiting the latter phrase to the person who was the subject of unlawful retaliation. Moreover, such a reading contradicts the very holding of Ti'afficante, which was that residents of an apartment complex were “person [s] aggrieved” by discrimination against prospective tenants. We see no reason why the same phrase in Title VII should be given a narrower meaning.
In our view there is a common usage of the term “person aggrieved” that avoids the extremity of equating it with Article III and yet is fully consistent with our application of the term in T'afficante. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., authorizes suit to challenge a federal agency by any “person . . . adversely affected or aggrieved . . . within the meaning of a relevant statute.” § 702. We have held that this language establishes a regime under which a plaintiff may not sue unless he “falls within the ‘zone of interests’ sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint.” Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 883, 110 S. Ct. 3177, 111 L. Ed. 2d 695
[562 U.S. 178]
(1990). We have described the “zone of interests” test as denying a right of review “if the plaintiffs interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U.S. 388, 399-400, 107 S. Ct. 750, 93 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1987). We hold that the term “aggrieved” in Title VII incorporates this test, enabling suit by any plaintiff with an interest “arguably [sought] to be protected by the statute,” National Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 495, 118 S. Ct. 927, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), while excluding plaintiffs who might technically be injured in an Article III sense but whose interests are unrelated to the statutory prohibitions in Title VII.
Applying that test here, we conclude that Thompson falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII. Thompson was an employee of NAS, and the purpose of Title VII is to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions. Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation—collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer’s unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming Regalado. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her. In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII. He is a person aggrieved with standing to sue.
The judgment of the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to O’Shea v. Littleton, ante, p. 488, involving claims which the respondents, 17 black and two white residents of Cairo, Illinois, individually and as representatives of the class they purport to represent, set forth in that portion of their amended civil rights complaint which alleged wrongful conduct on the part of Peyton Berbling, individually and in his capacity as State’s Attorney for Alexander County, Illinois, the county in which the city of Cairo is located. As discussed in O’Shea, the complaint alleged a broad range of racially discriminatory patterns and practices in the administration of the criminal justice system in Alexander County by the Police Commissioner of Cairo, Magistrate Michael O’Shea and Associate Judge Dorothy Spomer of the Alexander County Circuit Court, State’s Attorney Berbling, and Earl Shepherd, an investigator for Berbling. Allegedly, a decade of active, but lawful, efforts to achieve racial equality for the black residents of Cairo had resulted in continuing intentional conduct on the part of those named as defendants in the complaint to deprive the plaintiff-respondents of the evenhanded protection of the criminal laws, in violation of various amendments to the Constitution and 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985.
In particular, the complaint charged State’s Attorney Berbling with purposeful racial discrimination, under color of state law, by neglecting to provide for respondents’ safety though knowing of the possibility of racial disorders, by refusing to prosecute persons who threaten respondents’ safety and property, and by refusing to permit respondents to give evidence against white persons who threaten them. It was alleged, with particular incidents recounted as to some charges, that “Berbling has denied and continues to deny” the constitutional rights of respondents and members of their class by following the practices of (a) refusing to initiate criminal proceedings and to hear criminal charges against white persons upon complaint by members of respondents’ class, (b) submitting misdemeanor complaints which have been filed by black persons against whites to a grand jury, rather than proceeding by information or complaint, and then either interrogating witnesses and complainants before the grand jury with purposeful intent to racially discriminate, or failing to interrogate them at all, (c) inadequately prosecuting the few criminal proceedings instituted against whites at respondents’ behest in order to lose the cases or settle them on terms more favorable than those brought against blacks, (d) recommending substantially greater bonds and sentences in cases involving respondents and members of their class than for cases involving whites, (e) charging respondents and members of their class with significantly more serious charges for conduct which would result in no charge or a minor charge against a white person, and (f) depriving respondents of their right to give evidence concerning the security of members of their class. Each of these practices was alleged to be willful, malicious, and carried out with intent to deprive respondents and members of their class of the benefits of the county criminal justice system and to deter them from peacefully boycotting or otherwise engaging in protected First Amendment activity. Since there was asserted to be no adequate remedy at law, respondents requested that Berbling be enjoined from continuing these'practices, that he be required to “submit a monthly report to' [the District Court] concerning the nature, status and disposition of any complaint brought to him by plaintiffs or members of their class, or by white persons against plaintiffs or members of their class,” and that the District Court maintain continuing jurisdiction in this action.
The District Court dismissed that portion of the complaint requesting injunctive relief against Berbling, as well as against Investigator Shepherd, Magistrate O’Shea, and Judge Dorothy Spomer, for want of jurisdiction to grant any such remedy, which was perceived as directed against discretionary acts on the part of these elected state officials. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that whatever quasi-judicial immunity from injunctive proscription it had previously recognized was appropriate for a prosecutor, was not absolute, and since respondents’ alternative remedies at law were thought to be inadequate, an injunctive remedy might be available if respondents could prove their claims of racial discrimination at trial.
The Court of Appeals rendered its decision on October 6, 1972. At the subsequent election in November of that year, petitioner W. C. Spomer was chosen by the voters to succeed Berbling as State’s Attorney for Alexander County, and Spomer took office on December 4. In the petition for certiorari filed with this Court on January 3, 1973, seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ approval of the possibility of some form of injunctive relief addressed to the State’s Attorney in the course of his prosecutorial role, petitioner Spomer relied upon Supreme Court Rule 48 (3), which provides that “[w]hen a public officer is a party to a proceeding here in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and his successor is automatically substituted as a party.” Respondents did not oppose the substitution, and we granted certiorari and set the case for argument together with O’Shea v. Littleton, ante, p. 488. 411 U. S. 915 (1973).
It has become apparent, however, that there is nothing in the record upon which we may firmly base a conclusion that a concrete controversy between W. C. Spomer and the respondents is presented to this Court for resolution. No allegations in the complaint cited any conduct of W. C. Spomer as the basis for equitable or any other relief. Indeed, Spomer is not named as a defendant in the complaint at all, and, of course, he never appeared before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. The injunctive relief requested against former State’s Attorney Berbling, moreover, is based upon an alleged practice of willful and malicious racial discrimination evidenced by enumerated instances in which Berbling favored white persons and disfavored Negroes. The wrongful conduct charged in the complaint is personal to Berbling, despite the fact that he was also sued in his then capacity as State’s Attorney. No charge is made in the complaint that the policy of the office of State’s Attorney is to follow the intentional practices alleged, apart from the allegation that Berbling, as the incumbent at the time, was then continuing the practices he had previously followed. Cf. Allen v. Regents of the University System of Georgia, 304 U. S. 439, 444-445 (1938). Nor have respondents ever attempted to substitute Spomer for Berbling after the Court of Appeals decision, so far as the record shows, or made any record allegations that Spomer intends to continue the asserted practices of Berbling of which they complain. The plain fact is that, on the record before us, respondents have never charged Spomer with anything and do not presently seek to enjoin him from doing anything. Under these circumstances, recognizing that there may no longer be a controversy between respondents and any Alexander County State’s Attorney concerning injunctive relief to be applied in futuro, see Two Guys v. McGinley, 366 U. S. 582, 588 (1961), we remand to the Court of Appeals for a determination, in the first instance, of whether the former dispute regarding the availability of injunctive relief against the State’s Attorney is now moot and whether respondents will want to, and should be permitted to, amend their complaint to include claims for relief against the petitioner. Cf. Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 739 (1947).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration and proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Specific examples of Berbling’s practice were alleged as follows:
“(1) On March 28, 1969, defendant refused to permit James Wilson to file criminal charges against Charlie Sullivan, a white man, who pointed a gun at him as he (Wilson) attempted to move into the house next door to Charlie Sullivan on 22nd Street, in Cairo, Illinois. Sullivan threatened Wilson with the gun and told him to move the truck containing household furnishings and leave the area, thereby attempting to prevent James Wilson from holding property.
“(2) On or about March 29, 1969, defendant refused to permit James Wilson to file criminal charges against Charlie Sullivan who fired shots from a gun around James Wilson’s home to intimidate his family in order to prevent James Wilson from holding property.
“(3) In January, 1970, defendant refused to permit Robert Martin to file charges against Charlie Sullivan, who tried to run him down in a truck while peacefully marching in exercise of his First Amendment rights.
“(4) In June, 1970, defendant refused to permit Ezell Littleton to file charges against a white man who without cause or justification assaulted and battered him.
“(5) In June, 1970, defendant refused to permit Rev. Manker Harris to file charges against two white policemen of the City of Cairo for attempted murder and/or malicious prosecution.
“(6) On August 10, 1970, defendant Berbling, through a subordinate, defendant Earl Shepherd, refused to permit plaintiff Hazel James to file criminal charges against Raymond Hurst, a white man, who had kicked plaintiff James in the stomach while she was peacefully demonstrating against the racially discriminatory practices of merchants and of public officials of the City of Cairo.
“(7) In May, 1969, Plaintiff Ewing and eight others could have [brought] and desired to bring criminal charges against a white man who threatened them with a shotgun, but did not because they knew of defendant’s practice of refusing to take complaints and were discouraged from making useless gestures.”
Cited in support of this allegation was an incident when “Morris Garrett (a 13 year old boy), on August 8, 1970, during a demonstration against the racially discriminatory practices of merchants and public officials of the City of Cairo, was struck by one Tom Madra. A complaint was filed which was presented to the grand jury. Morris Garrett appeared before the grand jury. Defendant Berbling, rather than question him regarding the incident, asked him such questions as ‘did you get paid for picketing?’ A no-true bill was returned by the grand jury.”
Two episodes of this type were described:
“(1) On August 13, 1970, Cheryl Garrett and Y-vonda Taylor, ages 18 and 16 respectively, were shot at by one Jack Guetterman, Jr. Rev. Walter Garrett and Ezell Littleton, following a telephone call from the young girls, went to the scene of the shooting. Shortly thereafter police officers arrived. While Rev. Walter Garrett was discussing the situation with one police officer, one Jack Guetterman, ' Sr. struck Rev. Garrett in the face, causing him to fall to the ground. A complaint was filed by Rev. Walter Garrett respecting this incident. Defendant Berbling presented the complaint to the grand jury, but Rev. Garrett was not interrogated at all respecting the incident. Ezell Littleton, who witnessed the assault, was not called to testify.
“(2) On or about August 8, 1970, Curtis Johnson was struck by one A1 Moss while demonstrating against the racially discriminatory practices of merchants and public officials of the City of Cairo. A complaint was filed, which was presented to the grand jury. Curtis Johnson, however, was not interrogated by defendant Berb-ling respecting the incident.”
Thus, respondents alleged that Berbling sought the “dropping of a criminal charge arising out of a complaint filed by Frank Hollis, a black person, against Tom Madra, a white person, in return for which [Berbling] would drop pending criminal charges against several of the [respondents].”
Damages were also sought against Berbling for these practices and for an alleged conspiracy with his investigator, Shepherd, to refuse to prosecute those who threatened respondents’ safety and to prevent them from giving evidence against whites concerning acts threatening their personal safety. As to the latter, the sixth example in n. 1, supra, was reiterated. The Court of Appeals held that “insofar as defendant Berbling was acting within his prosecu-torial function he has a quasi-judicial immunity from suit for damages under the Civil Rights Acts,” 468 F. 2d 389, 410, and remanded to allow respondents to amend the complaint and to have the District Court determine in the first instance whether some of the acts then alleged would be sufficiently removed from quasi-judicial activity “to warrant removing the cloak of immunity from them.” Id., at 410-411. Berbling’s petition for certiorari questioning this aspect of the Court of Appeals’ ruling was not timely filed in this Court and has been denied. No. 72-1107, post, p. 1143. No question concerning damage relief is involved in the case presently before us.
The scope of any injunction which might be found warranted was not finally established or restricted. It was suggested that an initial decree might require “only periodic reports of various types of aggregate data on actions on bail and sentencing and dispositions of complaints,” and confidence was expressed that the District Court would be able to establish further guides as required and, if necessary, to consider individual decisions. 468 F. 2d, at 415.
State’s Attorney W. C. Spomer should not be confused with Judge Dorothy Spomer, a petitioner in O’Shea v. Littleton, ante, p. 488.
In their brief in opposition to the petition, p. 6, respondents stated that they “seek only equitable relief against petitioner W. C. Spomer. Because the amended complaint asks relief against Berbling in his individual as well as his official capacity, he remains a party in interest in this action.” Of course, Spomer, not Berbling, filed for review of the -Court of Appeals’ decision, respecting injunctive relief, and Berbling is not before the Court in this case. Nor did respondents ever seek relief of any kind against Spomer by their complaint.
This Court's Rule 48(3), governing automatic substitution of successor public officers when the predecessor was a party “in his official capacity,” is based upon Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 25 (d), as amended in 1961. Prior to the 1961 amendment, substitution was not automatic. The history and application of former and present Rule 25 (d) are sketched in 3B J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 25.09 [1]— [3] (2d ed. 1969). Of particular relevance is- the Advisory Committee Note on the 1961 “automatic substitution” amendment to Rule 25 (d), which suggests that “[i]n general it will apply whenever effective relief would call for corrective behavior by the one then having official status and power, rather than one who has lost that status and power through ceasing to hold office.” See id., ¶ 25.09 [3], at 25-403, 25-404. The question of whether corrective behavior is thought to be necessary is, of course, dependent on whether the dispute with the predecessor continues with the successor.
Despite the statement respondents made in their brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari, n. 8, supra, the record does not contain any indication that respondents have ever sought in-junctive relief against Spomer in any proceedings in the District-Court or the Court of Appeals. Nor would they have had reason to do so in the absence of knowledge that he would succeed Berbling. While Spomer did substitute himself in place of his predecessor, and his counsel made the somewhat extraordinary statement at oral argument that “there is nothing in this record, nor will there be on the part of my client, to indicate that he would change the policies which are alleged to have been exercised by his predecessor,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, to determine whether respondents have a live controversy with Spomer, we must look to the charges they press. Indeed, counsel for respondents observed at oral argument of this case that “in order for us to proceed against Mr. Spomer, it would be necessary for us to investigate the facts to see that the concession apparently made by the State’s Attorney is true and amend our complaint.” Id., at 19. This merely serves to underscore our concern that we are being asked to render an opinion on the merits of what is now and may continue to be a hypothetical or abstract dispute. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937); United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U. S. 146, 157 (1961); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 245-246 (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:
|
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.
Petitioner, a seaman, brought this suit in admiralty alleging in the first count a cause of action based on negligence and unseaworthiness, while in the second count he sought maintenance and cure. He alleged the actionable wrongs to have taken place in November and December .of 1945, but. he did not file his libel until January 22, 1948.
The Act which gives to seamen employed by the United States on government-owned vessels the same rights as those employed on privately owned and operated American vessels provides that claims like those of the petitioner, “. . . if administratively disallowed in whole or in part . . .,” may be enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act. That Act in turn provides that any suit thereunder “. . . shall be brought within two years after the cause of action arises. ...” Courts of Appeals have rendered conflicting decisions as to whether the date of injury or the date of disallowance of the claim commences the period of limitation. The District Court dismissed this petitioner’s complaint on the ground set up by the Government that it was not filed within two years from the dates of his injuries. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed on the same ground, adhering to its view expressed in an earlier case, and, it subsequently developed, in agreement with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The contention of the petitioner is that he could not sue until his claim had been administratively disallowed, and that he had no “cause of action” until he could sue. Accordingly, he argues that the period of limitations cannot start to run until his claim has been administratively disallowed because only then does his “cause of action” arise. In his support he points to Thurston v. United States, 179 P. 2d 514, in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in accord with his present contentions.
We find ourselves unable to agree with petitioner and the Ninth Circuit, for we think it clear that the proper construction of the language used in the Suits in Admiralty Act is that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the injury. It was enacted several years before suits such as the present, on dis-, allowed claims, were authorized. Certainly during those years the limitation depended upon the event giving-rise to the claims, not upon the rejection. When later the right to sue was broadened to include such claims as this, there was no indication of any change in the limitation contained in the older Act. While, as the court below pointed out, legislation for the benefit of seamen is to be construed liberally in their favor, it is equally true that statutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign. Since no time is fixed within which the seaman is obliged to present his claim, under petitioner’s position he would have it in his power, by delaying its filing, to postpone indefinitely commencement of the running of the statute of limitations and thus to delay indefinitely knowledge by the Government that a claim existed. We cannot construe the Act as giving claimants an option as to when they will choose to start the period of limitation of an action against the United States. Accordingly, we hold that the statute of limitations runs from the date of the injury, and affirm the court below.
It is to be observed that the regulations applicable to the filing of such a claim provide that, if it is not rejected in writing within sixty days from filing, it shall be presumed to have been administratively disallowed and the claimant shall be entitled to enforce his claim. The record filed with us does not disclose when petitioner’s claim was filed or, with precision, when it was disallowed. In view of that state of the record making it uncertain whether the point would have any effect bn the outcome and the fact that petitioner has not raised the point, we find it inappropriate to consider whether the statute of limitations is tolled for a maximum of sixty days while a claim is pending and not disallowed either by notice or by operation of the regulations.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas think that, for reasons stated in Thurston v. United States, 179 F, 2d 514, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the claim was disallowed and would therefore reverse this judgment.
Mr. Justice Minton took no part.in the.consideration or decision of this cáse.
Clarification Act of March 24, 1943, § 1 (a), 57 Stat. 45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291 (a).
Suits in Admiralty Act, § 5, 41 Stat. 526, 46 U. S. C. § 745.
91 F. Supp. 593.
186 F. 2d 227; Rodinciuc v. United States, 175 F. 2d 479, 481 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Gregory v. United States, 187 F. 2d 101, 103 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
United States v. Michel, 282 U. S. 656, 659; United States v. Shaw, 309 U. S. 495, 500-501; United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 586-587.
General Order 32, Administrator, War Shipping Administration, 8 Fed. Reg. 5414, 46 CFR § 304.26.
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:
|
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.
Candidates for statewide or federal office in Maryland may obtain a place on the general election ballot by filing with the State Administrative Board of Election Laws a certificate of candidacy 70 days before a political party’s primary election and then by winning the primary. Alternatively, under provisions of the Maryland Election Code, a candidate for statewide or federal office may qualify for a position on the general election ballot as an independent by filing, 70 days before the date on which party primaries are held, nominating petitions signed by at least 3% oí the State’s registered voters and a certificate of candidacy. Md. Elec. Code Ann. §7-1 (1976 and Supp. 1976). In Presidential election years this filing date occurs approximately 230 to 240 days before the general election. In other years it occurs about 120 days before the general election. §§1-1 (a)(8), 5-2, 7-1.
Appellee Bruce Bradley decided in the spring of 1975 to run as an independent candidate for the United States Senate in 1976, a Presidential election year. Starting in the fall of 1975 Bradley collected signatures on nominating petitions. The requisite number was 51,155. On March 8, 1976, the deadline for filing, Bradley submitted 53,239 signatures and filed a certificate of candidacy for the Senate seat. However, on April 15, 1976, the State Administrative Board of Election Laws determined that only 42,049 of the signatures were valid and denied him a place on the ballot.
Two weeks later, Bradley and the other appellees — petition signers and other voter supporters of Bradley — filed the instant suit, alleging that the procedures mandated by § 7-1 of the Md. Elec. Code (1976 and Supp. 1976) constitute an unconstitutional infringement of their associational and voting rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They complained that Maryland’s early filing date made it more difficult for Bradley to obtain the requisite number of signatures than for a party member to win a primary and sought, inter alia, an injunction against future enforcement of the offending provision of Maryland’s election procedures. A three-judge District Court agreed with the appellees that the early filing deadline of § 7-1 (i) (Supp. 1976) was an unconstitutional burden on an independent candidate’s access to the ballot and ordered the appellants to give Bradley 53 days after the party primaries to gather the requisite number of signatures.
The court based its holding on our summary affirmance in Tucker v. Salera, 424 U. S. 959 (1976), aff’g 399 F. Supp. 1258 (ED Pa. 1975). In Salera, a three-judge court declared unconstitutional a Pennsylvania law setting the deadline for an independent candidate to gather signatures to obtain a place on the ballot 244 days before the general election in a Presidential election year. Under the Pennsylvania law, independents had to submit signatures of only 2% of the largest vote cast for any candidate in the preceding statewide general election, but they had to gather the required signatures within a 21-day period prior to the filing deadline. In declaring the Pennsylvania statute invalid, the three-judge court relied, not on the short period for signature gathering (which it thought was valid under Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724 (1974)), but solely on the early deadline for submission of the necessary signatures. The court. found that the deadline substantially burdened ballot access of independents by requiring them to obtain the necessary signatures at a time when the election issues were undefined and the voters were apathetic. It also rejected various countervailing state interests that had been urged. This Court summarily affirmed the judgment of the three-judge court in Salera.
The three-judge court in this case viewed this Court’s summary affirmance in Salera as controlling precedent for the proposition that early filing dates, such as that employed in Maryland, are unconstitutionally burdensome on the independent candidate’s access to the ballot, and therefore decided in favor of the appellees. We noted probable jurisdiction, 429 U. S. 813 (1976).
The District Court erred in believing that our affirmance in Salera adopted the reasoning as well as the judgment of the three-judge court in that case and thus required the District Court to conclude that the early filing date is impermissibly burdensome. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332 (1975), held that lower courts are bound by summary actions on the merits by this Court, but we noted that “[a]scertaining the reach and content of summary actions may itself present issues of real substance.” Id., at 345 n. 14. Because a summary affirmance is an affirmance of the judgment only, the rationale of the affirmance may not be gleaned solely from the opinion below.
“When we summarily affirm, without opinion, ... we affirm the judgment but not necessarily the reasoning by which it was reached. An unexplicated summary affirmance settles the issues for the parties, and is not to be read as a renunciation by this Court of doctrines previously announced in our opinions after full argument.” (Footnote omitted.) Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 391-392 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring).
Summary affirmances and dismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction and do leave undisturbed the judgment appealed from. They do prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions. After Salera, for example, other courts were not free to conclude that the Pennsylvania provision invalidated was nevertheless constitutional. Summary actions, however, including Salera, should not be understood as breaking new ground but as applying principles established by prior decisions to the particular facts involved.
Here, the District Court ruled that legally “Salera decides the issue before us, and as the latest expression of the Supreme Court, we are bound to follow it.” App. to Jurisdictional Statement 12a. The precedential significance of the summary action in Salera, however, is to be assessed in the light of all of the facts in that case; and it is immediately apparent that those facts are very different from the facts of this case. There, in addition to the early filing date, signatures had to be gathered within a 21-day period. This limited time enormously increased the difficulty of obtaining the number of signatures necessary to qualify as an independent candidate.
This combination of an early filing deadline and the 21-day limitation on signature gathering is sufficient to distinguish Salera from the case now before us, where there is no limitation on the period within which such signatures must be gathered. In short, Salera did not mandate the result reached by the District Court in this case.
Because of its preoccupation with Salera, the District Court failed to undertake an independent examination of the merits. The’ appropriate inquiry was set out in Storer v. Brown, supra, at 742:
“[I]n the context of [Maryland] politics, could a reasonably diligent independent candidate be expected to satisfy the [ballot access] requirements, or will it be only rarely that the unaffiliated candidate will succeed in getting on the ballot? Past experience will be a helpful, if not always an unerring, guide: it will be one thing if independent candidates have qualified with some regularity and quite a different matter if they have not. We note here that the State mentions only one instance of an independent candidate’s qualifying . . . but disclaims having made any comprehensive survey of the official records that would perhaps reveal the truth of the matter.”
In Btorer itself, because the District Court had not applied these standards in adjudicating the constitutional issues before it, we remanded the case “to permit further findings with respect to the extent of the burden imposed on independent candidates.” 415 U. S., at 740. There is no reason here for doing any less. The District Court did not sift through the conflicting evidence and make findings of fact as to the difficulty of obtaining signatures in time to meet the early filing deadline. It did not consider the extent to which other features of the Maryland electoral system — such as the unlimited period during which signatures may be collected, or the unrestricted pool of potential petition signers — moderate whatever burden the deadline creates. See Developments in the Law— Elections, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1111,1142-1143 (1975). It did not analyze what the past experience of independent candidates for statewide office might indicate about the burden imposed on those seeking ballot access. Instead, the District Court’s assumption that the filing deadline by itself was per se illegal- — as well as the expedited basis upon which the case necessarily was decided — resulted in a failure to apply the constitutional standards announced in Storer to the statutory provisions here at issue.
The application of those standards to the evidence in the record is, in the first instance, a task for the District Court. We therefore vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Bradley successfully gathered the requisite number of signatures, obtained a place on the ballot, ran, and lost. This case is nonetheless not moot. Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 737 n. 8 (1974).
In Storer v. Brown, supra, as the District Court noted, the 24-day limitation was not by itself enough to invalidate the statute, but we clearly recognized that the limitation, when combined with other provisions of the election law, might invalidate the statutory scheme. 415 U. S., at 742-743. The District Court in this case erred in reading Storer v. Brown as holding irrelevant the limited period of time in which signatures must be gathered.
The appellees filed this action on April 30, 1976. The three-judge court was convened and heard argument on May 12, and it announced its decision on May 17.
There is evidence in the record that in both 1972 and 1976 — the only years in which the early deadline was effective — no candidate for statewide office succeeded in qualifying for the ballot. There is also evidence tending to substantiate the appellees’ contention that there existed a variety of obstacles in the way of obtaining support for an independent candidate far in advance of the general election. Without intimating any ultimate view on the merits of the appellees’ challenge, we have no doubt that it has sufficient substance to warrant a remand for further proceedings.
The District Court will be free on remand to- consider the appellees’ argument that the “technical and administrative requirements of the petition signing process” are an unconstitutional burden on ballot access — a question never reached in view of the decision for the appellees and Bradley’s ultimate success in qualifying for the ballot.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitioner was brought to trial in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, upon a complaint charging him with violating two sections of the General Code of the City of Birmingham, Alabama. After trial without a jury, the court found him “guilty as charged in the Complaint,” and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 180 days at hard labor and an additional 61 days at hard labor in default of a $100 fine and costs. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Appeals, 42 Ala. App. 296, 161 So. 2d 796, and the Supreme Court of Alabama declined review. 276 Ala. 707, 161 So. 2d 799. We granted certiorari to consider the petitioner’s claim that under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution his conviction cannot stand. 380 U. S. 905.
The two ordinances which Shuttlesworth was charged with violating are §§ 1142 and 1231 of the Birmingham General City Code. The relevant paragraph of § 1142 provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person or any number of persons to so stand, loiter or walk upon any street or sidewalk in the city as to obstruct free passage over, on or along said street or sidewalk. It shall also be unlawful for any person to stand or loiter upon any street or sidewalk of the city after having been requested by any police officer to move on.” Section 1231 provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse or fail to comply with any lawful order, signal or direction of a police officer.” The two counts in the complaint were framed in the words of these ordinances.
The evidence was in conflict, but the prosecution’s version of the facts can be briefly summarized. On April 4, 1962, at about 10:30 a. m., Patrolman Byars of the Birmingham Police Department observed Shuttlesworth standing on a sidewalk with 10 or 12 companions outside a department store near the intersection of 2d Ave. and 19th St. in the City of Birmingham. After observing the group for a minute or so, Byars walked up and “told them they would have to move on and clear the sidewalk and not obstruct it for the pedestrians.” After some, but not all, of the group began to disperse, Byars repeated this request twice. In response to the second request, Shuttlesworth said, “You mean to say we can’t stand here on the sidewalk?” After the third request he replied, “Do you mean to tell me we can’t stand here in front of this store?” By this time everybody in the group but Shuttlesworth had begun to walk away, and Patrolman Byars told him he was under arrest. Shut-tlesworth then responded, “Well, I will go into the store,” and walked into the entrance of the adjacent department store. Byars followed and took him into custody just inside the store’s entrance.
I.
On its face, the here relevant paragraph of § 1142 sets out two separate and disjunctive offenses. The paragraph makes it an offense to “so stand, loiter or walk upon any street or sidewalk ... as to obstruct free passage over, on or along said street or sidewalk.” The paragraph makes it “also . . . unlawful for any person to stand or loiter upon any street or sidewalk . . . after having been requested by any police officer to move on.” (Emphasis added.) The first count of the complaint in this case, tracking the ordinance, charged these two separate offenses in the alternative.
Literally read, therefore, the second part of this ordinance says that a person may stand on a public sidewalk in Birmingham only at the whim of any police officer of that city. The constitutional vice of so broad a provision needs no demonstration. It “does not provide for government by clearly defined laws, but rather for government by the moment-to-moment opinions of a policeman on his beat.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 579 (separate opinion of Mr. Justice Black). Instinct with its ever-present potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties, that kind of law bears the hallmark of a police state.
The matter is not one which need be exhaustively pursued, however, because, as the respondent correctly points out, the Alabama Court of Appeals has not read § 1142 literally, but has given to it an explicitly narrowed construction. The ordinance, that court has ruled, “is directed at obstructing the free passage over, on or along a street or sidewalk by the manner in which a person accused stands, loiters or walks thereupon. Our decisions make it clear that the mere refusal to move on after a police officer’s requesting that a person standing or loitering should do so is not enough to support the offense. . . . [T]here must also be a showing of the accused’s blocking free passage . . . .” Middlebrooks v. City of Birmingham, 42 Ala. App. 525, 527, 170 So. 2d 424, 426.
The Alabama Court of Appeals has thus authoritatively ruled that § 1142 applies only when a person who stands, loiters, or walks on a street or sidewalk so as to obstruct free passage refuses to obey a request by an officer to move on. It is our duty, of course, to accept this state judicial construction of the ordinance. Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507; United States v. Burnison, 339 U. S. 87; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495. As so construed, we cannot say that the ordinance is unconstitutional, though it requires no great feat of imagination to envisage situations in which such an ordinance might be unconstitutionally applied.
The present limiting construction of § 1142 was not given to the ordinance by the Alabama Court of Appeals, however, until its decision in Middlebrooks, supra, two years after the petitioner’s conviction in the present case. In Middlebrooks the Court of Appeals stated that it had applied its narrowed construction of the ordinance in affirming Shuttlesworth’s conviction, but its opinion in the present case, 42 Ala. App. 296, 161 So. 2d 796, nowhere makes explicit any such construction. In any event, the trial court in the present case was without guidance from any state appellate court as to the meaning of the ordinance.
The trial court made no findings of fact and rendered no opinion. For all that appears, that court may have found the petitioner guilty only by applying the literal-— and unconstitutional — terms of the ordinance. Upon the evidence before him, the trial judge as finder of the facts might easily have determined that the petitioner had created an obstruction, but had subsequently moved on. The court might alternatively have found that the petitioner himself had created no obstruction, but had simply disobeyed Patrolman Byars’ instruction to move on. In either circumstance the literal terms of the ordinance would apply; in neither circumstance would the ordinance be applicable as now construed by the Alabama Court of Appeals. Because we are unable to say that the Alabama courts in this case did not judge the petitioner by an unconstitutional construction of the ordinance, the petitioner’s conviction under § 1142 cannot stand.
II.
We find the petitioner’s conviction under the second count of the complaint, for violation of § 1231 of the General City Code, to be constitutionally invalid for a completely distinct reason. That ordinance makes it a criminal offense for any person “to refuse or fail to comply with any lawful order, signal or direction of a police officer.” Like the provisions of § 1142 discussed above, the literal terms of this ordinance are so broad as to evoke constitutional doubts of the utmost gravity. But the Alabama Court of Appeals has confined this ordinance to a relatively narrow scope. In reversing the conviction of the petitioner’s codefendant, the court said of § 1231: “This section appears in the chapter regulating vehicular traffic, and provides for the enforcement of the orders of the officers of the police department in directing such traffic.” Phifer v. City of Birmingham, 42 Ala. App. 282, 285, 160 So. 2d 898, 901.
The record contains no evidence whatever that Patrolman Byars was directing vehicular traffic at the time he told the petitioner and his companions to move on. Whatever Patrolman Byars’ other generally assigned duties may have been, he testified unambiguously that he directed the petitioner’s group to move on, to “clear the sidewalk and not obstruct it for the pedestrians.”
Five years ago this Court decided the case of Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199. There we reversed the conviction of a man who had been found guilty in the police court of Louisville, Kentucky, of loitering and disorderly conduct. The proposition for which that case stands is simple and clear. It has nothing to do with concepts relating to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence in any particular case. It goes, rather, to the most basic concepts of due process of law. Its application in Thompson’s case turned, as Mr. Justice Black pointed out, “not on the sufficiency of the evidence, but on whether this conviction rests upon any evidence at all.” 362 U. S., at 199. The Court found there was “no evidence whatever in the record to support these convictions,” and held that it was “a violation of due process to convict and punish a man without evidence of his guilt.” 362 U. S., at 206. See also Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157.
No more need be said in this case with respect to the petitioner’s conviction for violating § 1231 of the General Code of the City of Birmingham, Alabama. Quite simply, the petitioner was not in, on, or around any vehicle at the time he was directed to move on or at the time he was arrested. He was a pedestrian. Officer Byars did not issue any direction to the petitioner in the course of directing vehicular traffic, because Officer Byars was not then directing any such traffic. There was thus no evidence whatever in the record to support the petitioner’s conviction under this ordinance as it has been authoritatively construed by the Alabama Court of Appeals. It was a violation of due process to convict and punish him without evidence of his guilt.
For these reasons the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Alabama for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
This was a trial de novo on appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Recorder’s Court of the City of Birmingham.
“Count One
“Comes the City of Birmingham, Alabama, a municipal corporation, and complains that F. L. Shuttlesworth, within twelve months before the beginning of this prosecution and within the City of Birmingham, or the police jurisdiction thereof, did stand, loiter or walk upon a street or sidewalk within and among a group of other persons so as to obstruct free passage over, on or along said street or sidewalk at, to-wit: 2nd Avenue, North, at 19th Street or did while in said group stand or loiter upon said street or sidewalk after having been requested by a police officer to move on, contrary to and in violation of Section 1142 of the General City Code of Birmingham of 1944, as amended by Ordinance Number 1436-F.
“Count Two
“Comes the City of Birmingham, Alabama, a municipal corporation, and complains that F. L. Shuttlesworth, within twelve months before the beginning of this prosecution and within the City of Birmingham, or the police jurisdiction thereof, did refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal or direction of a police officer, contrary to and in violation of Section 1231 of the General City Code of the City of Birmingham.”
The record contains many references to a so-called “selective buying campaign” in which Birmingham Negroes were engaged at that time. There was no showing, however, of any connection between this campaign and the presence of the petitioner and his companions outside the department store on the morning of his arrest.
See note 2, supra.
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433, 435; Amsterdam, Note, The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67, 75-81, 96-104 (1960). Cf. Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 151; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 371.
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 451; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 293; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163-164.
The petitioner's trial took place in October 1962. The Alabama Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction in November 1963. The Middlebrooks case was decided in October 1964. 42 Ala. App. 525, 170 So. 2d 424. The Middlebrooks construction of the ordinance was adumbrated in Smith v. City of Birmingham; decided the same day. 42 Ala. App. 467, 168 So. 2d 35.
Cf. Shelton v. City of Birmingham, 42 Ala. App. 371, 165 So. 2d 912, affirming the conviction of a defendant who refused to obey an officer’s direction to get out of the middle of a street which had been closed to private vehicles and in which “[pjolice cars and fire engines were being used to move and quiet the crowd.”
Patrolman Byars testified that on the morning in question he was a “utility officer,” and that as such he was “in charge of the direction and movement of all traffic at 3rd Avenue and 19th Street and four blocks in an east, west, north and south direction.” He conceded that, he was “not regularly placed” at the intersection where the arrest occurred, and that he had “nothing to do with the other officers who were also there.”
The record shows that the officer directing vehicular traffic at the intersection of 2d Ave. and 19th St. at the time of the petitioner’s arrest was Officer Hallman. His relevant testimony was as follows:
“Q. Now, you observe on these corners from your position here when you police that corner, do you not?
“A. I try to.
“Q. Had you seen these people over there blocking traffic before you saw Officer Byars?
“A. I saw him standing over there talking to them.
“Q. Did you see them before he was talking to them?
“A. I saw them over there. I didn’t pay any particular attention to them.
“Q. Did you get the impression they were waiting for the light to change ?
“A. I couldn’t answer that because I don’t know what they had on their mind.
“Q. You formed no impression when you first saw them?
“A. No.
“Q. You took no note of them when you first saw them, is that right ?
“A. Just saw them standing over there.
“Q. The only time you made note of them standing over there was when you saw the policeman assisting you talking to them?
“A. When I saw him over there talking to them. He wasn’t assisting me.
“Q. He wasn’t assisting you with your corner.
“A. No.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves an interpretation of § 23 (a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, 26 U. S. C. § 23 (a) (1) (A), providing for the deduction from gross income, in computing net income, of all the “ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred . . . in carrying on any trade or business . . . .” The Commissioner determined a deficiency in petitioner’s excess-profits tax for 1945; petitioner sought a redetermination of its liability in the Tax Court, which made the following findings of fact. In April 1924, petitioner leased land in New York City for 21 years, with an option to renew the lease for two further 21-year periods. In accordance with the terms of the lease, it erected a 22-story loft building at a cost of $3,000,000. The lease, as amended in 1935, provided for an annual rental of $118,840. Title to the building was in petitioner, but at the eventual termination of the lease it would vest, without payment, in the lessor, at the lessor’s option. The lessor could also require petitioner to remove the building at that time. Petitioner had the obligation, in case of destruction of the building, to rebuild at its own cost. During the first 21-year period of the lease, petitioner fully depreciated the entire $3,000,000 cost of the building. In April 1945, it exercised its option to renew the lease until April 1966.
In May 1945, petitioner entered into an agreement with the owner whereby it purchased the fee and obtained release from the obligations of the renewed lease. The price paid was $2,100,000. The Tax Court aiso found that the value of the land, as unimproved, was $660,000 when purchased by petitioner in 1945.
The principal issues raised by petitioner relate to its attempt to deduct $1,440,000 — the difference between the purchase price under the May 1945 agreement and the 1945 value of the unimproved land — as an ordinary and necessary expense of doing business. The Tax Court held that the difference could not be so deducted, that the difference could not be amortized over the remaining term of the cancelled lease, and that no annual depreciation could be taken because the cost of the building had already been fully depreciated and the purchase price could not be separated into purchase price for building and purchase price for land. 21 T. C. 817. Six of the judges of the Tax Court dissented on the ground that “[s]ome part of the purchase price should be allocated to the additional rights in the building acquired in the purchase . . . .” 21 T. C., at 826.
On petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. It affirmed the refusal to permit a deduction under § 23 (a), but reversed the holding that no amount could be added to the asset value of the building for purposes of depreciation. Rejecting petitioner’s argument that it should be allowed to amortize the $1,440,000 over the unexpired term of the cancelled lease, it accepted petitioner’s alternative argument that depreciation over the remaining useful life of the building should be allowed. Stating that “[o]n the present state of the record we cannot determine how much of the $2,100,000 purchase price is properly to be allocated to the land and how much to the building,” it remanded the case to the Tax Court to fix the respective values. 221 F. 2d 322, 324. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to review the disallowance of its claim for a deduction as a business expense or, alternatively, as amortization over the remaining period of the lease. The Government did not seek review of the allowance of depreciation of that portion of the purchase price allocable to the building over its remaining economic life. Because of the apparent conflict between the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case and the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cleveland Allerton Hotel, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 166 F. 2d 805, we granted certiorari, limited to the questions set forth in the margin.
Under the terms of the lease, petitioner had a 21-year lease on the land, with an option to renew, and similar rights in the building which it had constructed. Petitioner introduced evidence to show that the rent it was paying under the lease was greatly in excess of the fair rental value of the land as vacant, unimproved land. Petitioner contends that it already owned the building and that therefore the purchase agreement was entered into for the purpose of avoiding the excessive rentals of the lease. This transaction, it asserts, involved a current business expenditure, and the $1,440,000 in excess of the vacant land value represents what it was willing to pay to avoid this onerous lease.
Petitioner’s claim that it “owned” the building is based on a loose and misleading use of “owned.” The only way petitioner could continue to use the building after termination of the initial period of the lease was by renewing the lease, and the lease also circumscribed its control over the building. It could make use of the building for the remainder of its economic life, but only on payment of the stated rent. Petitioner’s evidence with respect to the rental value of the land as unimproved is irrelevant. It was using the land as improved by the building; it was paying rent for the land as improved by the building. Petitioner tendered no evidence that it was paying excessive rent for what it was actually leasing. A complementary feature of the purchase of the lessor’s interests in the land and building was the elimination of the obligation to pay rent on the improved land. The purchase price presumably reflected this situation. Whatever possible merit petitioner’s contention might have were there proof of excessive purchase price can await such a case. The purchase price paid by petitioner represents the cost of acquiring the complete fee to the land and the building, and no deduction as an ordinary and necessary business expense can be taken.
Petitioner claims that even if it cannot get a deduction as an ordinary and necessary business ‘expense under § 23 (a) or as a loss under § 23 (f), it should be allowed to amortize the excess of the payment of $2,100,000 above the determined land value of $660,000 over the 21-year remaining term of the extinguished lease. What petitioner acquired in this transaction, however, were both rights with respect to the land and rights with respect to the building. The Tax Court has not yet fixed that amount of the purchase price which is allocable to the acquisition of rights in the land and that which is allocable to the acquisition of rights in the building. These rights are assets with useful lives having no reference to the term of the lease. Successive steps of securing or renewing a lease and then purchasing the reversion should not result in amortization over the term of the lease when the purchase of the whole fee at one time would result in depreciation over the useful life of the asset, if the asset acquired were a wasting asset.
Under petitioner’s contention, if the purchase had been consummated in 1944 before the first term of the lease had expired, the whole amount of the purchase price not allocable to the land would be amortized in one year. But it should make no difference whether the lease is about to expire or has just been renewed. In the one case, the value of the reversion is enhanced and the value of the right to receive the rent fixed by the lease is depressed because the lease is near an end. In the other case, the value of the reversion is depressed and the value of the right to receive the fixed rent is enhanced because the lease has many years to run. But although there might possibly be some difference in bargaining power between the two situations, the sum total of the rights purchased is the same in each case. Petitioner has acquired two assets — land and a building — whose use it will have for the remainder of their useful lives, and petitioner therefore cannot amortize the cost allocable to the acquisition of the wasting asset over the term of the extinguished lease.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, leaving to the Tax Court the allocation still to be made.
Affirmed.
“1. Where a lessee, the owner of a valuable building on leased land, acquires the fee to the land to be relieved of what it considers to be the burdensome terms of a lease, may the lessee deduct the excess of the payment over the determined value of the land at the date of purchase as an ordinary expense of doing business under § 23 (a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1939 or under § 23 (f) as a loss on a transaction entered into for profit and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.
“2. In the alternative, may the lessee-petitioner consider the excess payment over the determined value of the land to be in the nature of a prepayment of rent for the remaining term of the extinguished lease and amortize such amount over 21 years?” 350 U. S. 820.
Petitioner asserted, but did not argue, the permissibility of the deduction of the $1,440,000 as a loss under § 23 (f). Such an assertion is apparently premised on the assumption that the $1,440,000 represents the sum paid for commutation of the rent payments under an onerous lease, and further discussion of this argument is unnecessary.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1999 a special court-martial convicted Anthony Kebodeaux, a member of the United States Air Force, of a sex offense. It imposed a sentence of three months' imprisonment and a bad conduct discharge. In 2006, several years after Kebodeaux had served his sentence and been discharged, Congress enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 120 Stat. 590, 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq., a federal statute that requires those convicted of federal sex offenses to register in the States where they live, study, and work. § 16913(a) ;
18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). And, by regulation, the Federal Government made clear that SORNA's registration requirements apply to federal sex offenders who, when SORNA became law, had already completed their sentences. 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) (Attorney General's authority to issue regulations); 28 CFR § 72.3 (2012) (regulation specifying application to pre-SORNA offenders).
We here must decide whether the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to enact SORNA's registration requirements and apply them to a federal offender who had completed his sentence prior to the time of SORNA's enactment. For purposes of answering this question, we assume that Congress has complied with the Constitution's Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 105-106, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (upholding a similar Alaska statute against ex post facto challenge); Supp. Brief for Kebodeaux on Rehearing En Banc in No. 08-51185 (CA5) (not raising any Due Process challenge); Brief for Respondent (same). We conclude that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress adequate power to enact SORNA and to apply it here.
I
As we have just said, in 1999 a special court-martial convicted Kebodeaux, then a member of the Air Force, of a federal sex offense. He served his 3-month sentence; the Air Force released him with a bad conduct discharge. And then he moved to Texas. In 2004 Kebodeaux registered as a sex offender with Texas state authorities. Brief for Respondent 6-7. In 2006 Congress enacted SORNA. In 2007 Kebodeaux moved within Texas from San Antonio to El Paso, updating his sex offender registration. App. to Pet. for Cert. 167a-168a. But later that year he returned to San Antonio without making the legally required sex-offender registration changes. Id., at 169a. And the Federal Government, acting under SORNA, prosecuted Kebodeaux for this last-mentioned SORNA registration failure.
A Federal District Court convicted Kebodeaux of having violated SORNA. See 687 F.3d 232, 234 (C.A.5 2012) (en banc). On appeal a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially upheld the conviction. 647 F.3d 137 (2011) (per curiam ). But the Circuit then heard the appeal en banc and, by a vote of 10 to 6, reversed. 687 F.3d, at 234. The court stated that, by the time Congress enacted SORNA, Kebodeaux had "fully served" his sex-offense sentence; he was "no longer in federal custody, in the military, under any sort of supervised release or parole, or in any other special relationship with the federal government." Ibid.
The court recognized that, even before SORNA, federal law required certain federal sex offenders to register. Id., at 235, n. 4. See Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, § 170101, 108 Stat. 2038-2042. But it believed that the pre-SORNA federal registration requirements did not apply to Kebodeaux. 687 F.3d, at 235, n. 4. Hence, in the Circuit's view, Kebodeaux had been "unconditionally let... free." Id., at 234. And, that being so, the Federal Government lacked the power under Article I's Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate through registration Kebodeaux's intrastate movements. Id., at 234-235. In particular, the court said that after "the federal government has unconditionally let a person free... the fact that he once committed a crime is not a jurisdictional basis for subsequent regulation and possible criminal prosecution." Ibid. The Solicitor General sought certiorari. And, in light of the fact that a Federal Court of Appeals has held a federal statute unconstitutional, we granted the petition. See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 605, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000) ; United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418, 425, 113 S.Ct. 2696, 125 L.Ed.2d 345 (1993).
II
We do not agree with the Circuit's conclusion. And, in explaining our reasons, we need not go much further than the Circuit's critical assumption that Kebodeaux's release was "unconditional," i.e., that after Kebodeaux's release, he was not in "any... special relationship with the federal government." 687 F.3d, at 234. To the contrary, the Solicitor General, tracing through a complex set of statutory cross-references, has pointed out that at the time of his offense and conviction Kebodeaux was subject to the federal Wetterling Act, an Act that imposed upon him registration requirements very similar to those that SORNA later mandated. Brief for United States 18-29.
Congress enacted the Wetterling Act in 1994 and updated it several times prior to Kebodeaux's offense. Like SORNA, it used the federal spending power to encourage States to adopt sex offender registration laws. 42 U.S.C. § 14071(i) (2000 ed.) ; Smith, supra, at 89-90, 123 S.Ct. 1140. Like SORNA, it applied to those who committed federal sex crimes. § 14071(b)(7)(A). And like SORNA, it imposed federal penalties upon federal sex offenders who failed to register in the States in which they lived, worked, and studied. §§ 14072(i)(3)-(4).
In particular, § 14072(i)(3) imposed federal criminal penalties upon any "person who is... described in section 4042(c)(4) of title 18, and knowingly fails to register in any State in which the person resides." The cross-referenced § 4042(c)(4) said that a "person is described in this paragraph if the person was convicted of" certain enumerated offenses or "[a]ny other offense designated by the Attorney General as a sexual offense for purposes of this subsection." 18 U.S.C. § 4042(c)(4). In 1998 the Attorney General "delegated this authority [to designate sex offenses] to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons." Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Designation of Offenses Subject to Sex Offender Release Notification, 63 Fed.Reg. 69386. And that same year the Director of the Bureau of Prisons "designate[d]" the offense of which Kebodeaux was convicted, namely the military offense of "carnal knowledge" as set forth in Article 120(B) of the Code of Military Justice. Id., at 69387 See 28 CFR § 571.72(b)(2) (1999). A full reading of these documents makes clear that, contrary to Kebodeaux's contention, the relevant penalty applied to crimes committed by military personnel.
Moreover, a different Wetterling Act section imposed federal criminal penalties upon any "person who is... sentenced by a court martial for conduct in a category specified by the Secretary of Defense under section 115(a)(8)(C) of title I of Public Law 105-119, and knowingly fails to register in any State in which the person resides." 42 U.S.C. § 14072(i)(4) (2000 ed.). The cross-referenced section, § 115(a)(8)(C), said that the "Secretary of Defense shall specify categories of conduct punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which encompass a range of conduct comparable to that described in [certain provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994], and such other conduct as the Secretary deems appropriate." 1998 Appropriations Act, § 115(a)(8)(C)(i), 111 Stat. 2466. See note following 10 U.S.C. § 951 (2000 ed.). The Secretary had delegated certain types of authority, such as this last mentioned "deem[ing]" authority, to an Assistant Secretary of Defense. DoD Directive 5124.5, p. 4 (Oct. 31, 1994). And in December 1998 an Assistant Secretary, acting pursuant to this authority, published a list of military crimes that included the crime of which Kebodeaux was convicted, namely Article 120(B) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. App. to Pet. for Cert. 171a-175a. The provision added that "[c]onvictions... shall trigger requirements to notify state and local law enforcement agencies and to provide information to inmates concerning sex offender registration requirements." Id., at 175a. And, the provision says (contrary to Kebodeaux's reading, Brief for Respondent 57), that it shall "take effect immediately." It contains no expiration date. App. to Pet. for Cert. 175a.
We are not aware of any plausible counterargument to the obvious conclusion, namely that as of the time of Kebodeaux's offense, conviction and release from federal custody, these Wetterling Act provisions applied to Kebodeaux and imposed upon him registration requirements very similar to those that SORNA later imposed. Contrary to what the Court of Appeals may have believed, the fact that the federal law's requirements in part involved compliance with state-law requirements made them no less requirements of federal law. See generally United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286, 293-294, 78 S.Ct. 291, 2 L.Ed.2d 282 (1958) (Congress has the power to adopt as federal law the laws of a State and to apply them in federal enclaves); Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 207-208, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824) ("Although Congress cannot enable a State to legislate, Congress may adopt the provisions of a State on any subject.... The act [adopts state systems for regulation of pilots] and gives [them] the same validity as if its provisions had been specially made by Congress").
III
Both the Court of Appeals and Kebodeaux come close to conceding that if, as of the time of Kebodeaux's offense, he was subject to a federal registration requirement, then the Necessary and Proper Clause authorized Congress to modify the requirement as in SORNA and to apply the modified requirement to Kebodeaux. See 687 F.3d, at 234-235, and n. 4 ; Tr. of Oral Arg. 38-39. And we believe they would be right to make this concession.
No one here claims that the Wetterling Act, as applied to military sex offenders like Kebodeaux, falls outside the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause. And it is difficult to see how anyone could persuasively do so. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to "make Rules for the... Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. I, § 8, cl. 14. And, in the Necessary and Proper Clause itself, it grants Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" and "all other Powers" that the Constitution vests "in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Id., cl. 18.
The scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause is broad. In words that have come to define that scope Chief Justice Marshall long ago wrote:
"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819).
As we have come to understand these words and the provision they explain, they "leav[e] to Congress a large discretion as to the means that may be employed in executing a given power." Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321, 355, 23 S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492 (1903). See Morrison, 529 U.S., at 607, 120 S.Ct. 1740. The Clause allows Congress to "adopt any means, appearing to it most eligible and appropriate, which are adapted to the end to be accomplished and consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution." James Everard's Breweries v. Day, 265 U.S. 545, 559, 44 S.Ct. 628, 68 L.Ed. 1174 (1924).
The Constitution, for example, makes few explicit references to federal criminal law, but the Necessary and Proper Clause nonetheless authorizes Congress, in the implementation of other explicit powers, to create federal crimes, to confine offenders to prison, to hire guards and other prison personnel, to provide prisoners with medical care and educational training, to ensure the safety of those who may come into contact with prisoners, to ensure the public's safety through systems of parole and supervised release, and, where a federal prisoner's mental condition so requires, to confine that prisoner civilly after the expiration of his or her term of imprisonment. See United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 136-137, 130 S.Ct. 1949, 176 L.Ed.2d 878 (2010).
Here, under the authority granted to it by the Military Regulation and Necessary and Proper Clauses, Congress could promulgate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It could specify that the sex offense of which Kebodeaux was convicted was a military crime under that Code. It could punish that crime through imprisonment and by placing conditions upon Kebodeaux's release. And it could make the civil registration requirement at issue here a consequence of Kebodeaux's offense and conviction. This civil requirement, while not a specific condition of Kebodeaux's release, was in place at the time Kebodeaux committed his offense, and was a consequence of his violation of federal law.
And Congress' decision to impose such a civil requirement that would apply upon the release of an offender like Kebodeaux is eminently reasonable. Congress could reasonably conclude that registration requirements applied to federal sex offenders after their release can help protect the public from those federal sex offenders and alleviate public safety concerns. See Smith, 538 U.S., at 102-103, 123 S.Ct. 1140 (sex offender registration has "a legitimate nonpunitive purpose of 'public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community' "). There is evidence that recidivism rates among sex offenders are higher than the average for other types of criminals. See Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, P. Langan, E. Schmitt, &
M. Durose, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released in 1994, p. 1 (Nov. 2003) (reporting that compared to non-sex offenders, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime, and that within the first three years following release 5.3% of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime). There is also conflicting evidence on the point. Cf. R. Tewsbury, W. Jennings, & K. Zgoba, Final Report on Sex Offenders: Recidivism and Collateral Consequences (Sept. 2011) (concluding that sex offenders have relatively low rates of recidivism, and that registration requirements have limited observable benefits regarding recidivism). But the Clause gives Congress the power to weigh the evidence and to reach a rational conclusion, for example, that safety needs justify postrelease registration rules. See Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581, 594-595, 47 S.Ct. 210, 71 L.Ed. 422 (1926) (upholding congressional statute limiting the amount of spirituous liquor that may be prescribed by a physician, and noting that Congress' "finding [regarding the appropriate amount], in the presence of the well-known diverging opinions of physicians, cannot be regarded as arbitrary or without a reasonable basis"). See also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 22, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) ("In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding"). See also H.R.Rep. No. 109-218, pt. 1, pp. 22, 23 (2005) (House Report) (citing statistics compiled by the Justice Department as support for SORNA's sex offender registration regime).
At the same time, "it is entirely reasonable for Congress to have assigned the Federal Government a special role in ensuring compliance with SORNA's registration requirements by federal sex offenders-persons who typically would have spent time under federal criminal supervision." Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2229, 176 L.Ed.2d 1152 (2010). The Federal Government has long kept track of former federal prisoners through probation, parole, and supervised release in part to prevent further crimes thereby protecting the public against the risk of recidivism. See Parole Act, 36 Stat. 819; Probation Act, ch. 521, 43 Stat. 1259; Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, ch. II, 98 Stat. 1987. See also 1 N. Cohen, The Law of Probation and Parole §§ 7:3, 7:4 (2d ed. 1999) (principal purposes of postrelease conditions are to rehabilitate the convict, thus preventing him from recidivating, and to protect the public). Neither, as of 1994, was registration particularly novel, for by then States had implemented similar requirements for close to half a century. See W. Logan, Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America 30-31 (2009). Moreover, the Wetterling Act took state interests into account by, for the most part, requiring released federal offenders to register in accordance with state law. At the same time, the Wetterling Act's requirements were reasonably narrow and precise, tying time limits to the type of sex offense, incorporating state-law details, and relating penalties for violations to the sex crime initially at issue. See 42 U.S.C. § 14071(b) (2000 ed.).
The upshot is that here Congress did not apply SORNA to an individual who had, prior to SORNA's enactment, been "unconditionally released," i.e., a person who was not in "any... special relationship with the federal government," but rather to an individual already subject to federal registration requirements that were themselves a valid exercise of federal power under the Military Regulation and Necessary and Proper Clauses. But cf. post, at 2509 - 2510 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).
SORNA, enacted after Kebodeaux's release, somewhat modified the applicable registration requirements. In general, SORNA provided more detailed definitions of sex offenses, described in greater detail the nature of the information registrants must provide, and imposed somewhat different limits upon the length of time that registration must continue and the frequency with which offenders must update their registration. 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911, 16913 - 16916 (2006 ed. and Supp. V). But the statute, like the Wetterling Act, used Spending Clause grants to encourage States to adopt its uniform definitions and requirements. It did not insist that the States do so. See §§ 16925(a), (d) (2006 ed.) ("The provisions of this subchapter that are cast as directions to jurisdictions or their officials constitute, in relation to States, only conditions required to avoid the reduction of Federal funding under this section").
As applied to an individual already subject to the Wetterling Act like Kebodeaux, SORNA makes few changes. In particular, SORNA modified the time limitations for a sex offender who moves to update his registration to within three business days of the move from both seven days before and seven days after the move, as required by the Texas law enforced under the Wetterling Act. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 16913(c) with App. to Pet. for Cert. 167a-168a. SORNA also increased the federal penalty for a federal offender's registration violation to a maximum of 10 years from a maximum of 1 year for a first offense. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) with 42 U.S.C. § 14072(i) (2000 ed.). Kebodeaux was sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment. For purposes of federal law, SORNA reduced the duration of Kebodeaux's registration requirement to 25 years from the lifetime requirement imposed by Texas law, compare 42 U.S.C. § 16915(a) (2006 ed.) with App. to Pet. for Cert. 167a, and reduced the frequency with which Kebodeaux must update his registration to every six months from every 90 days as imposed by Texas law, compare 42 U.S.C. § 16916(2) with App. to Pet. for Cert. 167a. And as far as we can tell, while SORNA punishes violations of its requirements (instead of violations of state law), the Federal Government has prosecuted a sex offender for violating SORNA only when that offender also violated state-registration requirements.
SORNA's general changes were designed to make more uniform what had remained "a patchwork of federal and 50 individual state registration systems," Reynolds v. United States, 565 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 975, 978, 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012), with "loopholes and deficiencies" that had resulted in an estimated 100,000 sex offenders becoming "missing" or "lost," House Report 20, 26. See S.Rep. No. 109-369, pp. 16-17 (2006). See also Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456, 462-463, 123 S.Ct. 1667, 155 L.Ed.2d 631 (2003) (holding that a statute is authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause when it "provides an alternative to [otherwise] unsatisfactory options" that are "obviously inefficient"). SORNA's more specific changes reflect Congress' determination that the statute, changed in respect to frequency, penalties, and other details, will keep track of more offenders and will encourage States themselves to adopt its uniform standards. No one here claims that these changes are unreasonable or that Congress could not reasonably have found them "necessary and proper" means for furthering its pre-existing registration ends.
We conclude that the SORNA changes as applied to Kebodeaux fall within the scope Congress' authority under the Military Regulation and Necessary and Proper Clauses. The Fifth Circuit's judgment to the contrary is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Chief Justice ROBERTS, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that Congress had the power, under the Military Regulation and Necessary and Proper Clauses of Article I, to require Anthony Kebodeaux to register as a sex offender. The majority, having established that premise and thus resolved the case before us, nevertheless goes on to discuss the general public safety benefits of the registration requirement. Ante, at 2503 - 2504. Because that analysis is beside the point in this case, I concur in the judgment only. While serving in the Air Force, Kebodeaux violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by having sexual relations with a minor. A special court-martial convicted him. As relevant here, that conviction had two consequences: First, Kebodeaux was sentenced to confinement for three months. And second, as the majority describes, he was required to register as a sex offender with the State in which he resided and keep that registration current; failure to do so would subject him to federal criminal penalties. Ante, at 2501 - 2502.
In the same way that Congress undoubtedly had the authority to impose the first consequence for a violation of military rules, it also had the authority to impose the second. The Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. I, § 8, cl. 14. And, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress can give those rules force by imposing consequences on members of the military who disobey them. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 416, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) ("All admit that the government may, legitimately, punish any violation of its laws; and yet, this is not among the enumerated powers of Congress."). A servicemember will be less likely to violate a relevant military regulation if he knows that, having done so, he will be required to register as a sex offender years into the future.
It is this power, the power to regulate the conduct of members of the military by imposing consequences for their violations of military law, that supports application of the federal registration obligation to Kebodeaux. As the Court explains, the Wetterling Act was in force when Kebodeaux committed the original offense, and applied to him as soon as the special court-martial rendered its verdict. See ante, at 2501 - 2502. Congress later, in enacting the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), modified the registration regime in place under the Wetterling Act. But as applied to Kebodeaux here (the relevant inquiry in this as-applied challenge), those changes were insignificant; their only effect was that Kebodeaux received a day more than he could have received for the same conduct had the Wetterling Act remained in force. See ante, at 2505 (describing SORNA's effect on Kebodeaux's registration obligations); compare post, at 2514 - 2515, n. 3 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (discussing changes that did not affect Kebodeaux). Whatever other constitutional concerns might attach to such a change, as a question of Article I power it was permissible. Just as the Federal Government may, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, alter the conditions of a federal prisoner's confinement or adjust the timing and location of drug tests required of a federal convict, so too could it make slight modifications to a previously imposed registration obligation.
The majority says, more or less, the same thing. Ante, at 2503, 2505. But sandwiched between its discussion of the basis for Congress's power and its discussion of the inconsequential nature of the changes is a discussion of benefits from the registration system. Along with giving force to military regulations, the majority notes, Congress could also have "reasonably conclude [d] that registration requirements... help protect the public from... federal sex offenders and alleviate public safety concerns." Ante, at 2503.
Maybe so, but those consequences of the registration requirement are irrelevant for our purposes. Public safety benefits are neither necessary nor sufficient to a proper exercise of the power to regulate the military. What matters-all that matters-is that Congress could have rationally determined that "mak[ing] the civil registration requirement at issue here a consequence of Kebodeaux's offense" would give force to the Uniform Code of Military Justice adopted pursuant to Congress's power to regulate the Armed Forces. Ibid.
Ordinarily such surplusage might not warrant a separate writing. Here, however, I worry that incautious readers will think they have found in the majority opinion something they would not find in either the Constitution or any prior decision of ours: a federal police power. The danger of such confusion is heightened by the fact the Solicitor General adopted something very close to the police power argument, contending that "the federal government has greater ties to former federal sex offenders than it does to other members of the general public," and can therefore impose restrictions on them even years after their unconditional release simply to "serve [ ]... public-protection purposes." Brief for United States 34-35.
I write separately to stress not only that a federal police power is immaterial to the result in this case, but also that such a power could not be material to the result in this case-because it does not exist. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618-619, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000) (" '[W]e always have rejected readings of... the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power' " (quoting United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 584-585, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring))).
Our resistance to congressional assertions of such a power has deep roots. From the first, we have recognized that "the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended." McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 420-421. Thus, while the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes congressional action "incidental to [an enumerated] power, and conducive to its beneficial exercise," Chief Justice Marshall was emphatic that no "great substantive and independent power" can be "implied as incidental to other powers, or used as a means of executing them." Id., at 418, 411; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824) ("The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated").
It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of such a "great substantive and independent power" than the power to "help protect the public... and alleviate public safety concerns," ante, at 2503. I find it implausible to suppose-and impossible to support-that the Framers intended to confer such authority by implication rather than expression. A power of that magnitude vested in the Federal Government is not "consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution," McCulloch, supra, at 421, and thus not a " proper [means] for carrying into Execution" the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. See United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 153, 130 S.Ct. 1949, 176 L.Ed.2d 878 (2010) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) ("It is of fundamental importance to consider whether essential attributes of state sovereignty are compromised by the assertion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause").
It makes no difference that the Federal Government would be policing people previously convicted of a federal crime-even a federal sex crime. The fact of a prior federal conviction, by itself, does not give Congress a freestanding, independent, and perpetual interest in protecting the public from the convict's purely intrastate conduct.
But as I have said, I do not understand the majority's opinion to be based on such a power. The connection to the Military Regulation Clause on which the majority relies, ante, at 2503, is less attenuated, and the power it produces less substantial, than would be true of a federal police power over prior federal offenders; the power to threaten and impose particular obligations as a result of a violation of military law is not such a "great substantive and independent power" that the Framers' failure to enumerate it must imply its absence.
Nevertheless, I fear that the majority's discussion of the public-safety benefits of the registration requirement will be mistaken for an endorsement of the Solicitor General's public-safety basis for the law. I accordingly concur in the judgment only.
Justice ALITO, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment solely on the ground that the registration requirement at issue is necessary and proper to execute Congress' power "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 14. Exercising this power, Congress has enacted provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that authorize members of the military to be tried before a military tribunal, rather than a state court, for ordinary criminal offenses, including sex crimes, that are committed both within and outside the boundaries of a military installation. See, e.g., UCMJ Art. 2 (persons subject to UCMJ); Art. 5 ("This chapter applies in all places"); Art. 120 (rape by a person subject to UCMJ); Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435, 436-438, 107 S.Ct. 2924, 97 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987) (servicemember may be court-martialed for off-base crime without "service connection"). States usually have concurrent jurisdiction over such crimes when they are committed off base and sometimes possess jurisdiction over such offenses when committed on base. These offenses, however, are rarely prosecuted in both a military and a state court, and therefore when a servicemember is court-martialed for a sex offense over which the State had jurisdiction, this is usually because the State has deferred to the military. Where the offense in question is a sex crime, a consequence of this handling of the case is that the offender, if convicted, may fall through the cracks of a state registration system. For example, if the servicemember is convicted of a sex offense in a state court, the state court may be required by state law to provide that information to the state registry. See, e.g., Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 16-22-104(1)(a)(I) (2012). State law may also require the state corrections department to notify both state and local police of the offender's release. See, e.g., § 16-22-107(3). Provisions such as these are designed to prevent sex offenders from avoiding registration, as many have in the past. See H.R.Rep. No. 109-218, pt. 1, p. 26 (2005) (despite pre-S
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question of the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency to exercise its “discretion” not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §501 et seq. (APA). Respondents are several prison inmates convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs. They petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that under the circumstances the use of these drugs for capital punishment violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §301 et seq. (FDCA), and requesting that the FDA take various enforcement actions to prevent these violations. The FDA refused their request. We review here a decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held the FDA’s refusal to take enforcement actions both reviewable and an abuse of discretion, arid remanded the case with directions that the agency be required “to fulfill its statutory function.” 231 U. S. App. D. C. 136, 153, 718 F. 2d 1174, 1191 (1983).
I — H
Respondents have been sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs under the laws of the States of Oklahoma and Texas. Those States, and several others, have recently adopted this method for carrying out the capital sentence. Respondents first petitioned the FDA, claiming that the drugs used by the States for this purpose, although approved by the FDA for the medical purposes stated on their labels, were not approved for use in human executions. They alleged that the drugs had not been tested for the purpose for which they were to be used, and that, given that the drugs would likely be administered by untrained personnel, it was also likely that the drugs would not induce the quick and painless death intended. They urged that use of these drugs for human execution was the “unapproved use of an approved drug” and constituted a violation of the Act’s prohibitions against “mis-branding.” They also suggested that the FDCA’s requirements for approval of “new drugs” applied, since these drugs were now being used for a new purpose. Accordingly, respondents claimed that the FDA was required to approve the drugs as “safe and effective” for human execution before they could be distributed in interstate commerce. See 21 U. S. C. § 355. They therefore requested the FDA to take various investigatory and enforcement actions to prevent these perceived violations; they requested the FDA to affix warnings to the labels of all the drugs stating that they were unapproved and unsafe for human execution, to send statements to the drug manufacturers and prison administrators stating that the drugs should not be so used, and to adopt procedures for seizing the drugs from state prisons and to recommend the prosecution of all those in the chain of distribution who knowingly distribute or purchase the drugs with intent to use them for human execution.
The FDA Commissioner responded, refusing to take the requested actions. The Commissioner first detailed his disagreement with respondents’ understanding of the scope of FDA jurisdiction over the unapproved use of approved drugs for human execution, concluding that FDA jurisdiction in the area was generally unclear but in any event should not be exercised to interfere with this particular aspect of state criminal justice systems. He went on to state:
“Were FDA clearly to have jurisdiction in the area, moreover, we believe we would be authorized to decline to exercise it under our inherent discretion to decline to pursue certain enforcement matters. The unapproved use of approved drugs is an area in which the case law is far from uniform. Generally, enforcement proceedings in this area are initiated only when there is a serious danger to the public health or a blatant scheme to defraud. We cannot conclude that those dangers are present under State lethal injection laws, which are duly authorized statutory enactments in furtherance of proper State functions. ...”
Respondents then filed the instant suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the same violations of the FDCA and asking that the FDA be required to take the same enforcement actions requested in the prior petition. Jurisdiction was grounded in the general federal-question jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and review of the agency action was sought under the judicial review provisions of the APA, 5 U. S. C. §§701-706. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner. It began with the proposition that “decisions of executive departments and agencies to refrain from instituting investigative and enforcement proceedings are essentially unreviewable by the courts.” Chaney v. Schweiker, Civ. No. 81-2265 (DC, Aug. 30, 1982), App. to Pet. for Cert. 74a (emphasis in original). The court then cited case law stating that nothing in the FDCA indicated an intent to circumscribe the FDA’s enforcement discretion or to make it reviewable.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The majority began by discussing the FDA’s jurisdiction over the unapproved use of approved drugs for human execution, and concluded that the FDA did have jurisdiction over such a use. The court then addressed the Government’s assertion of unreviewable discretion to refuse enforcement action. It first discussed this Court’s opinions which have held that there is a general presumption that all agency decisions are reviewable under the APA, at least to assess whether the actions were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 139-141 (1967); 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). It noted that the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 701, only precludes judicial review of final agency action — including refusals to act, see 6 U. S. C. §551(13) — when review is precluded by statute, or “committed to agency discretion by law.” Citing this Court’s opinions in Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560 (1975), and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971), for the view that these exceptions should be narrowly construed, the court held that the “committed to agency discretion by law” exception of § 701(a)(2) should be invoked only where the substantive statute left the courts with “no law to apply.” 231 U. S. App. D. C., at 146, 718 F. 2d, at 1184 (citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, supra, at 410). The court cited Dunlop as holding that this presumption “applies with no less force to review of . . . agency decisions to refrain from enforcement action.” 231 U. S. App. D. C., at 146, 718 F. 2d, at 1184.
The court found “law to apply” in the form of a FDA policy statement which indicated that the agency was “obligated” to investigate the unapproved use of an approved drug when such use became “widespread” or “endangered] the public health.” Id., at 148, 718 F. 2d, at 1186 (citing 37 Fed. Reg. 16504 (1972)). The court held that this policy statement constituted a “rule” and was considered binding by the FDA. Given the policy statement indicating that the FDA should take enforcement action in this area, and the strong presumption that all agency action is subject to judicial review, the court concluded that review of the agency’s refusal was not foreclosed. It then proceeded to assess whether the agency’s decision not to act was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Citing evidence that the FDA assumed jurisdiction over drugs used to put animals to sleep and the unapproved uses of drugs on prisoners in clinical experiments, the court found that the FDA’s refusal, for the reasons given, was irrational, and that respondents’ evidence that use of the drugs could lead to a cruel and protracted death was entitled to more searching consideration. The court therefore remanded the case to the District Court, to order the FDA “to fulfill its statutory function.”
The dissenting judge expressed the view that an agency’s decision not to institute enforcement action generally is un-reviewable, and that such exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” presumptively fall within the APA’s exception for agency actions “committed to agency discretion by law.” He noted that traditionally courts have been wary of second-guessing agency decisions not to enforce, given the agency’s expertise and better understanding of its enforcement policies and available resources. He likewise concluded that nothing in the FDCA or FDA regulations would provide a basis for a court’s review of this agency decision. A divided Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing. 233 U. S. App. D. C. 146, 724 F. 2d 1030 (1984). We granted certiorari to review the implausible result that the FDA is required to exercise its enforcement power to ensure that States only use drugs that are “safe and effective” for human execution. 467 U. S. 1251 (1984). We reverse.
I — H I — I
The Court of Appeals’ decision addressed three questions: (1) whether the FDA had jurisdiction to undertake the enforcement actions requested, (2) whether if it did have jurisdiction its refusal to take those actions was subject to judicial review, and (3) whether if reviewable its refusal was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. In reaching our conclusion that the Court of Appeals was wrong, however, we need not and do not address the thorny question of the FDA’s jurisdiction. For us, this case turns on the important question of the extent to which determinations by the FDA not to exercise its enforcement authority over the use of drugs in interstate commerce may be judicially reviewed. That decision in turn involves the construction of two separate but necessarily interrelated statutes, the APA and the FDCA.
The APA’s comprehensive provisions for judicial review of “agency actions” are contained in 5 U. S. C. §§701-706. Any person “adversely affected or aggrieved” by agency action, see § 702, including a “failure to act,” is entitled to “judicial review thereof,” as long as the action is a “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” see § 704. The standards to be applied on review are governed by the provisions of § 706. But before any review at all may be had, a party must first clear the hurdle of § 701(a). That section provides that the chapter on judicial review “applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that — (1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” Petitioner urges that the decision of the FDA to refuse enforcement is an action “committed to agency discretion by law” under § 701(a)(2).
This Court has not had occasion to interpret this second exception in § 701(a) in any great detail. On its face, the section does not obviously lend itself to any particular construction; indeed, one might wonder what difference exists between § (a)(1) and § (a)(2). The former section seems easy in application; it requires construction of the substantive statute involved to determine whether Congress intended to preclude judicial review of certain decisions. That is the approach taken with respect to § (a)(1) in cases such as South ern R. Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp, 442 U. S. 444 (1979), and Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S., at 567. But one could read the language “committed to agency discretion by law” in § (a)(2) to require a similar inquiry. In addition, commentators have pointed out that construction of § (a)(2) is further complicated by the tension between a literal reading of § (a)(2), which exempts from judicial review those decisions committed to agency “discretion,” and the primary scope of review prescribed by § 706(2)(A) — whether the agency’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” How is it, they ask, that an action committed to agency discretion can be unreviewable and yet courts still can review agency actions for abuse of that discretion? See 5 K. Davis, Administrative Law § 28:6 (1984) (hereafter Davis); Berger, Administrative Arbitrariness and Judicial Review, 65 Colum. L. Rev. 55, 58 (1965). The APA’s legislative history provides little help on this score. Mindful, however, of the common-sense principle of statutory construction that sections of a statute generally should be read “to give effect, if possible, to every clause . . . ,” see United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955), we think there is a proper construction of § (a)(2) which satisfies each of these concerns.
This Court first discussed § (a)(2) in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971). That case dealt with the Secretary of Transportation’s approval of the building of an interstate highway through a park in Memphis, Tennessee. The relevant federal statute provided that the Secretary “shall not approve” any program or project using public parkland unless the Secretary first determined that no feasible alternatives were available. Id., at 411. Interested citizens challenged the Secretary’s approval under the APA, arguing that he had not satisfied the substantive statute’s requirements. This Court first addressed the “threshold question” of whether the agency’s action was at all reviewable. After setting out the language of § 701(a), the Court stated:
“In this case, there is no indication that Congress sought to prohibit judicial review and there is most certainly no ‘showing of “clear and convincing evidence” of a . . . legislative intent’ to restrict access to judicial review. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967). . . .
“Similarly, the Secretary’s decision here does not fall within the exception for action ‘committed to agency discretion.’ This is a very narrow exception. . . . The legislative history of the Administrative Procedure Act indicates that it is applicable in those rare instances where ‘statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply.’ S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1945).” Overton Park, supra, at 410 (footnote omitted).
The above quote answers several of the questions raised by the language of § 701(a), although it raises others. First, it clearly separates the exception provided by § (a)(1) from the § (a)(2) exception. The former applies when Congress has expressed an intent to preclude judicial review. The latter applies in different circumstances; even where Congress has not affirmatively precluded review, review is not to be had if the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion. In such a case, the statute (“law”) can be taken to have “committed” the decisionmaking to the agency’s judgment absolutely. This construction avoids conflict with the “abuse of discretion” standard of review in § 706 — if no judicially manageable standards are available for judging how and when an agency should exercise its discretion, then it is impossible to evaluate agency action for “abuse of discretion.” In addition, this construction satisfies the principle of statutory construction mentioned earlier, by identifying a separate class of cases to which § 701(a)(2) applies.
To this point our analysis does not differ significantly from that of the Court of Appeals. That court purported to apply the “no law to apply” standard of Overton Park. We disagree, however, with that court’s insistence that the “narrow construction” of § (a)(2) required application of a presumption of reviewability even to an agency’s decision not to undertake certain enforcement actions. Here we think the Court of Appeals broke with tradition, case law, and sound reasoning.
Overton Park did not involve an agency’s refusal to take requested enforcement action. It involved an affirmative act of approval under a statute that set clear guidelines for determining when such approval should be given. Refusals to take enforcement steps generally involve precisely the opposite situation, and in that situation we think the presumption is that judicial review is not available. This Court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123-124 (1979); United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 182 (1967); Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 454 (1869). This recognition of the existence of discretion is attributable in no small part to the general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement.
The reasons for this general unsuitability are many. First, an agency decision not to enforce often involves a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise. Thus, the agency must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits the agency’s overall policies, and, indeed, whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action at all. An agency generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing. The agency is far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities. Similar concerns animate the principles of administrative law that courts generally will defer to an agency’s construction of the statute it is charged with implementing, and to the procedures it adopts for implementing that statute. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 543 (1978); Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U. S. 60, 87 (1975).
In addition to these administrative concerns, we note that when an agency refuses to act it generally does not exercise its coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property rights, and thus does not infringe upon areas that courts often are called upon to protect. Similarly, when an agency does act to enforce, that action itself provides a focus for judicial review, inasmuch as the agency must have exercised its power in some manner. The action at least can be reviewed to determine whether the agency exceeded its statutory powers. See, e. g., FTC v. Klesner, 280 U. S. 19 (1929). Finally, we recognize that an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict — a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §3.
We of course only list the above concerns to facilitate understanding of our conclusion that an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review under § 701(a)(2). For good reasons, such a decision has traditionally been “committed to agency discretion,” and we believe that the Congress enacting the APA did not intend to alter that tradition. Cf. 5 Davis §28:5 (APA did not significantly alter the “common law” of judicial review of agency action). In so stating, we emphasize that the decision is only presumptively unreviewable; the presumption may be rebutted where the substantive statute has provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers. Thus, in establishing this presumption in the APA, Congress did not set agencies free to disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that the agency administers. Congress may limit an agency’s exercise of enforcement power if it wishes, either by setting substantive priorities, or by otherwise circumscribing an agency’s power to discriminate among issues or cases it will pursue. How to determine when Congress has done so is the question left open by Overton Park.
Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560 (1975), relied upon heavily by respondents and the majority in the Court of Appeals, presents an example of statutory language which supplied sufficient standards to rebut the presumption of un-reviewability. Dunlop involved a suit by a union employee, under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U. S. C. § 481 et seq. (LMRDA), asking the Secretary of Labor to investigate and file suit to set aside a union election. Section 482 provided that, upon filing of a complaint by a union member, “[t]he Secretary shall investigate such complaint and, if he finds probable cause to believe that a violation . . . has occurred ... he shall . . . bring a civil action . . . .” After investigating the plaintiff’s claims the Secretary of Labor declined to file suit, and the plaintiff sought judicial review under the APA. This Court held that review was available. It rejected the Secretary’s argument that the statute precluded judicial review, and in a footnote it stated its agreement with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the decision was not “an unreviewable exercise of prosecutorial discretion.” 421 U. S., at 567, n. 7. Our textual references to the “strong presumption” of review-ability in Dunlop were addressed only to the § (a)(1) exception; we were content to rely on the Court of Appeals’ opinion to hold that the § (a)(2) exception did not apply. The Court of Appeals, in turn, had found the “principle of absolute pros-ecutorial discretion” inapplicable, because the language of the LMRDA indicated that the Secretary was required to file suit if certain “clearly defined” factors were present. The decision therefore was not “ ‘beyond the judicial capacity to supervise.’” Bachowski v. Brennan, 502 F. 2d 79, 87-88 (CA3 1974) (quoting Davis §28.16, p. 984 (1970 Supp.)).
Dunlop is thus consistent with a general presumption of unreviewability of decisions not to enforce. The statute being administered quite clearly withdrew discretion from the agency and provided guidelines for exercise of its enforcement power. Our decision that review was available was not based on “pragmatic considerations,” such as those cited by the Court of Appeals, see 231 U. S. App. D. C., at 147, 718 F. 2d, at 1185, that amount to an assessment of whether the interests at stake are important enough to justify intervention in the agencies’ decisionmaking. The danger that agencies may not carry out their delegated powers with sufficient vigor does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that courts are the most appropriate body to police this aspect of their performance. That decision is in the first instance for Congress, and we therefore turn to the FDCA to determine whether in this case Congress has provided us with “law to apply.” If it has indicated an intent to circumscribe agency enforcement discretion, and has provided meaningful standards for defining the limits of that discretion, there is “law to apply” under § 701(a)(2), and courts may require that the agency follow that law; if it has not, then an agency refusal to institute proceedings is a decision “committed to agency discretion by law” within the meaning of that section.
Ill
To enforce the various substantive prohibitions contained in the FDCA, the Act provides for injunctions, 21 U. S. C. §332, criminal sanctions, §§333 and 335, and seizure of any offending food, drug, or cosmetic article, § 334. The Act’s general provision for enforcement, § 372, provides only that “[t]he Secretary is authorized to conduct examinations and investigations ...” (emphasis added). Unlike the statute at issue in Dunlop, § 332 gives no indication of when an injunction should be sought, and § 334, providing for seizures, is framed in the permissive — the offending food, drug, or cosmetic “shall be liable to be proceeded against.” The section on criminal sanctions states baldly that any person who violates the Act’s substantive prohibitions “shall be imprisoned ... or fined.” Respondents argue that this statement mandates criminal prosecution of every violator of the Act but they adduce no indication in case law or legislative history that such was Congress’ intention in using this language, which is commonly found in the criminal provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §471 (counterfeiting); 18 U. S. C. § 1001 (false statements to Government officials); 18 U. S. C. § 1341 (mail fraud). We are unwilling to attribute such a sweeping meaning to this language, particularly since the Act charges the Secretary only with recommending prosecution; any criminal prosecutions must be instituted by the Attorney General. The Act’s enforcement provisions thus commit complete discretion to the Secretary to decide how and when they should be exercised.
Respondents nevertheless present three separate authorities that they claim provide the courts with sufficient indicia of an intent to circumscribe enforcement discretion. Two of these may be dealt with summarily. First, we reject respondents’ argument that the Act’s substantive prohibitions of “misbranding” and the introduction of “new drugs” absent agency approval, see 21 U. S. C. §§ 352(f)(1), 855, supply us with “law to apply.” These provisions are simply irrelevant to the agency’s discretion to refuse to initiate proceedings.
We also find singularly unhelpful the agency “policy statement” on which the Court of Appeals placed great reliance. We would have difficulty with this statement’s vague language even if it were a properly adopted agency rule. Although the statement indicates that the agency considered itself “obligated” to take certain investigative actions, that language did not arise in the course of discussing the agency’s discretion to exercise its enforcement power, but rather in the context of describing agency policy with respect to unapproved uses of approved drugs by physicians. In addition, if read to circumscribe agency enforcement discretion, the statement conflicts with the agency rule on judicial review, 21 CFR § 10.45(d)(2) (1984), which states that “[t]he Commissioner shall object to judicial review ... if (i) [t]he matter is committed by law to the discretion of the Commissioner, e. g., a decision to recommend or not to recommend civil or criminal enforcement action . . . .” But in any event the policy statement was attached to a rule that was never adopted. Whatever force such a statement might have, and leaving to one side the problem of whether an agency’s rules might under certain circumstances provide courts with adequate guidelines for informed judicial review of decisions not to enforce, we do not think the language of the agency’s “policy statement” can plausibly be read to override the agency’s express assertion of unreviewable discretion contained in the above rule.
Respondents’ third argument, based upon §306 of the FDCA, merits only slightly more consideration. That section provides:
“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to report for prosecution, or for the institution of libel or injunction proceedings, minor violations of this chapter whenever he believes that the public interest will be adequately served by a suitable written notice or ruling.” 21 U. S. C. §336.
Respondents seek to draw from this section the negative implication that the Secretary is required to report for prosecution all “major” violations of the Act, however those might be defined, and that it therefore supplies the needed indication of an intent to limit agency enforcement discretion. We think that this section simply does not give rise to the negative implication which respondents seek to draw from it. The section is not addressed to agency proceedings designed to discover the existence of violations, but applies only to a situation where a violation has already been established to the satisfaction of the agency. We do not believe the section speaks to the criteria which shall be used by the agency for investigating possible violations of the Act.
IV
We therefore conclude that the presumption that agency decisions not to institute proceedings are unreviewable under 5 U. S. C. § 701(a)(2) is not overcome by the enforcement provisions of the FDCA. The FDA’s decision not to take the enforcement actions requested by respondents is therefore not subject to judicial review under the APA. The general exception to reviewability provided by § 701(a)(2) for action “committed to agency discretion” remains a narrow one, see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971), but within that exception are included agency refusals to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings, unless Congress has indicated otherwise. In so holding, we essentially leave to Congress, and not to the courts, the decision as to whether an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings should be judicially reviewable. No colorable claim is made in this case that the agency’s refusal to institute proceedings violated any constitutional rights of respondents, and we do not address the issue that would be raised in such a case. Cf. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 366 (1974); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 372-374 (1886). The fact that the drugs involved in this case are ultimately to be used in imposing the death penalty must not lead this Court or other courts to import profound differences of opinion over the meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution into the domain of administrative law.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
See 21 U. S. C. §352(f): “A drug or device shall be deemed to be misbranded . . . [u]nless its labeling bears (1) adequate directions for use . . .
Although respondents also requested an evidentiary hearing, the District Court regarded this hearing as having “no purpose apart from serving as a prelude to the pursuit of the very enforcement steps that plaintiffs demanded in their administrative petition.” Chaney v. Schweiker, Civ. No. 81-2265 (DC, Aug. 30, 1982), App. to Pet. for Cert. 77a, n. 15. Respondents have not challenged the statement that all they sought were certain enforcement actions, and this case therefore does not involve the question of agency discretion not to invoke rulemaking proceedings.
In response to respondents’ petition, the Commissioner had explained that the FDA had assumed jurisdiction in these cases because, unlike the drugs used for human execution, these drugs were “new drugs” intended by the manufacturer to be used for this purpose, and thus fell squarely within the FDA’s approval jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals did not explain why this distinction was not “rational.”
We do not have in this case a refusal by the agency to institute proceedings based solely on the belief that it lacks jurisdiction. Nor do we have a situation where it could justifiably be found that the agency has “consciously and expressly adopted a general policy” that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities. See, e. g., Adams v. Richardson, 156 U. S. App. D. C. 267, 480 F. 2d 1159 (1973) (en bane). Although we express no opinion on whether such decisions would be unreviewable under § 701(a)(2), we note that in those situations the statute conferring authority on the agency might indicate that such decisions were not “committed to agency discretion.”
Respondents also urge, as did the Court of Appeals, that a statement by the FDA’s lawyers in a footnote to to their “memorandum in support of dismissal” in the District Court indicates that the agency considers the “policy statement” “binding.” The footnote said that the “Federal Register notice . . . sets forth the agency’s current position o[n] the legal status of approved labeling for prescription drugs.” The statement from the memorandum cites no authority, is taken out of context, and on its face does not indicate that the agency considered this position “binding” in any sense of the word. Moreover, we find it difficult to believe that statements of agency counsel in litigation against private individuals can be taken to establish “rules” that bind an entire agency prospectively. Such would turn orderly process on its head.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the representatives of a class of racial minorities who are skilled or seek work as operating engineers in the construction industry in Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware, commenced this action under a variety of federal statutes protecting civil rights, including 42 U. S. C. § 1981. The complaint sought to redress racial discrimination in the operation of an exclusive hiring hall established in contracts between Local 542 of the International Union of Operating Engineers and construction industry employers doing business within the Union’s jurisdiction. Respondents also alleged discrimination in the operation of an apprenticeship program established by Local 542 and several construction trade associations. Named as defendants were Local 542, the trade associations, the organization charged with administering the trade’s apprenticeship program, and a class of approximately 1,400 construction industry employers. Petitioners, the defendant contractors and trade associations, seek review of a judgment granting an injunction against them. The questions we resolve are whether liability under 42 U. S. C. § 1981 requires proof of discriminatory intent and whether, absent such proof, liability can nevertheless be imposed vicariously on the employers and trade associations for the discriminatory conduct of the Union.
I — H
The hiring hall system that is the focus of this litigation originated in a collective-bargaining agreement negotiated in 1961 by Local 542 and four construction trade associations in the Philadelphia area, three of whom are petitioners in this Court. The agreement was concluded only after a 10-week strike prompted by the resistance of the trade associations to the Union’s demand for an exclusive hiring hall. Under the terms of the agreement, the Union was to maintain lists of operating engineers, or would-be engineers, classified according to the extent of their recent construction experience. Signatory employers were contractually obligated to hire operating engineers only from among those referred by the Union from its current lists. Workers affiliated with the Union were barred from seeking work with those employers except through Union referrals. Thus, the collective-bargaining agreement effectively channeled all employment opportunities through the hiring hall. Since 1961 this requirement has been a constant feature of contracts negotiated with Local 542 by the trade associations, as well as of contracts signed with the Union by employers who were not represented by one of those associations in collective bargaining.
Among the means of gaining access to the Union’s referral lists is an apprenticeship program established in 1965 by Local 542 and the trade associations. The program, which involves classroom and field training, is administered by the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC), a body of trustees half of whom are appointed by the Union and half by the trade associations. While enrolled in the program, apprentices are referred by the Union for unskilled construction work. Graduates of the program become journeymen operating engineers and are referred for heavy equipment jobs.
This action was filed in 1971 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 12 black plaintiffs representing a proposed class of minority group members residing within the jurisdiction of Local 542. The complaint charged that the Union and the JATC had violated numerous state and federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), and 42 U. S. C. § 1981. The complaint alleged that these defendants had engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination, by systematically denying access to the Union’s referral lists, and by arbitrarily skewing referrals in favor of white workers, limiting most minority workers who did gain access to the hiring hall to jobs of short hours and low pay. The contractor employers and trade associations were also named as defendants, although the complaint did not allege a Title VII cause of action against them.
The District Court divided the trial into two stages. See Pennsylvania v. Local 542, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, 469 F. Supp. 329, 348 (ED Pa. 1978). The first stage, from which petitioners appeal, addressed issues of liability; assessment of damages was deferred to a second stage. For purposes of the first phase of the proceedings, the court certified a plaintiff class of minority operating engineers and would-be engineers, as well as a defendant class consisting of all trade associations and employers who had been parties to labor contracts with Local 542. A single employer, petitioner Glasgow, Inc., was certified to represent the defendant subclass of approximately 1,400 contractor employers.
The District Court’s opinion in the liability phase of the trial is lengthy. For our purposes, however, the relevant findings and conclusions can be summarized briefly. First, the court found that the hiring hall system established by collective bargaining was neutral on its face. Id., at 342. Indeed, after May 1, 1971, the contracts contained a provision expressly prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. Id., at 340, and n. 6. But the court found that Local 542, in administering the system, “practiced a pattern of intentional discrimination and that union practices in the overall operation of a hiring hall for operating engineers created substantial racial disparities.” Id., at 370. The court made similar findings regarding the JATC’s administration of the job-training program. Id., at 384. On the basis of these findings, the District Court held that Local 542 and the JATC had violated Title VII, both because they intentionally discriminated and because they enforced practices that resulted in a disparate racial impact. Id., at 397-399. The court also interpreted 42 U. S. C. § 1981 to permit imposition of liability “on roughly the same basis as a Title VII claim,” 469 F. Supp., at 401, and therefore concluded that the Union and the JATC had also violated §1981. Id., at 399-401.
Turning to petitioners’ liability under §1981, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove “that the associations or contractors viewed simply as a class were actually aware of the union discrimination,” id., at 401, and had failed to show “intent to discriminate by the employers as a class,” id., at 412. Nevertheless, the court held the employers and the associations liable under § 1981 for the purpose of imposing an injunctive remedy “as a result of their contractual relationship to and use of a hiring hall system which in practice effectuated intentional discrimination, whether or not the employers and associations knew or should have known [of the Union’s conduct].” Id., at 401. The court reasoned that liability under § 1981 “requires no proof of purposeful conduct on the part of any of the defendants.” Id., at 407. Instead, it was sufficient that “(1) the employers delegated an important aspect of their hiring procedure to the union; [and that] (2) the union, in effectuating the delegation, intentionally discriminated or, alternatively, produced a discriminatory impact.” Id., at 412. “[Plaintiffs have shown that the requisite relationship exists among employers, associations, and union to render applicable the theory of respondeat superior, thus making employers and associations liable injunctively for the discriminatory acts of the union.” Id., at 413.
Following an appeal authorized by 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the judgment of liability against petitioners by an equally divided vote. 648 F. 2d 923 (1981). We granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 939 (1981), and we now reverse.
II
The District Court held that petitioners had violated 42 U. S. C. § 1981 notwithstanding its finding that, as a class, petitioners did not intentionally discriminate against minority workers and neither knew nor had reason to know of the Union’s discriminatory practices. The first question we address, therefore, is whether liability may be imposed under § 1981 without proof of intentional discrimination.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1981 provides:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
We have traced the evolution of this statute and its companion, 42 U. S. C. § 1982, on more than one occasion, see, e. g., McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 287-296 (1976); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 168-170 (1976); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 422-437 (1968), and we will not repeat the narrative again except in broad outline.
The operative language of both laws apparently originated in § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, enacted by Congress shortly after ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. “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.” Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U. S. 780, 791 (1966). The same Congress also passed the Joint Resolution that was later adopted as the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 3148-3149, 3042 (1866). As we explained in Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24, 32-33 (1948) (footnotes omitted):
“Frequent references to the Civil Rights Act are to be found in the record of the legislative debates on the adoption of the Amendment. It is clear that in many significant respects the statute and the Amendment were expressions of the same general congressional policy. Indeed, as the legislative debates reveal, one of the primary purposes of many members of Congress in supporting the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the organic law of the land. Others supported the adoption of the Amendment in order to eliminate doubt as to the constitutional validity of the Civil Rights Act as applied to the States.”
Following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed what has come to be known as the Enforcement Act of 1870,16 Stat. 140, pursuant to the power conferred by § 5 of the Amendment. Section 16 of that Act contains essentially the language that now appears in § 1981. Indeed, the present codification is derived from § 1977 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which in turn codified verbatim § 16 of the 1870 Act. Section 16 differed from § 1 of the 1866 Act in at least two respects. First, where §1 of the 1866 Act extended its guarantees to “citizens, of every race and color,” §16 of the 1870 Act — and §1981 — protects “all persons.” See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 675 (1898). Second, the 1870 Act omitted language contained in the 1866 Act, and eventually codified as § 1982, guaranteeing property rights equivalent to those enjoyed by white citizens. Thus, “[although the 1866 Act rested only on the Thirteenth Amendment... and, indeed, was enacted before the Fourteenth Amendment was formally proposed,... the 1870 Act was passed pursuant to the Fourteenth, and changes in wording may have reflected the language of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., 410 U. S. 431, 439-440, n. 11 (1973). See Runyon v. McCrary, supra, at 168-170, n. 8.
In determining whether §1981 reaches practices that merely result in a disproportionate impact on a particular class, or instead is limited to conduct motivated by a discriminatory purpose, we must be mindful of the “events and passions of the time” in which the law was forged. United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 803 (1966). The Civil War had ended in April 1865. The First Session of the Thirty-ninth Congress met on December 4, 1865, some six months after the preceding Congress had sent to the States the Thirteenth Amendment and just two weeks before the Secretary of State certified the Amendment’s ratification. On January 5, 1866, Senator Trumbull introduced the bill that would become the 1866 Act.
The principal object of the legislation was to eradicate the Black Codes, laws enacted by Southern legislatures imposing a range of civil disabilities on freedmen. Most of these laws embodied express racial classifications and although others, such as those penalizing vagrancy, were facially neutral, Congress plainly perceived all of them as consciously conceived methods of resurrecting the incidents of slavery. Senator Trumbull summarized the paramount aims of his bill:
“Since the abolition of slavery, the Legislatures which have assembled in the insurrectionary States have passed laws relating to the freedmen, and in nearly all the States they have discriminated against them. They deny them certain rights, subject them to severe penalties, and still impose upon them the very restrictions which were imposed upon them in consequence of the existence of slavery, and before it was abolished. The purpose of the bill under consideration is to destroy all these discriminations, and to carry into effect the [Thirteenth] amendment.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 474 (1866).
Senator Trumbull emphasized: “This bill has nothing to do with the political rights or status of parties. It is confined exclusively to their civil rights, such rights as should appertain to every free man.” Id., at 476 (emphasis in original).
Of course, this Court has found in the legislative history of the 1866 Act evidence that Congress sought to accomplish more than the destruction of state-imposed civil disabilities and discriminatory punishments. We have held that both § 1981 and § 1982 “prohibit all racial discrimination, whether or not under color of law, with respect to the rights enumerated therein.” Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S., at 436. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 459-460 (1975); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S., at 168. Nevertheless, the fact that the prohibitions of § 1981 encompass private as well as governmental action does not suggest that the statute reaches more than purposeful discrimination, whether public or private. Indeed, the relevant opinions are hostile to such an implication. Thus, although we held in Jones, supra, that § 1982 reaches private action, we explained that § 1 of the 1866 Act “was meant to prohibit all racially motivated deprivations of the rights enumerated in the statute.” 392 U. S., at 426 (emphasis on “racially motivated” added). Similarly, in Runyon v. McCrary, supra, we stated that § 1981 would be violated “if a private offeror refuses to extend to a Negro, solely because he is a Negro, the same opportunity to enter into contracts as he extends to white offerees.” 427 U. S., at 170-171.
The immediate evils with which the Thirty-ninth Congress was concerned simply did not include practices that were “neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent,” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 430 (1971), but that had the incidental effect of disadvantaging blacks to a greater degree than whites. Congress instead acted to protect the freedmen from intentional discrimination by those whose object was “to make their former slaves dependent serfs, victims of unjust laws, and debarred from all progress and elevation by organized social prejudices.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1839 (1866) (Rep. Clarke). See Memphis v. Greene, 451 U. S. 100, 131-135 (1981) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). The supporters of the bill repeatedly emphasized that the legislation was designed to eradicate blatant deprivations of civil rights, clearly fashioned with the purpose of oppressing the former slaves. To infer that Congress sought to accomplish more than this would require stronger evidence in the legislative record than we have been able to discern.
Our conclusion that §1981 reaches only purposeful discrimination is supported by one final observation about its legislative history. As noted earlier, the origins of the law can be traced to both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Enforcement Act of 1870. Both of these laws, in turn, were legislative cousins of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 1866 Act represented Congress’ first attempt to ensure equal rights for the freedmen following the formal abolition of slavery effected by the Thirteenth Amendment. As such, it constituted an initial blueprint of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress proposed in part as a means of “incorporating] the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the organic law of the land.” Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S., at 32. The 1870 Act, which contained the language that now appears in § 1981, was enacted as a means of enforcing the recently ratified Fourteenth Amendment. In light of the close connection between these Acts and the Amendment, it would be incongruous to construe the principal object of their successor, § 1981, in a manner markedly different from that of the Amendment itself.
With respect to the latter, “official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact,” Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 264-265 (1977). “[E]ven if a neutral law has a disproportionately adverse impact upon a racial minority, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause only if that impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.” Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 272 (1979). See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976). The same Congress that proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the ratification of that Amendment paved the way for the Enforcement Act of 1870. These measures were all products of the same milieu and were directed against the same evils. Although Congress might have charted a different course in enacting the predecessors to §1981 than it did in proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, we have found no convincing evidence that it did so.
We conclude, therefore, that § 1981, like the Equal Protection Clause, can be violated only by purposeful discrimination.
Ill
The District Court held petitioners liable under § 1981 notwithstanding its finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove intent to discriminate on the part of the employers and associations as a class. In light of our holding that § 1981 can be violated only by intentional discrimination, the District Court’s judgment can stand only if liability under § 1981 can properly rest on some ground other than the discriminatory motivation of the petitioners themselves. Both the District Court and respondents have relied on such grounds, but we find them unconvincing.
A
The District Court reasoned that liability could be vicariously imposed upon the employers and associations, based upon the intentional discrimination practiced by Local 542 in its operation of the hiring hall. The court’s theory was that petitioners had delegated to the “union hiring hall” the authority to select workers as “the agent for two principals— the union and the contractors, with their respective associations.” 469 F. Supp., at 411. Since the hiring hall came into existence only through the agreement of petitioners, and since the exclusive hiring hall was the means by which “the intentional discrimination of the union was able to work its way broadly into the common workforce of operating engineers,” id., at 412, the court concluded that “[t]he acts of the union therefore justify imposition of responsibility upon those employers participating in the original delegation,” ibid. The effect of this holding, as the court recognized, was to impose a “duty to see that discrimination does not take place in the selection of one’s workforce,” regardless of where the discrimination originates. Ibid.
As applied to the petitioner associations, the District Court’s theory is flawed on its own terms. The doctrine of respondeat superior, as traditionally conceived and as understood by the District Court, see id., at 411, enables the imposition of liability on a principal for the tortious acts of his agent and, in the more common case, on the master for the wrongful acts of his servant. See Restatement (Second) of Agency §§215-216, 219 (1958) (Restatement); W. Prosser, Law of Torts §§69-70 (4th ed. 1971) (Prosser); W. Seavey, Law of Agency §83 (1964) (Seavey). “Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.” Restatement § 1. A master-servant relationship is a form of agency in which the master employs the servant as “an agent to perform service in his affairs” and “controls or has the right to control the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the service.” Id., §2. See 2 F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts §26.6 (1956) (Harper & James). Local 542, in its operation of the hiring hall, simply performed no function as the agent or servant of the associations. The record demonstrates that the associations themselves do not hire operating engineers, and never have. Their primary purpose is to represent certain employers in contract negotiations with the Union. Even if the doctrine of respondeat superior were broadly applicable to suits based on § 1981, therefore, it would not support the imposition of liability on a defendant based on the acts of a party with whom it had no agency or employment relationship.
We have similar difficulty in accepting the application of traditional respondeat superior doctrine to the class of contractor employers. In the run of cases, the relationship between an employer and the union that represents its employees simply cannot be accurately characterized as one between principal and agent or master and servant. Indeed, such a conception is alien to the fundamental assumptions upon which the federal labor laws are structured.
At the core of agency is a “fiduciary relation” arising from the “consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control.” Restatement § 1. Equally central to the master-servant relation is the master’s control over or right to control the physical activities of the servant. See id., §220; 2 Harper & James §26.3; Seavey § 84, p. 142. See also Logue v. United States, 412 U. S. 521, 527 (1973). The District Court found that the requirement of control was satisfied because “the employers retained power to oppose the union discrimination.” 469 F. Supp., at 411, n. 61. However, the “power to oppose” the Union, even when the opposition is grounded in the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, is not tantamount to a “right to control” the Union. See Lummus Co. v. NLRB, 119 U. S. App. D. C. 229, 236, 339 F. 2d 728, 735 (1964). Indeed, a rule equating the two would convert every contractual relationship into an agency relationship, a result clearly unsupported by the common-law doctrines on which the District Court relied.
The District Court’s assumptions about the relation between the Union and the class of employers with whom it has contracted also runs counter to the premises on which the federal labor laws have been constructed. While authorizing collective bargaining and providing means of enforcing the resultant contracts, the National Labor Relations Act expressly prohibits employers from compromising the independence of labor unions. See 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158(a); 61 Stat. 157, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 186. The entire process of collective bargaining is structured and regulated on the assumption that “[t]he parties — even granting the modification of views that may come from a realization of economic interdependence — still proceed from contrary and to an extent antagonistic viewpoints and concepts of self-interest.” NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361 U. S. 477, 488 (1960). See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 177 (1967). We have no reason to doubt the validity of that assumption in the instant case.
Respondents also suggest that petitioners can be held vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of the JATC. They argue that the JATC is properly viewed as an agent of both Local 542 and the associations, emphasizing that half of the trustees charged with administering the JATC are appointed by the associations and that the JATC is wholly funded by mandatory contributions from the employers. We note initially that the District Court premised petitioners’ liability not on the actions of the JATC, but on the discriminatory conduct of the Union. See 469 F. Supp., at 411-413. The record, therefore, contains no findings regarding the relationship between the JATC and petitioners, beyond those noted above, that might support application of respondeat superior.
The facts emphasized by respondents, standing alone, are inadequate. That the employers fund the activities of the JATC does not render the JATC the employers’ servant or agent any more than an independent contractor is rendered an agent simply because he is compensated by the principal for his services. The employers must also enjoy a right to control the activities of the JATC, and there is no record basis for believing that to be the case. Neither is a right of control inferable merely from the power of the associations to appoint half of the JATC’s trustees. It is entirely possible that the trustees, once appointed, owe a fiduciary duty to the JATC and the apprentices enrolled in its programs, rather than to the entities that appointed them. Cf. NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U. S. 322 (1981). On the assumption that respondeat superior applies to suits based on § 1981, there is no basis for holding either the employers or the associations liable under that doctrine without evidence that an agency relationship existed at the time the JATC committed the acts on which its own liability was premised.
B
The District Court also justified its result by concluding that § 1981 imposes a “nondelegable duty” on petitioners “to see that discrimination does not take place in the selection of [their] workforce.” 469 F. Supp., at 412. The concept of a nondelegable duty imposes upon the principal not merely an obligation to exercise care in his own activities, but to answer for the well-being of those persons to whom the duty runs. See Restatement § 214. The duty is not discharged by using care in delegating it to an independent contractor. Consequently, the doctrine creates an exception to the common-law rule that a principal normally will not be liable for the tortious conduct of an independent contractor. See 2 Harper & James §26.11, pp. 1405-1408; Prosser §70, p. 467, §71, p. 470. So understood, a nondelegable duty is an affirmative obligation to ensure the protection of the person to whom the duty runs.
In a sense, to characterize such a duty as “nondelegable” is merely to restate the duty. Thus, in this litigation the question is not whether the employers and associations are free to delegate their duty to abide by § 1981, for whatever duty the statute imposes, they are bound to adhere to it. The question is what duty does § 1981 impose. More precisely, does § 1981 impose a duty to refrain from intentionally denying blacks the right to contract on the same basis as whites or does it impose an affirmative obligation to ensure that blacks enjoy such a right? The language of the statute does not speak in terms of duties. It merely declares specific rights held by “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.” We are confident that the Thirty-ninth Congress meant to do no more than prohibit the employers and associations in these cases from intentionally depriving black workers of the rights enumerated in the statute, including the equal right to contract. It did not intend to make them the guarantors of the workers’ rights as against third parties who would infringe them. Cf. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577-578 (1978) (Title VII); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362, 376-377 (1976) (42 U. S. C. § 1983).
Our earlier holding that § 1981 reaches only intentional discrimination virtually compels this conclusion. It would be anomalous to hold that § 1981 could be violated only by intentional discrimination and then to find this requirement satisfied by proof that the individual plaintiffs did not enjoy “the same right... to make and enforce contracts... as is enjoyed by white citizens” and that the defendants merely failed to ensure that the plaintiffs enjoyed employment opportunities equivalent to that of whites. Such a result would be particularly inappropriate in the case of the associations, who are not engaged in the construction business, do not employ operating engineers, and consequently did not delegate to the Union any hiring functions which they otherwise would have performed themselves. Neither the District Court nor respondents identify anything in the language or legislative history of the statute to support a contrary conclusion.
IV
In a separate portion of their brief, respondents urge several independent bases for the issuance of an injunction against the petitioners and the allocation to them of a portion of the costs of the remedial decree. Respondents first assert that the court had inherent equitable power to allocate remedial costs among all the named defendants. They also rely on the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a), as an independent basis for the injunctive portions of the District Court’s order running against petitioners. We shall deal with these contentions in turn.
The District Court in an opinion issued after judgment set forth the basis for its holding that “defendants held injunctively liable solely under a theory of vicarious responsibility are nevertheless liable for ‘a share’ of the costs under Rule 54(d).” Pennsylvania v. Local 542, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, 507 F. Supp. 1146, 1152 (1980). The District Court framed the inquiry before it as whether a party held vicariously liable to an injunction, but not for damages, might nonetheless have a proportionate share of the costs assessed against it. While this may have been an entirely appropriate frame of reference for the District Court, following its holding that petitioners were vicariously liable and therefore subject to an injunction, it is obviously not the proper frame of reference for our discussion. For the reasons previously stated, we have concluded that petitioners were not properly subject to an injunction on any of the theories set forth by the District Court. The issue before us, therefore, is whether a party not subject to liability for violating the law may nonetheless be assessed a proportionate share of the costs of implementing a decree to assure nondiscriminatory practices on the part of another party which was properly enjoined.
We find respondent’s arguments based on the traditional equitable authority of courts to be unpersuasive. In Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267 (1977), upon which respondents rely, and which we believe to be the case most closely in point, we expressly noted that the state petitioners had been found guilty of creating at least a portion of the constitutional violation which the order challenged in that case was designed to remedy. Id., at 281-282, 289. Thus our holding there was consistent with our opinion in Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U. S. 284 (1976), where we explained the relationship between our holding in the first Milliken case, Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974), and our opinion in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971). We read these earlier decisions as recognizing “fundamental limitations on the remedial powers of the federal courts.” 425 U. S., at 293. Those powers could be exercised only on the basis of a violation of the law and could extend no farther than required by the nature and the extent of that violation. Id., at 293-294. This principle, we held, was not one limited to school desegregation cases, but was instead “premised on a controlling principle governing the permissible scope of federal judicial power, a principle not limited to a school desegregation context.” Id., at 294, n. 11.
We think that the principle enunciated in these cases, transposed to the instant factual situation, offers no support for the imposition of injunctive relief against a party found not to have violated any substantive right of respondents. This is not to say that defendants in the position of petitioners might not, upon an appropriate evidentiary showing, be retained in the lawsuit and even subjected to such minor and ancillary provisions of an injunctive order as the District Court might find necessary to grant complete relief to respondents from the discrimination they suffered at the hands of the Union. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 399-400 (1982). But that sort of minor and ancillary relief is not the same, and cannot be the same, as that awarded against a party found to have infringed the statutory rights of persons in the position of respondents.
The order of the District Court, insofar as it runs against petitioners, cannot be regarded as “minor” or “ancillary” in any proper sense of those terms. First, it imposes considerable burdens on the employers and associations. It directs the employers to meet detailed “minority utilization goals” in their hiring, keyed to the number of hours worked. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 81-280, p. 236. If they are unable to do so through referrals from Local 542, they are required to hire minority operating engineers who are not affiliated with the Union. Ibid. If the goals are still not satisfied, the employers must recruit and hire unskilled minority workers from the community and provide on-the-job training. Id., at 236-237. The employers are also obligated to make quarterly reports detailing the extent of their compliance with these directives. Id., at 241-242. Finally, the District Court imposed on the employers and the associations a share of the financial cost incidental to enforcement of the remedial decree as a whole. Id., at 252-254. See 507 F. Supp. 1146 (1980). According to petitioners, the expense of the decree in the first year of its 5-year life exceeded $200,000. See Brief for Petitioner in No. 81-280, p.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether a United States District Court may require that applicants for general admission to its bar either reside or maintain an office in the State where that court sits.
I
Petitioner David Frazier is an attorney having both his residence and his law office in Pascagoula, Mississippi. An experienced litigator, he is a member of the Mississippi and Louisiana State Bars, and also of the Bars of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In April 1982, Frazier applied for admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. His application was denied because he neither lived nor had an office in Louisiana, as required by the court’s local Rule 21.2. In addition, Frazier was ineligible for admission under the court’s local Rule 21.3.1, which requires continuous and uninterrupted Louisiana residence or maintenance of a Louisiana law office for continuing eligibility in that bar.
Frazier challenged these District Court Rules by petitioning for a writ of prohibition from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The petition alleged that the restrictions in Rules 21.2 and 21.3.1 were unconstitutional, on their face and as applied to him. The Court of Appeals did not rule on the petition, but remanded the case to the District Court for the Eastern District for appropriate proceedings and entry of an appealable judgment. All the judges of the Eastern District recused themselves. The matter was assigned to Judge Edwin Hunter, a Senior Judge of the Western District of Louisiana. The District Court held a 1-day bench trial in which two District Court Judges, two Magistrates, and the Clerk of the Eastern District testified in support of the challenged Rules.
Frazier challenged the District Court Rules on several constitutional grounds, primarily under the equal protection requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Applying the standard of intermediate scrutiny, the District Court upheld Rule 21.2 as constitutional. 594 P. Supp. 1173, 1179 (1984).
The District Court found that the Rule serves the important Government objective of the efficient administration of justice. Ibid. It relied on testimony by court officials that proximity to the New Orleans courthouse is important when emergencies arise during proceedings, and that participation by nonresident attorneys complicates the scheduling of routine court matters. Id., at 1183-1184. The court also found that the office requirement is not unduly restrictive and that it increases the availability of an attorney to the court. Finally, it stated the failure to require in-state attorneys to open a local office was reasonable, since such attorneys “must of necessity open an office,” and, even absent an office, an instate attorney is likely to be available. Ibid. Without further explanation, the court declared that the in-state attorney’s admission to the bar “does not raise the same concern for the efficient administration of justice that admission of nonresident attorneys does.” Ibid. After reviewing petitioner’s other claims, the District Court denied Frazier’s petition for extraordinary relief and dismissed his suit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed over a dissent. 788 F. 2d 1049 (1986). The court found that the discrimination at issue did not warrant heightened scrutiny, and held that the exclusion was rationally related to the District Court’s goal of promoting lawyer competence and availability for hearings. It characterized the testimony before the District Court as “of one voice: lawyers admitted pro hac vice, who neither reside nor maintain an office in Louisiana, fail to comply with the local rules and impede the efficient administration of justice more than members of the bar of the Eastern District.” Id., at 1054. The court also noted that out-of-state attorneys were not unduly disadvantaged by this restriction, since they could affiliate with Louisiana counsel and appear pro hac vice. Id., at 1054 — 1055. Finally, the court denied petitioner’s alternative request to invalidate these Rules through use of the Court of Appeals’ supervisory power over District Courts in that Circuit. The court expressed its reluctance to exercise its supervisory authority because the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council was at that time reviewing the local Rules of the District Courts in the Circuit. Id., at 1055.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 960 (1986), and now reverse. Pursuant to our supervisory authority, we hold that the District Court was not empowered to adopt its local Rules to require members of the Louisiana Bar who apply for admission to its bar to live in, or maintain an office in, Louisiana where that court sits. We therefore need not address the constitutional questions presented.
I 1 — 1
We begin our analysis by recognizing that a district court has discretion to adopt local rules that are necessary to carry out the conduct of its business. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1654, 2071; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83. This authority includes the regulation of admissions to its own bar. A district court’s discretion in promulgating local rules is not, however, without limits. This Court may exercise its inherent supervisory power to ensure that these local rules are consistent with “‘the principles of right and justice.’” In re Ruffalo, 390 U. S. 544, 554 (1968) (White, J., concurring) (citation omitted); see In re Snyder, 472 U. S. 634, 643 (1985); Theard v. United States, 354 U. S. 278, 282 (1957); Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529, 530 (1824). Section 2071 requires that local rules of a district court “shall be consistent with” the “rules of practice and procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.” Today we invoke our supervisory authority to prohibit arbitrary discrimination against members of the Louisiana Bar, residing and having their office out-of-state, who are otherwise qualified to join the Bar of the Eastern District.
In the present case, our attention is focused on the requirements imposed by Rule 21.2 of the Eastern District of Louisiana, namely that, to be admitted to the bar, an attorney must reside or maintain an office in Louisiana. Respondents assert that these requirements facilitate the efficient administration of justice, because nonresident attorneys allegedly are less competent and less available to the court than resident attorneys. We disagree. We find both requirements to be unnecessary and irrational.
Rule 21.2’s requirement of residence in Louisiana arbitrarily discriminates against out-of-state attorneys who have passed the Louisiana bar examination and are willing to pay the necessary fees and dues in order to be admitted to the Eastern District Bar. No empirical evidence was introduced at trial to demonstrate why this class of attorneys, although members of the Louisiana Bar, should be excluded from the Eastern District’s Bar. Instead, the evidence was limited almost exclusively to experiences with pro hac vice practitioners, who unlike petitioner, were not members of the Louisiana Bar. Tr. 153. Experience with this category of onetime or occasional practitioners does not provide a basis for predicting the behavior of attorneys, who are members of the Louisiana Bar and who seek to practice in the Eastern District on a regular basis.
Indeed, there is no reason to believe that nonresident attorneys who have passed the Louisiana bar examination are less competent than resident attorneys. The competence of the former group in local and federal law has been tested and demonstrated to the same extent as that of Louisiana lawyers, and its members are equally qualified. We are unwilling to assume that “a nonresident lawyer — any more than a resident — would disserve his clients by failing to familiarize himself [or herself] with the [local] rules.” Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U. S. 274, 285 (1985). The Court has previously recognized that a nonresident lawyer is likely to have a substantial incentive, as a practical matter, to learn and keep abreast of local rules. Ibid. A lawyer’s application to a particular bar is likely to be based on the expectation of considerable local practice, since it requires the personal investment of taking the state bar examination and paying fees and annual dues. Moreover, other more effective means of ensuring the competence of bar members are available to the district courts, including examination or seminar attendance requirements. Complete exclusion is unnecessary.
We also do not believe that an alleged need for immediate availability of attorneys in some proceedings requires a blanket rule that denies all nonresident attorneys admission to a district-court bar. If attorney availability is a significant problem, the Rules are poorly crafted to remedy it. For example, the Rules presume that a lawyer in Shreveport, Louisiana, which is located more than 300 miles from the New Orleans courthouse of the Eastern District, is more likely or able to attend a conference than a lawyer such as petitioner, who is only 110 miles away, but must cross a state boundary on his way to the court. As a practical matter, a high percentage of nonresident attorneys willing to take the state bar examination and pay the annual dues will reside in places “reasonably convenient” to the District Court. Cf. 470 U. S., at 286-287. Moreover, modern communication systems, including conference telephone arrangements, make it possible to minimize the problem of unavailability. Finally, district courts have alternative means to ensure prompt attendance at important conferences. For instance, they may impose sanctions on lawyers who fail to appear on schedule. Indeed, the Eastern District has adopted Rule 21.8.1, which specifically requires that sanctions be imposed on lawyers who fail to appear at hearings. We therefore conclude that the residency requirement imposed by the Eastern District is unnecessary and arbitrarily discriminates against out-of-state attorneys.
Similarly, we find the in-state office requirement unnecessary and irrational. First, the requirement is not imposed on in-state attorneys. A resident lawyer is allowed to maintain his or her only office outside of Louisiana. A resident lawyer with an out-of-state office is equally as unavailable to the court as a nonresident lawyer with an out-of-state office. In addition, the mere fact that an attorney has an office in Louisiana surely does not warrant the assumption that he or she is more competent than an out-of-state member of the state bar. Requiring petitioner to have a Louisiana address and telephone number, and an in-state answering service will not elevate his or her understanding of the local Rules. As the failure to require in-state attorneys to have an in-state office reveals, the location of a lawyer’s office simply has nothing to do with his or her intellectual ability or experience in litigating cases in Federal District Court.
We further conclude that any need the court may have to ensure the availability of attorneys does not justify the instate office requirement. As observed with regard to state residency requirements, there is no link between residency within a State and proximity to a courthouse. The office requirement does not specify that counsel be in the Eastern District, but only that the attorney have an office somewhere in the State, regardless of how far that office is from the courthouse. Thus, we conclude that neither the residency requirement nor the office requirement of the local Rules is justified.
Respondents contend that nonresident lawyers are not totally foreclosed from Eastern District practice because they can appear pro hac vice. In Piper, however, we recognized that this alternative does not allow the nonresident attorney to practice “on the same terms as a resident member of the bar.” 470 U. S., at 277, n. 2. An attorney not licensed by a district court must repeatedly file motions for each appearance on a pro hac vice basis. 594 F. Supp., at 1177. In addition, in order to appear pro hac vice under local Rule 21.5, a lawyer must also associate with a member of the Eastern District Bar, who is required to sign all court documents. 594 F. Supp., at 1177. This association, of course, imposes a financial and administrative burden on nonresident counsel. Furthermore, it is ironic that “local” counsel may be located much farther away from the New Orleans courthouse than the out-of-state counsel. Thus, the availability of appearance pro hac vice is not a reasonable alternative for an out-of-state attorney who seeks general admission to the Eastern District’s Bar.
Reversed.
Petitioner also contended that the local Rules violated the Commerce Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
In determining the level of review appropriate for the federal equal protection challenge, the court determined that no fundamental constitutional right was implicated and that Frazier was not a member of a suspect class. The court therefore concluded that strict scrutiny was unnecessary. The court did not determine whether intermediate or deferential scrutiny was required for classifications based on state residency, because it concluded that, even under intermediate scrutiny, Rule 21.2 was constitutional. 594 F. Supp. 1173, 1180-1182 (1984).
See also Flanders, Local Rules in Federal District Courts: Usurpation, Legislation, or Information, 14 Loyola (LA) L. Rev. 213, 252-256 (1981); Martineau, The Supreme Court and State Regulation of the Legal Profession, 8 Hastings Const. L. Q. 199, 234-236 (1981); Note, The Supervisory Power of the Federal Courts, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 1656, 1656-1657 (1963).
Section 2072 confirms the supervisory authority that the Court has over lower federal courts: “The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure of the district courts and courts of appeals of the United States in civil actions. . . .” 28 U. S. C. §2072. The local rules must also be consistent with Acts of Congress. 28 U. S. C. §2071. Congress thus far has chosen to leave regulation of the federal bars to the courts.
Petitioner does not challenge the requirement of Rule 21.2 that an attorney must be a member in good standing of the Louisiana Bar.
During the bench trial, there was only one occasion when a witness, testifying in favor of the local Rules, distinguished between nonresident members of the Louisiana Bar and pro hac vice practitioners. In that instance, the witness could offer anecdotal testimony about only two nonresident members of the Louisiana Bar. Tr. 214-215 (testimony of Magistrate Wynne).
In Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U. S. 274 (1985), the Court held that a Rule by a State Supreme Court that limited bar admission to state residents violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. In the context of that case, the Court considered several contentions quite similar to those presented here. The Court rejected the notion that nonresident attorneys should be presumed to be less competent or less available than resident attorneys. 470 U. S., at 285-286. We held that a State may discriminate against nonresident attorneys only where its reasons are substantial and the difference in treatment bears a close relationship to those reasons.
Rules that discriminate against nonresident attorneys are even more difficult to justify in the context of federal-court practice than they are in the area of state-court practice, where laws and procedures may differ substantially from State to State. See Comisky & Patterson, The Case for a Federally Created National Bar by Rule or by Legislation, 66 Temp. L. Q. 945, 960-964 (1982). There is a growing body of specialized federal law and a more mobile federal bar, accompanied by an increased demand for specialized legal services regardless of state boundaries. See Simonelli, State Regulation of a Federal License to Practice Law, 66 N. Y. State Bar J. 15 (May 1984). The Court’s supervisory power over federal courts allows the Court to intervene to protect the integrity of the federal system, while its authority over state-court bars is limited to enforcing federal constitutional requirements. Because of these differences, the Court has repeatedly emphasized, for example, that disqualification from membership from a state bar does not necessarily lead to disqualification from a federal bar. See Theard v. United States, 354 U. S. 278, 282 (1957); Selling v. Radford, 243 U. S. 46, 49 (1917); cf. Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U. S. 379, 385-387 (1963).
Furthermore, the Court noted in Piper that “[t]he trial court, by rule or as an exercise of discretion, may require any lawyer who resides at a great distance to retain a local attorney who will be available for unscheduled meetings and hearings.” 470 U. S., at 287.
For example, if a lawyer in Port Arthur, Texas, opened a branch office just across the state line in Lake Charles, Louisiana, he or she could join the Eastern District Bar even though that office was twice as far from the courthouse in New Orleans as is petitioner’s office.
Under Rule 21.3.1, a lawyer must maintain an in-state residence or office not only at the time of admission, but also for as long as the lawyer desires to remain a member of the Eastern District Bar. This Rule serves only to extend the unfairness of Rule 21.2. We therefore also find this local Rule to be unnecessary and irrational.
Under Rule 21.6, a District Court may grant a waiver of local-counsel association only if it would be a hardship for an out-of-state client.
From the lawyer’s standpoint, he or she will be at a significant disadvantage in attracting clients. Clients would have to be willing to provide compensation for the necessary association with a local lawyer who will duplicate the principal lawyer’s efforts. The effect of such a rule is to drive up the cost of litigation and to steer business almost exclusively to the instate bar. A client may have a number of excellent reasons to select a nonlocal lawyer: his or her regular lawyer most familiar with the legal issues may be nonlocal; a nonresident lawyer may practice a specialty not available locally; or a client may be involved in an unpopular cause with which local lawyers are reluctant to be associated. See Piper, 470 U. S., at 281.
Furthermore, in many District Courts the decision on whether to grant pro hac vice status to an out-of-state attorney is purely discretionary and therefore is not a freely available alternative. See Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, supra, at 277, n. 2; Leis v. Flynt, 439 U. S. 438, 442 (1979).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped respondent for speeding on an interstate highway. When Gillette radioed the police dispatcher to report the stop, a second trooper, Craig Graham, a member of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the transmission and immediately headed for the scene with his narcotics-detection dog. When they arrived, respondent’s ear was on the shoulder of the road and respondent was in Gillette’s vehicle. While Gillette was in the process of writing a warning ticket, Graham walked his dog around respondent’s car. The dog alerted at the trunk. Based on that alert, the officers searched the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested respondent. The entire incident lasted less than 10 minutes.
Respondent was convicted of a narcotics offense and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and a $256,136 fine. The trial judge denied his motion to suppress the seized evidence and to quash his arrest. He held that the officers had not unnecessarily prolonged the stop and that the dog alert was sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to conduct the search. Although the Appellate Court affirmed, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, concluding that because the canine sniff was performed without any “‘specific and articulable facts’ ” to suggest drug activity, the use of the dog “unjustifiably enlarged] the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation.” 207 Ill. 2d 504, 510, 802 N. E. 2d 202, 205 (2003).
The question on which we granted certiorari, 541 U. S. 972 (2004), is narrow: “Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop.” Pet. for Cert. i. Thus, we proceed on the assumption that the officer conducting the dog sniff had no information about respondent except that he had been stopped for speeding; accordingly, we have omitted any reference to facts about respondent that might have triggered a modicum of suspicion.
Here, the initial seizure of respondent when he was stopped on the highway was based on probable cause and was coneededly lawful. It is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 124 (1984). A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002). We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff had been conducted while; respondent was being unlawfully detained.
In the state-court proceedings, however, the judges carefully reviewed the details of Officer Gillette’s conversations with respondent and the precise timing of his radio transmissions to the dispatcher to determine whether he had improperly extended the duration of the stop to enable the dog sniff to occur. We have not recounted those details because we accept the state court’s conclusion that the duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop.
Despite this conclusion, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the initially lawful traffic stop became an unlawful seizure solely as a result of the canine sniff that occurred outside respondent’s stopped car. That is, the court characterized the dog sniff as the cause rather than the consequence of a constitutional violation. In its view, the use of the dog converted the citizen-police encounter from a lawful traffic stop into a drug investigation, and because the shift in purpose was not supported by any reasonable suspicion that respondent possessed narcotics, it was unlawful. In our view, conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner, unless the dog sniff itself infringed respondent’s constitutionally protected interest in privacy. Our cases hold that it did not.
Official conduct that does not “compromise any legitimate interest in privacy” is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Jacobsen, 466 U. S., at 123. We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed “legitimate,” and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband “compromises no legitimate privacy interest.” Ibid. This is because the expectation “that certain facts will not come to the attention of the authorities” is not the same as an interest in “privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable.” Id., at 122 (punctuation omitted). In United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983), we treated a canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics-detection dog as “sui generis” because it “discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.” Id., at 707; see also Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32, 40 (2000). Respondent likewise concedes that “drug sniffs are designed, and if properly conducted are generally likely, to reveal only the presence of contraband.” Brief for Respondent 17. Although respondent argues that the error rates, particularly the existence of false positives, call into question the premise that drug-detection dogs alert only to contraband, the record contains no evidence or findings that support his argument. Moreover, respondent does not suggest that an erroneous alert, in and of itself, reveals any legitimate private information, and, in this case, the trial judge found that the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk.
Accordingly, the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog — one that “does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view,” Place, 462 U. S., at 707 — during a lawful traffic stop generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. In this case, the dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent’s car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent’s privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement.
This conclusion is entirely consistent with our recent decision that the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect the growth of marijuana in a home constituted an unlawful search. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27 (2001). Critical to that decision was the fact that the device was capable of detecting lawful activity — in that case, intimate details in a home, such as “at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath.” Id., at 38. The legitimate expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private is categorically distinguishable from respondent’s hopes or expectations concerning the nondetection of contraband in the trunk of his car. A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
. It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are 29 Texas peanut farmers who allege that in the 2000 growing season their crops were severely damaged by the application of respondent’s newly marketed pesticide named “Strongarm.” The question presented is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U. S. C. § 136 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II), pre-empts their state-law claims for damages.
HH
Pursuant to its authority under FIFRA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conditionally registered Strongarm on March 8, 2000, thereby granting respondent (Dow) permission to sell this pesticide — a weed killer — in the United States. Dow obtained this registration in time to market Strongarm to Texas farmers, who normally plant their peanut crops around May 1. According to petitioners — whose version of the facts we assume to be true at this stage — Dow knew, or should have known, that Strongarm would stunt the growth of peanuts in soils with pH levels of 7.0 or greater. Nevertheless, Strongarm’s label stated, “Use of Strongarm is recommended in all areas where peanuts are grown,” App. 108, and Dow’s agents made equivalent representations in their sales pitches to petitioners. When petitioners applied Strongarm on their farms — whose soils have pH levels of 7.2 or higher, as is typical in western Texas — the pesticide severely damaged their peanut crops while failing to control the growth of weeds. The farmers reported these problems to Dow, which sent its experts to inspect the crops.
Meanwhile, Dow reregistered its Strongarm label with EPA prior to the 2001 growing season. EPA approved a “supplemental” label that was for “[distribution and [u]se [o]nly in the states of New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas,” id., at 179, the three States in which peanut farmers experienced crop damage. This new label contained the following warning: “Do not apply Strongarm to soils with a pH of 7.2 or greater.” Id., at 181.
After unsuccessful negotiations with Dow, petitioners gave Dow notice of their intent to bring suit as required by the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter Texas DTPA). In response, Dow filed a declaratory judgment action in Federal District Court, asserting that petitioners’ claims were expressly or impliedly pre-empted by FIFRA. Petitioners, in turn, brought counterclaims, including tort claims sounding in strict liability and negligence. They also alleged fraud, breach of warranty, and violation of the Texas DTPA. The District Court granted Dow’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting one claim on state-law grounds and dismissing the remainder as expressly pre-empted by 7 U. S. C. § 136v(b), which provides that States “shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It read § 136v(b) to preempt any state-law claim in which “a judgment against Dow would induce it to alter its product label.” 332 F. 3d 323, 331 (CA5 2003). The court held that because petitioners’ fraud, warranty, and deceptive trade practices claims focused on oral statements by Dow’s agents that did not differ from statements made on the product’s label, success on those claims would give Dow a “strong incentive” to change its label. Those claims were thus pre-empted. Id., at 331-332. The court also found that petitioners’ strict liability claim alleging defective design was essentially a “disguised” failure-to-warn claim and therefore pre-empted. Id., at 332. It reasoned: “One cannot escape the heart of the farmers’ grievance: Strongarm is dangerous to peanut crops in soil with a pH level over 7.0, and that was not disclosed to them.... It is inescapable that success on this claim would again necessarily induce Dow to alter the Strongarm label.” Id., at 332-333. The court employed similar reasoning to find the negligent testing and negligent manufacture claims pre-empted as well. Id., at 333.
This decision was consistent with those of a majority of the Courts of Appeals, as well of several state high courts, but conflicted with the decisions of other courts and with the views of EPA set forth in an amicus curiae brief filed with the California Supreme Court in 2000. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 542 U. S. 936 (2004).
II
Prior to 1910 the States provided the primary and possibly the exclusive source of regulatory control over the distribution of poisonous substances. Both the Federal Government’s first effort at regulation in this area, the Insecticide Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 331, and FIFRA as originally enacted in 1947, ch. 125, 61 Stat. 163, primarily dealt with licensing and labeling. Under the original version of FIFRA, all pesticides sold in interstate commerce had to be registered with the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary would register a pesticide if it complied with the statute’s labeling standards and was determined to be efficacious and safe. In 1970, EPA assumed responsibility for this registration process.
In 1972, spurred by growing environmental and safety concerns, Congress adopted the extensive amendments that “transformed FIFRA from a labeling law into a comprehensive regulatory statute.” Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 991 (1984). “As amended, FIFRA regulated the use, as well as the sale and labeling, of pesticides; regulated pesticides produced and sold in both intrastate and interstate commerce; provided for review, cancellation, and suspension of registration; and gave EPA greater enforcement authority.” Id., at 991-992. The 1972 amendments also imposed a new criterion for registration — environmental safety. Id., at 992. See generally 4 F. Grad, Treatise on Environmental Law §§8.02-8.03 (2004) (tracing FIFRA’s statutory evolution).
Under FIFRA as it currently stands, a manufacturer seeking to register a pesticide must submit a proposed label to EPA as well as certain supporting data. 7 U. S. C. §§ 136a(c)(1)(C), (F). The agency will register the pesticide if it determines that the pesticide is efficacious (with the caveat discussed below), § 136a(c)(5)(A); that it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, §§ 136a(c)(5)(C), (D); § 136(bb); and that its label complies with the statute’s prohibition on misbranding, § 136a(c)(5)(B); 40 CFR § 152.112(f) (2004). A pesticide is “misbranded” if its label contains a statement that is “false or misleading in any particular,” including a false or misleading statement concerning the efficacy of the pesticide. 7 U. S. C. § 136(q)(1)(A);40 CFR § 156.10(a)(5)(ii). A pesticide is also misbranded if its label does not contain adequate instructions for use, or if its label omits necessary warnings or cautionary statements. 7 U. S. C. §§ 136(q)(1)(F), (G).
Because it is unlawful under the statute to sell a pesticide that is registered but nevertheless misbranded, manufacturers have a continuing obligation to adhere to FIFRA’s labeling requirements. § 136j (a)(1)(E); see also § 136a(f)(2) (registration is prima facie evidence that the pesticide and its labeling comply with the statute’s requirements, but registration does not provide a defense to the violation of the statute); § 136a(f)(1) (a manufacturer may seek approval to amend its label). Additionally, manufacturers have a duty to report incidents involving a pesticide’s toxic effects that may not be adequately reflected in its label’s warnings, 40 CFR §§ 159.184(a), (b) (2004), and EPA may institute cancellation proceedings, 7 U. S. C. § 136d(b), and take other enforcement action if it determines that a registered pesticide is misbranded.
Section 136v, which was added in the 1972 amendments, addresses the States’ continuing role in pesticide regulation. As currently codified, § 136v provides:
“(a) In general
“A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter.
“(b) Uniformity
“Such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.
“(c) Additional uses
“(1) A State may provide registration for additional ■ uses of federally registered pesticides formulated for distribution and use within that State to meet special local needs in accord with the purposes of this subchap-ter and if registration for such use has not previously been denied, disapproved, or canceled by the Administrator. Such registration shall be deemed registration under section 136a of this title for all purposes of this subchapter, but shall authorize distribution and use only within such State....”
In 1978, Congress once again amended FIFRA, 92 Stat. 819, this time in response to EPA’s concern that its evaluation of pesticide efficacy during the registration process diverted too many resources from its task of assessing the environmental and health dangers posed by pesticides. Congress addressed this problem by authorizing EPA to waive data requirements pertaining to efficacy, thus permitting the agency to register a pesticide without confirming the efficacy claims made on its label. § 136a(c)(5). In 1979, EPA invoked this grant of permission and issued a general waiver of efficacy review, with only limited qualifications not applicable here. See 44 Fed. Reg. 27932 (1979); 40 CFR § 158.640(b) (2004). In a notice published years later in 1996, EPA confirmed that it had “stopped evaluating pesticide efficacy for routine label approvals almost two decades ago,” Pesticide Registration Notice 96-4, p. 3 (June 3, 1996), available at http://www.epa.gov/opppmsdl/PR_Notices/pr96-4.html, App. 232, and clarified that “EPA’s approval of a pesticide label does not reflect any determination on the part of EPA that the pesticide will be efficacious or will not damage crops or cause other property damage,” id., at 5, App. 235. The notice also referred to an earlier statement in which EPA observed that “ ‘pesticide producers are aware that they are potentially subject to damage suits by the user community if their products prove ineffective in actual use.’” Id., at 2, App. 230 (quoting 47 Fed. Reg. 40661 (col. 2) (1982)). This general waiver was in place at the time of Strongarm’s registration; thus, EPA never passed on the accuracy of the statement in Strongarm’s original label recommending the product’s use “in all areas where peanuts are grown.”
Although the modern version of FIFRA was enacted over three decades ago, this Court has never addressed whether that statute pre-empts tort and other common-law claims arising under state law. Courts entertained tort litigation against pesticide manufacturers since well before the passage of FIFRA in 1947, and such litigation was a common feature of the legal landscape at the time of the 1972 amendments. Indeed, for at least a decade after those amendments, arguments that such tort suits were pre-empted by §136v(b) either were not advanced or were unsuccessful. See, e. g., Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., 736 F. 2d 1529 (CADC 1984). It was only after 1992 when we held in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, that the term “requirement or prohibition” in the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 included common-law duties, and therefore pre-empted certain tort claims against cigarette companies, that a groundswell of federal and state decisions emerged holding that § 136v(b) pre-empted claims like those advanced in this litigation.
This Court has addressed FIFRA pre-emption in a different context. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U. S. 597 (1991), we considered a claim that § 136v(b) pre-empted a small town’s ordinance requiring a special permit for the aerial application of pesticides. Although the ordinance imposed restrictions not required by FIFRA or any EPA regulation, we unanimously rejected the pre-emption claim. In our opinion we noted that FIFRA was not “a sufficiently comprehensive statute to justify an inference that Congress had occupied the field to the exclusion of the States.” Id., at 607. “To the contrary, the statute leaves ample room for States and localities to supplement federal efforts even absent the express regulatory authorization of §136v(a).” Id., at 613.
As a part of their supplementary role, States have ample authority to review pesticide labels to ensure that they comply with both federal and state labeling requirements. Nothing in the text of FIFRA would prevent a State from making the violation of a federal labeling or packaging requirement a state offense, thereby imposing its own sanctions on pesticide manufacturers who violate federal law. The imposition of state sanctions for violating state rules that' merely duplicate federal requirements is equally consistent with the text of § 136v.
M I — I ) — i
Against this background, we consider whether petitioners claims are pre-empted by § 136v(b), which, again, reads as follows: “Such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.”
The introductory words of §136v(b) — “Such State” — appear to limit the coverage of that subsection to the States that are described in the preceding subsection (a). Texas is such a State because it regulates the sale and use of federally registered pesticides and does not permit any sales or uses prohibited by FIFRA. It is therefore beyond dispute that subsection (b) is applicable to this case.
The prohibitions in § 136v(b) apply only to “requirements.” An occurrence that merely motivates an optional decision does not qualify as a requirement. The Court of Appeals was therefore quite wrong when it assumed that any event, such as a jury verdict, that might “induce” a pesticide manufacturer to change its label should be viewed as a requirement. The Court of Appeals did, however, correctly hold that the term “requirements” in §136v(b) reaches beyond positive enactments, such as statutes and regulations, to embrace common-law duties. Our decision in Cipollone supports this conclusion. See 505 U. S., at 521 (plurality opinion) (“The phrase ‘[n]o requirement or prohibition’ sweeps broadly and suggests no distinction between positive enactments and common law; to the contrary, those words easily encompass obligations that take the form of common-law rules”); see also id., at 548-549 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). While the use of “requirements” in a pre-emption clause may not invariably carry this meaning, we think this is the best reading of § 136v(b).
That § 136v(b) may pre-empt judge-made rules, as well as statutes and regulations, says nothing about the scope of that pre-emption. For a particular state rule to be pre-empted, it must satisfy two conditions. First, it must be a requirement “for labeling or packaging”; rules governing the design of a product, for example, are not pre-empted. Second, it must impose a labeling or packaging requirement that is “in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” A state regulation requiring the word “poison” to appear in red letters, for instance, would not be preempted if an EPA regulation imposed the same requirement.
It is perfectly clear that many of the common-law rules upon which petitioners rely do not satisfy the first condition. Rules that require manufacturers to design reasonably safe products, to use due care in conducting appropriate testing of their products, to market products free of manufacturing defects, and to honor their express warranties or other contractual commitments plainly do not qualify as requirements for “labeling or packaging.” None of these common-law rules requires that manufacturers label or package their products in any particular way. Thus, petitioners’ claims for defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of express warranty are not pre-empted.
To be sure, Dow’s express warranty was located on Strongarm’s label. But a cause of action on an express warranty asks only that a manufacturer make good on the contractual commitment that it voluntarily undertook by placing that warranty on its product. Because this common-law rule does not require the manufacturer to make an express warranty, or in the event that the manufacturer elects to do so, to say anything in particular in that warranty, the rule does not impose a requirement “for labeling or packaging.” See id., at 525-526 (plurality opinion).
In arriving at a different conclusion, the court below reasoned that a finding of liability on these claims would “induce Dow to alter [its] label.” 332 F. 3d, at 332. This effects-based test finds no support in the text of § 136v(b), which speaks only of “requirements.” A requirement is a rule of law that must be obeyed; an event, such as a jury verdict, that merely motivates an optional decision is not a requirement. The proper inquiry calls for an examination of the elements of the common-law duty at issue, see Cipollone, 505 U. S., at 524 (plurality opinion); it does not call for speculation as to whether a jury verdict will prompt the manufacturer to take any particular action (a question, in any event, that will depend on a variety of cost/benefit calculations best left to the manufacturer’s accountants).
The inducement test is unquestionably overbroad because it would impeach many “genuine” design defect claims that Dow concedes are not pre-empted. A design defect claim, if successful, would surely induce a manufacturer to alter its label to reflect a change in the list of ingredients or a change in the instructions for use necessitated by the improvement in the product’s design. Moreover, the inducement test is not entirely consistent with §136v(a), which confirms the State’s broad authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides. Under § 136v(a), a state agency may ban the sale of a pesticide if it finds, for instance, that one of the pesticide’s label-approved uses is unsafe. This ban might well induce the manufacturer to change its label to warn against this questioned use. Under the inducement test, however, such a restriction would anomalously qualify as a “labeling” requirement. It is highly unlikely that Congress endeavored to draw a line between the type of indirect pressure caused by a State’s power to impose sales and use restrictions and the even more attenuated pressure exerted by common-law suits. The inducement test is not supported by either the text or the structure of the statute.
Unlike their other claims, petitioners’ fraud and negligent-failure-to-warn claims are premised on common-law rules that qualify as “requirements for labeling or packaging.” These rules set a standard for a product’s labeling that the Strongarm label is alleged to have violated by containing false statements and inadequate warnings. While the courts of appeals have rightly found guidance in Cipol-lone’s interpretation of “requirements,” some of those courts too quickly concluded that failure-to-warn claims were preempted under FIFRA, as they were in Cipollone, without paying attention to the rather obvious textual differences between the two pre-emption clauses.
Unlike the pre-emption clause at issue in Cipollone, § 136v(b) prohibits only state-law labeling and packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” the labeling and packaging requirements under FIFRA. Thus, a state-law labeling requirement is not pre-empted by §136v(b) if it is equivalent to, and fully consistent with, FIFRA’s misbranding provisions. Petitioners argue that their claims based on fraud and failure to warn are not preempted because these common-law duties are equivalent to FIFRA’s requirements, that a pesticide label not contain “false or misleading” statements, § 136(q)(l)(A), or inadequate instructions or warnings. §§ 136(q)(l)(F), (G). We agree with petitioners insofar as we hold that state law need not explicitly incorporate FIFRA’s standards as an element of a cause of action in order to survive pre-emption. As we will discuss below, however, we leave it to the Court of Appeals to decide in the first instance whether these particular common-law duties are equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding standards.
The “parallel requirements” reading of § 136v(b) that we adopt today finds strong support in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470 (1996). In addressing a similarly worded preemption provision in a statute regulating medical devices, we found that “[n]othing in [21 U. S. C.] § 360k denies Florida the right to provide a traditional damages remedy for violations of common-law duties when those duties parallel federal requirements.” Id., at 495. As Justice O’Connor explained in her separate opinion, a state cause of action that seeks to enforce a federal requirement “does not impose a requirement that is ‘different from, or in addition to,’ requirements under federal law. To be sure, the threat of a damages remedy will give manufacturers an additional cause to comply, but the requirements imposed on them under state and federal law do not differ. Section 360k does not preclude States from imposing different or additional remedies, but only different or additional requirements.” Id., at 513 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Accordingly, although FIFRA does not provide a federal remedy to farmers and others who are injured as a result of a manufacturer’s violation of FIFRA’s labeling requirements, nothing in § 136v(b) precludes States from providing such a remedy.
Dow, joined by the United States as amicus curiae, argues that the “parallel requirements” reading of § 136v(b) would “give juries in 50 States the authority to give content to FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition, establishing a crazy-quilt of anti-misbranding requirements different from the one defined by FIFRA itself and intended by Congress to be interpreted authoritatively by EPA.” Brief for Respondent 16; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25-27. In our view, however, the clear text of § 136v(b) and the authority of Medtronic cannot be so easily avoided. Conspicuously absent from the submissions by Dow and the United States is any plausible alternative interpretation of “in addition to or different from” that would give that phrase meaning. Instead, they appear to favor reading those words out of the statute, which would leave the following: “Such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging.” This amputated version of § 136v(b) would no doubt have clearly and succinctly commanded the pre-emption of all state requirements concerning labeling. That Congress added the remainder of the provision is evidence of its intent to draw a distinction between state labeling requirements that are pre-empted and those that are not.
Even if Dow had offered us a plausible alternative reading of § 136v(b) — indeed, even if its alternative were just as'plausible as our reading of that text — we would nevertheless have a duty to accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption. “[B]ecause the States are independent sovereigns in our federal system, we have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.” Medtronic, 518 U. S., at 485. In areas of traditional state regulation, we assume that a federal statute has not supplanted state law unless Congress has made such an intention “ ‘clear and manifest.’ ” New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 655 (1995) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947)); see also Medtronic, 518 U. S., at 485. Our reading is at once the only one that makes sense of each phrase in § 136v(b) and the one favored by our canons of interpretation. The notion that FIFRA contains a nonambig-uous command to pre-empt the types of tort claims that parallel FIFRA’s misbranding requirements is particularly dubious given that just five years ago the United States advocated the interpretation that we adopt today.
The long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to the basic presumption against pre-emption. If Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation, it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984). Moreover, this history emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items. See Mortier, 501 U. S., at 613 (stating that the 1972 amendments' goal was to “strengthen existing labeling requirements and ensure that these requirements were followed in practice”). Particularly given that Congress amended FIFRA to allow EPA to waive efficacy review of newly registered pesticides (and in the course of those amendments made technical changes to § 136v(b)), it seems unlikely that Congress considered a relatively obscure provision like § 136v(b) to give pesticide manufacturers virtual immunity from certain forms of tort liability. Overenforcement of ■ FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition creates a risk of imposing unnecessary financial burdens on manufacturers; under-enforcement creates not only financial risks for consumers, but risks that affect their safety and the environment as well.
Finally, we find the policy objections raised against our reading of §136v(b) to be unpersuasive. Dow and the United States greatly overstate the degree of uniformity and centralization that characterizes FIFRA. In fact, the statute authorizes a relatively decentralized scheme that preserves a broad role for state regulation. See ibid. Most significantly, States may ban or restrict the uses of pesticides that EPA has approved, § 136v(a); they may also register, subject to certain restrictions, pesticides for uses beyond those approved by EPA, § 136v(c). See also § 136w-l (authorizing EPA to grant States primary enforcement responsibility for use violations). A literal reading of § 136v(b) is fully consistent with the concurrent authority of the Federal and State Governments in this sphere.
Private remedies that enforce federal misbranding requirements would seem to aid, rather than hinder, the functioning of FIFRA. Unlike the cigarette labeling law at issue in Cipollone, which prescribed certain immutable warning statements, FIFRA contemplates that pesticide labels will evolve over time, as manufacturers gain more information about their products’ performance in diverse settings. As one court explained, tort suits can serve as a catalyst in this process:
“By encouraging plaintiffs to bring suit for injuries not previously recognized as traceable to pesticides such as [the pesticide there at issue], a state tort action of the kind under review may aid in the exposure of new dangers associated with pesticides. Successful actions of this sort may lead manufacturers to petition EPA to allow more detailed labelling of their products; alternatively, EPA itself may decide that revised labels are required in light of the new information that has been brought to its attention through common law suits. In addition, the specter of damage actions may provide manufacturers with added dynamic incentives to continue to keep abreast of all possible injuries stemming from use of their product so as to forestall such actions through product improvement.” Ferebee, 736 F. 2d, at 1541-1542.
Dow and the United States exaggerate the disruptive effects of using common-law suits to enforce the prohibition on misbranding. FIFRA has prohibited inaccurate representations and inadequate warnings since its enactment in 1947, while tort suits alleging failure-to-warn claims were common well before that date and continued beyond the 1972 amendments. We have been pointed to no evidence that such tort suits led to a “crazy-quilt” of FIFRA standards or otherwise created any real hardship for manufacturers or for EPA. Indeed, for much of this period EPA appears to have welcomed these tort suits. While it is true that properly instructed juries might on occasion reach contrary conclusions on a similar issue of misbranding, there is no reason to think such occurrences would be frequent or that they would result in difficulties beyond those regularly experienced by manufacturers of other products that every day bear the risk of conflicting jury verdicts. Moreover, it bears noting that lay juries are in no sense anathema to FIFRA’s scheme: In criminal prosecutions for violation of FIFRA’s provisions, see § 136£(b), juries necessarily pass on allegations of misbranding.
In sum, under our interpretation, § 136v(b) retains a narrow, but still important, role. In the main, it pre-empts competing state labeling standards — imagine 50 different labeling regimes prescribing the color, font size, and wording of warnings — that would create significant inefficiencies for manufacturers. The provision also pre-empts any statutory or common-law rule that would impose a labeling requirement that diverges from those set out in FIFRA and its implementing regulations. It does not, however, preempt any state rules that are fully consistent with federal requirements.
Having settled on our interpretation of § 136v(b), it still remains to be decided whether that provision pre-empts petitioners’ fraud and failure-to-warn claims. Because we have not received sufficient briefing on this issue, which involves questions of Texas law, we remand it to the Court of Appeals. We emphasize that a state-law labeling requirement must in fact be equivalent to a requirement under FIFRA in order to survive pre-emption. For example, were the Court of Appeals to determine that the element of falsity in Texas’ common-law definition of fraud imposed a broader obligation than FIFRA’s requirement that labels not contain “false or misleading statements,” that state-law cause of action would be pre-empted by § 136v(b) to the extent of that difference. State-law requirements must also be measured against any relevant EPA regulations that give content to FIFRA’s misbranding standards. For example, a failure-to-warn claim alleging that a given pesticide’s label should have stated “DANGER” instead of the more subdued “CAUTION” would be pre-empted because it is inconsistent with 40 CFR § 156.64 (2004), which specifically assigns these warnings to particular classes of pesticides based on their toxicity.
In undertaking a pre-emption analysis at the pleadings stage of a ease, a court should bear in mind the concept of equivalence. To survive pre-emption, the state-law requirement need not be phrased in the identical language as its corresponding FIFRA requirement; indeed, it would be surprising if a common-law requirement used the same phraseology as FIFRA. If a case proceeds to trial, the court’s jury instructions must ensure that nominally equivalent labeling requirements are genuinely equivalent. If a defendant so requests, a court should instruct the jury on the relevant • FIFRA misbranding standards, as well as any regulations that add content to those standards. For a manufacturer should not be held liable under a state labeling requirement subject to § 136v(b) unless the manufacturer is also liable for misbranding as defined by FIFRA.
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.
Strongarm would more commonly be called a herbicide, but it is classified as a pesticide for'purposes of FIFRA. See 7 U. S. C. §§136(t), (u).
The term “pH,” which stands for pondus hydrogenii, or “potential hydrogen,” refers to the acidity of the soil.
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.01 et seq. (West 2002).
See, e. g., Grenier v. Vermont Log Buildings, Inc., 96 F. 3d 559 (CA1 1996); Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F. 3d 656 (CA7 1997); Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 284 F. 3d 895 (CA8 2002).
See, e. g., Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc., 22 Cal. 4th 316, 993 P. 2d 366 (2000).
See, e.g., Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., 736 F. 2d 1529 (CADC 1984); American Cyanamid Co. v. Geye, 79 S. W. 3d 21 (Tex. 2002).
See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc., No. S072524 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (hereinafter Brief Amicus Curiae for United States in Etcheverry). The Acting Solicitor General has since adopted a contrary position. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20.
If the Secretary declined registration, and the manufacturer refused to mate changes, the Secretary was required to register the pesticide “under protest.” In 1964, however, Congress eliminated this procedure, and required disappointed manufacturers to challenge a denial of registration through administrative review. 78 Stat. 190.
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 973.
A pesticide label must also conspicuously display any statement or information specifically required by the statute or its implementing regulations. 7 U. S. C. § 136(q)(1)(E). To mention only a few examples, the label must contain the name and address of the producer, the product registration number, and an ingredient statement. 40 CFR §§ 156.10(a)(1)(ii), (iv), (vi) (2004).
EPA may issue “stop sale, use, or removal” orders and may seize offending products. 7 U. S. C. §§ 136k(a), (b). Further, manufacturers may be subjected to civil and criminal penalties for violating FIFRA’s requirements. § 1361.
See, e.g., Mossrud v. Lee, 163 Wis. 229, 157 N. W. 758 (1916); West Disinfecting Co. v. Plummer, 44 App. D. C. 345 (1916); McCrossin v. Noyes Bros. & Cutler, Inc., 143 Minn. 181, 173 N. W. 566 (1919); White v. National Bank of Commerce, 99 Cal. App. 519, 278 P. 915 (1929).
See Hursh, Annotation, Liability of Manufacturer or Seller for Injury Caused by Animal Feed or Medicines, Crop Sprays, Fertilizers, Insecticides, Rodenticides, and Similar Products, 81 A. L. R. 2d 138, 144 (1962
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the night of October 23, 1984, William James Caldwell (Brower) was killed when the stolen car that he had been driving at high speeds for approximately 20 miles in an effort to elude pursuing police crashed into a police roadblock. His heirs, petitioners here, brought this action in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming, inter alia, that respondents used “brutal, excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary physical force” in establishing the roadblock, and thus effected an unreasonable seizure of Brower, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Petitioners alleged that “under color of statutes, regulations, customs and usages,” respondents (1) caused an 18-wheel tractor-trailer to be placed across both lanes of a two-lane highway in the path of Brower’s flight, (2) “effectively concealed” this roadblock by placing it behind a curve and leaving it unilluminated, and (3) positioned a police car, with its headlights on, between Brower’s oncoming vehicle and the truck, so that Brower would be “blinded” on his approach. App. 8-9. Petitioners further alleged that Brower’s fatal collision with the truck was “a proximate result” of this official conduct. Id., at 9. The District Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on the ground (insofar as the Fourth Amendment claim was concerned) that “establishing a roadblock [was] not unreasonable under the circumstances.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-21. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim on the basis that no “seizure” had occurred. 817 F. 2d 540, 545-546 (1987). We granted certiorari, 487 U. S. 1217 (1988), to resolve a conflict between that decision and the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F. 2d 1205 (1985).
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”
In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985), all Members of the Court agreed that a police officer’s fatal shooting of a fleeing suspect constituted a Fourth Amendment “seizure.” See id., at 7; id., at 25 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). We reasoned that “[wjhenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person.” Id., at 7. While acknowledging Gamer, the Court of Appeals here concluded that no “seizure” occurred when Brower collided with the police roadblock because “[p]rior to his failure to stop voluntarily, his freedom of movement was never arrested or restrained” and because “[h]e had a number of opportunities to stop his automobile prior to the impact.” 817 F. 2d, at 546. Essentially the same thing, however, could have been said in Garner. Brower’s independent decision to continue the chase can no more eliminate respondents’ responsibility for the termination of his movement effected by the roadblock than Garner’s independent decision to flee eliminated the Memphis police officer’s responsibility for the termination of his movement effected by the bullet.
The Court of Appeals was impelled to its result by consideration of what it described as the “analogous situation” of a police chase in which the suspect unexpectedly loses control of his car and crashes. See Galas v. McKee, 801 F. 2d 200, 202-203 (CA6 1986) (no seizure in such circumstances). We agree that no unconstitutional seizure occurs there, but not for a reason that has any application to the present case. Violation of the Fourth Amendment requires an intentional acquisition of physical control. A seizure occurs even when an unintended person or thing is the object of the detention or taking, see Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797, 802-805 (1971); cf. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79, 85-89 (1987), but the detention or taking itself must be willful. This is implicit in the word “seizure,” which can hardly be applied to an unknowing act. The writs of assistance that were the principal grievance against which the Fourth Amendment was directed, see Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624-625 (1886); T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations *301-*302, did not involve unintended consequences of government action. Nor did the general warrants issued by Lord Halifax in the 1760’s, which produced “the first and only major litigation in the English courts in the field of search and seizure,” T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 26 (1969), including the case we have described as a “monument of English freedom” “undoubtedly familiar” to “every American statesman” at the time the Constitution was adopted, and considered to be “the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law,” Boyd, supra, at 626 (discussing Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K. B. 1765)). In sum, the Fourth Amendment addresses “misuse of power,” Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 33 (1927), not the accidental effects of otherwise lawful government conduct.
Thus, if a parked and unoccupied police car slips its brake and pins a passerby against a wall, it is likely that a tort has occurred, but not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the situation would not change if the passerby happened, by lucky chance, to be a serial murderer for whom there was an outstanding arrest warrant — even if, at the time he was thus pinned, he was in the process of running away from two pursuing constables. It is clear, in other words, that a Fourth Amendment seizure does not occur whenever there is a governmentally caused termination of an individual’s freedom of movement (the innocent passerby), nor even whenever there is a governmentally caused and governmentally desired termination of an individual’s freedom of movement (the fleeing felon), but only when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied. That is the reason there was no seizure in the hypothetical situation that concerned the Court of Appeals. The pursuing police car sought to stop the suspect only by the show of authority represented by flashing lights and continuing pursuit; and though he was in fact stopped, he was stopped by a different means — his loss of control of his vehicle and the subsequent crash. If, instead of that, the police cruiser had pulled alongside the fleeing car and sideswiped it, producing the crash, then the termination of the suspect’s freedom of movement would have been a seizure.
This analysis is reflected by our decision in Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 (1924), where an armed revenue agent had pursued the defendant and his accomplice after seeing them obtain containers thought to be filled with “moonshine whisky.” During their flight they dropped the containers, which the agent recovered. The defendant sought to suppress testimony concerning the containers’ contents as the product of an unlawful seizure. Justice Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded: “The defendant’s own acts, and those of his associates, disclosed the jug, the jar and the bottle — and there was no seizure in the sense of the law when the officers examined the contents of each after they had been abandoned.” Id., at 58. Thus, even though the incriminating containers were unquestionably taken into possession as a result (in the broad sense) of action by the police, the Court held that no seizure had taken place. It would have been quite different, of course, if the revenue agent had shouted, “Stop and give us those bottles, in the name of the law!” and the defendant and his accomplice had complied. Then the taking of possession would have been not merely the result of government action but the result of the very means (the show of authority) that the government selected, and a Fourth Amendment seizure would have occurred.
In applying these principles to the dismissal of petitioners’ Fourth Amendment complaint for failure to state a claim, we can sustain the District Court’s action only if, taking the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to petitioners, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 236 (1974), we nonetheless conclude that they could prove no set of facts entitling them to relief for a “seizure.” See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Petitioners have alleged the establishment of a roadblock crossing both lanes of the highway. In marked contrast to a police car pursuing with flashing lights, or to a policeman in the road signaling an oncoming car to halt, see Kibbe v. Springfield, 777 F. 2d 801, 802-803 (CAI 1985), cert. dism’d, 480 U. S. 257 (1987), a roadblock is not just a significant show of authority to induce a voluntary stop, but is designed to produce a stop by physical impact if voluntary compliance does not occur. It may well be that respondents here preferred, and indeed earnestly hoped, that Brower would stop on his own, without striking the barrier, but we do not think it practicable to conduct such an inquiry into subjective intent. See United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 922, n. 23 (1984); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 641 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 815-819 (1982). Nor do we think it possible, in determining whether there has been a seizure in a case such as this, to distinguish between a roadblock that is designed to give the oncoming driver the option of a voluntary stop ie. g., one at the end of a long straightaway), and a roadblock that is designed precisely to produce a collision (e. g., one located just around a bend). In determining whether the means that terminates the freedom of movement is the very means that the government intended we cannot draw too fine a line, or we will, be driven to saying that one is not seized who has been stopped by the accidental discharge of a gun with which he was meant only to be bludgeoned, or by a bullet in the heart that was meant only for the leg. We think it enough for a seizure that a person be stopped by the very instrumentality set in motion or put in place in order to achieve that result. It was enough here, therefore, that, according to the allegations of the complaint, Brower was meant to be stopped by the physical obstacle of the roadblock — and that he was so stopped.
This is not to say that the precise character of the roadblock is irrelevant to further issues in this case. “Seizure” alone is not enough for § 1983 liability; the seizure must be “unreasonable.” Petitioners can claim the right to recover for Brower’s death only because the unreasonableness they allege consists precisely of setting up the roadblock in such manner as to be likely to kill him. This should be contrasted with the situation that would obtain if the sole claim of unreasonableness were that there was no probable cause for the stop. In that case, if Brower had had the opportunity to stop voluntarily at the roadblock, but had negligently or intentionally driven into it, then, because of lack of proximate causality, respondents, though responsible for depriving him of his freedom of movement, would not be liable for his death. See Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 285 (1980); Cameron v. Pontiac, 813 F. 2d 782, 786 (CA6 1987), Thus, the circumstances of this roadblock, including the allegation that headlights were used to blind the oncoming driver, may yet determine the outcome of this case.
The complaint here sufficiently alleges that respondents, under color of law, sought to stop Brower by means of a roadblock and succeeded in doing so. That is enough to constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for consideration of whether the District Court properly dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim on the basis that the alleged roadblock did not effect a seizure that was “unreasonable.”
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 310(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), 88 Stat. 1285, as amended, 2 U. S. C. §437h(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), lists three categories of plaintiffs who may challenge the constitutional validity of FECA in specially expedited suits: (1) the Federal Election Commission (FEC), (2) “the national committee of any political party,” and (3) “any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President.” In this case, we address a question we expressly reserved in California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182, 187, n. 6 (1981): whether a party not belonging to one of the three categories listed in § 437h(a) may nonetheless invoke its procedures.
I
The appellants are two trade associations and three political action committees (PAC’s): the National Restaurant Association and its associated PAC, the Restaurateurs Political Action Committee, the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association and its associated PAC, the Lumber Dealers Political Action Committee, and the Bread Political Action Committee, the PAC associated with the American Bakers Association. In order to challenge the validity of 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(4)(D), which has the effect of limiting the extent to which trade associations and their PAC’s may solicit funds for political purposes, the appellants filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking expedited consideration of their suit under the procedures set forth in §437h. The District Court denied certification under §437h on the ground that the plaintiff trade associations and PAC’s do not belong to any of the three categories of plaintiffs fisted in § 437h(a) as eligible to invoke its expedited procedures. On an interlocutory appeal from this ruling, a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 437h(a) is available for use by plaintiffs whether they belong to an enumerated category or not. 591 F. 2d 29 (CA7 1979). On remand, the District Court, as required by § 437h, first made findings of fact and then certified the case back to the Court of Appeals sitting en banc for a determination on the constitutional questions raised by the appellants. The en banc court declined to overrule the earlier panel decision regarding the reach of § 437h(a), and proceeded to the merits of the appellants’ claims, upholding the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. 635 F. 2d 621 (CA7 1980). The present appeal to this Court followed, confronting us with the question whether §437h(a) should be construed to permit parties, such as the appellants, who do not belong to one of its three specifically enumerated classes, nonetheless to invoke its procedures.
HH HH
Our analysis of this issue of statutory construction must begin with the language of the statute itself,” Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U. S. 176, 187 (1980), and “[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). Moreover, when the statute to be construed creates, as § 437h does, a class of cases that command the immediate attention of this Court and of the courts of appeals sitting en banc, displacing existing caseloads and calling court of appeals judges away from their normal duties for expedited en banc sittings, close construction of statutory language takes on added importance. As we have said: “Jurisdictional statutes are to be construed ‘with precision and with fidelity to the terms by which Congress has expressed its wishes’; and we are particularly prone to accord ‘strict construction of statutes authorizing appeals’ to this Court.” Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389, 396 (1973) (citations omitted). In short, the plain language of § 437h(a) controls its construction, at least in the absence of “clear evidence,” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U. S. 115, 121 (1980), of a “clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary,” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., supra, at 108.
The text of § 437h(a) states plainly enough which plaintiffs may invoke its special procedures: “The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President.” Thus, §437h(a) affords its unique system of expedited review to three carefully chosen classes of persons who might meet the minimum standing requirements of Art. III. The only artificial persons expressly entitled to invoke §437h(a) are the Federal Election Commission, which is charged with enforcing the Act, and the national committees of political parties, which play a central role in the political process.
In the face of the obvious meaning of the language of § 437h(a), the appellants urge what they concede to be an “expansive construction” of the section. Reply Brief for Appellants 3. Indeed, the construction they advocate could not be more expansive, for they apparently argue that Congress intended the class of permissible plaintiffs to be defined by the outermost limits of Art. III. The appellants, however, fall far short of providing “clear evidence” of a “clearly expressed legislative intention” that the unique expedited procedures of §437h be afforded to parties other than those belonging to the three listed categories.
In fact, the section’s legislative history is too brief and ambiguous to provide much solace to either side of the present controversy. When Senator Buckley introduced the section during the deliberations on the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, he limited his explanation to the following comments:
“[I]t is a modification that I am sure will prove acceptable to the managers of the bill. It merely provides for the expeditious review of the constitutional questions I have raised. I am sure we will all agree that if, in fact, there is a serious question as to the constitutionality of this legislation, it is in the interest of everyone to have the question determined by the Supreme Court at the earliest possible time.” 120 Cong. Rec. 10562 (1974).
In the House, Representative Frenzel echoed this theme in responding to a question from another Member of the House about the constitutionality of the Amendments:
“Any time we pass legislation in this field we are causing constitutional doubts to be raised. I have many myself. I think the gentleman has pointed out a good one. We have done the best we could to bring out a bill which we hope may pass the constitutional test. But, we do not doubt that some questions will be raised quickly.
“I do call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that any individual under this bill has a direct method to raise these questions and to have those considered as quickly as possible by the Supreme Court.” Id., at 35140 (emphasis added).
These brief remarks by two Members of Congress nearly exhaust the legislative history of the section. The appellants nevertheless suggest that these comments suffice to prove that, in passing § 437h, Congress focused solely on expediting the resolution of all disputes over the constitutionality of FEC A, and was unconcerned with the identity of the challenging plaintiffs. In support of this view, the appellants point out that in the first sentence of § 437h(a) Congress authorized suits to challenge “any” provision of the Act, while the second sentence requires the district courts to certify “all” constitutional questions under the Act to the court of appeals sitting en banc. According to the appellants, the fact that Congress expressly extended §437h to “all” constitutional questions about “any” provision of the Act compels the inference that Congress also intended that § 437h be afforded to any and all plaintiffs, even those not expressly fisted in the Act.
The obvious fact that Congress wanted a broad class of questions to be speedily resolved, however, scarcely implies that Congress intended the courts to augment Congress’ enumeration of qualified plaintiffs. Indeed, if it suggests anything, the structure of the Act suggests that Congress knew how to specify that “all” constitutional questions about “any” provision of the Act may be raised, and therefore could as easily have directed that “any” person might invoke the unique procedures of §437h. But Congress did not do so. Instead, it went to the trouble of specifying that only two precisely defined types of artificial entities and one class of natural persons could bring these actions.
Reaching out for some support, the appellants hypothesize that Congress specified the three enumerated classes to remove any doubts about their standing, but not to exclude others by implication. According to the appellants, absent explicit congressional authorization, the members of the three . fisted classes might not meet the prudential standing requirements this Court imposes. See, e. g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498-501 (1975). This argument, however, puts the appellants in the awkward position of simultaneously noting that express congressional authorization is required to overcome prudential standing limitations, while urging us to read an implicit grant of standing into congressional silence. Of course, had Congress intended the result the appellants desire, it could easily have achieved it by expressly granting standing to the limits of Art. Ill, and then listing as specific examples the three classes now enumerated in § 437h(a). Instead, Congress gave no affirmative indication that it meant to include in its grant any parties beyond the three listed classes.
For these reasons, we cannot impute to Congress the intention to confer standing on the broadest class imaginable. We do not assume the maximum jurisdiction permitted by the Constitution, absent a clearer mandate from Congress than here expressed. We therefore hold that only parties meeting the express requirements of § 437h(a) may invoke its procedures. Because the appellants do not meet these requirements, they may not invoke the expedited procedures of § 437h. .
The appellants complain that the practical result of this ruling may be that some provisions of FECA will escape expedited review, thereby defeating Congress’ intent that the courts pass as quickly as possible on the validity of FECA. Without a clearer indication of congressional intent than provided by the extremely sketchy legislative history of § 437h, however, we believe the best evidence of what Congress wanted is found in the statute itself, where Congress listed only three types of parties who may invoke the expedited procedures of §437h. Others, evidently, are remitted to the usual remedies.
We note, moreover, that our decision today raises no threat that an aggrieved party with standing will be unable to litigate questions arising under FECA, since our holding affects only the availability of the extraordinary procedures afforded by § 437h. Section 437g, for example, permits either the Commission or, under the proper circumstances, a private person to bring a civil action to enforce the Act, and such suits are themselves given expedited treatment under §437g(a)(10), being advanced on the calendar ahead of all other actions except those given even higher priority by either § 437g or § 437h. Thus, any challenge, constitutional or nonconstitutional, may be raised as a defense in an enforcement action, and will be afforded expedited review. Furthermore, plaintiffs meeting the usual standing requirements can challenge provisions of the Act under the federal-question jurisdiction granted the federal courts by 28 U. S. C. §1331 (1976 ed., Supp. IV).
In sum, the appellants have not met the burden of showing such “clear expression” or “clear evidence” of congressional intent to make the procedures of § 437h available to categories of plaintiffs other than those listed in that section. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Title 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(4)(D) permits an incorporated trade association to solicit contributions to its (PAC) only from
“the stockholders and executive or administrative personnel of the member corporations of such trade association and the families of such stockholders or personnel to the extent that such solicitation of such stockholders and personnel, and their families, has been separately and specifically approved by the member corporation involved, and such member corporation does not approve any such solicitation by more than one such trade association in any calendar year.”
Other provisions of FEC A permit a trade association to solicit contributions to its PAC from its members, § 441b(b)(4)(C), and from its own executive and administrative personnel and their families, § 441b(b)(4)(A).
That section provides:
“(a) Actions, including declaratory judgments, for construction of constitutional questions; eligible plaintiffs; certification of such questions to courts of appeals sitting en banc
“The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President may institute such actions in the appropriate district court of the United States, including actions for declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality of any provision of this Act. The district court immediately shall certify all questions of constitutionality of this Act to the United States court of appeals for the circuit involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc.
“(b) Appeal to Supreme Court; time for appeal
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any decision on a matter certified under subsection (a) of this section shall be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Such appeal shall be brought no later than 20 days after the decision of the court of appeals.
“(c) Advancement on appellate docket and expedited disposition of certified questions
“It shall be the duty of the court of appeals and of the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter certified under subsection (a) of this section.” 2 U. S. C. §§437h(a)-(e) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
The grant of standing to the three listed categories of plaintiffs is similar to the grant Congress had adopted earlier in 26 U. S. C. § 9011(b) authorizing the “Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President” to bring suits to implement or construe the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U. S. C. §§ 9001-9013.
Perhaps because Senator Buckley’s intent as expressed in the legislative history remains uncertain, the appellants have submitted to this Court affidavits from Senator Buckley and David A. Keene, the Executive Assistant to the Senator who prepared the original draft of § 437h, expressing the belief that the amendment was not intended to exclude organizations from challenging the constitutionality of the Act. See Affidavit of James Buckley (Nov. 11, 1977), reprinted at App. 110, 112; Affidavit of David A. Keene (Oct. 21, 1977), reprinted at App. 106, 109.
We cannot give probative weight to these affidavits, however, because “[s]ueh statements ‘represent only the personal views of th[is] legislato[r], since the statements were [made] after passage of the Act.’ ” Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 132 (1974), quoting National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 639, n. 34 (1967). See also Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725, 736, n. 10 (1978), in which we noted that “post hoc observations by a single member of Congress carry little if any weight.”
The appellants suggest that an anomaly is thereby created, unless parties not listed in § 437h(a) can invoke that section’s procedures, because nonconstitutional challenges raised as defenses will be granted expedited service under 2 U. S. C. §437g(a)(10) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), while constitutional challenges brought by plaintiffs not listed in §437h(a) will be treated like any other case on the docket. No evidence exists that Congress ever pondered this subtlety, or, if it did, what it thought about it. Suffice it to say that we do not consider the possibility that Congress may have seen fit to expedite claims raised by defendants, but not similar claims raised by some plaintiffs, to shed much light on Congress’ purpose in enumerating three specific classes of eligible plaintiffs in § 437h(a).
We express no opinion, however, on the question whether the appellants meet the standing requirements under § 1331.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question here is whether the statute governing elections for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Territory of Guam compels a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election. We hold that the statute requires no runoff.
I
In the November 3, 1998, Guam general election, petitioners Carl T. C. Gutierrez and Madeleine Z. Bordallo were candidates running on one slate for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, opposed by the slate of respondents Joseph F. Ada and Felix P. Camacho. Gutierrez received 24,250 votes, as against 21,200 for Ada. Ada v. Guam, 179 F. 3d 672, 675 (CA9 1999); App. 16. One thousand two hundred and ninety-four voted for write-in candidates; 1,313 persons who east ballots did not vote for either slate or any write-in candidate; and 609 voted for both slates. 179 F. 3d, at 675; App. 16. The total number of ballots cast in the general election was thus 48,666, and the Gutierrez slate’s votes represented 49.83 percent of that total. The Guam Election Commission certified the Gutierrez slate as the winner, finding it had received 51.21 percent of the vote, as calculated by deducting the 1,313 ballots left blank as to the gubernatorial election from the total number of ballots cast. 179 F. 3d, at 675. Respondents Ada and Camacho sued in the United States District Court for a writ of mandamus ordering a runoff election, contending that Gutierrez and Bordallo had not received a majority of the votes east, as required by the Organic Act of Guam, 64 Stat. 384, as amended, 48 U. S. C. § 1421 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III).
So far as relevant, the Organic Act provides that:
“[t]he executive power of Guam shall be vested in an executive officer whose official title shall be the ‘Governor of Guam’. The Governor of Guam, together with the Lieutenant Governor, shall be elected by a majority of the votes cast by the people who are qualified to vote for the members of the Legislature of Guam. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be chosen jointly, by the casting by each voter of a single vote applicable to both offices. If no candidates receive, a majority of the votes cast in any election, on the fourteenth day thereafter a runoff election shall be held between the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor receiving the highest and second highest number of votes cast. The first election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be held on November 3, 1970. Thereafter, beginning with the year 1974, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be elected every four years at the general election. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall hold office for a term of four years and until their successors are elected and qualified.” 48 U.S.C. §1422.
Respondents’ position boils down to the claim that the phrase “majority of the votes cast in any election” requires that a slate of candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor receive a majority of the total number of ballots cast in the general election, regardless of the number of votes for all gubernatorial slates by those casting ballots. If this is the correct reading of the phrase, the parties agree that a runoff was required. If, however, the phrase refers only to votes cast for gubernatorial slates, no runoff was in order, and petitioners were elected Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
The United States District Court for the District of Guam read the statute to require a majority of the total number of voters casting ballots in the general election and so ruled that the Gutierrez slate had not received “a majority of the votes cast in any election.” The court accordingly issued a writ of mandamus for a runoff election to be held on December 19, 1998, Ada v. Guam, No. Civ. 98-00066 (Dec. 9, 1998), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-25, A-55.
Although the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an emergency stay of the District Court’s order pending appeal, 179 F. 3d, at 676, it ultimately affirmed. The Court of Appeals understood the reference to “majority of the votes cast” as meaning “all votes cast at the general election, for Congress presumably would not have included the phrase fin any election,’ if it meant to refer only to the votes cast in the single election for governor and lieutenant governor.” Id., at 677. The court thought that any other reading would render the phrase “in any election” a “nullity.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals also relied on a comparison of § 1422 with 48 U. S. C. § 1712, which provides that a candidate for Guam’s Delegate to Congress must receive “a majority of the votes cast for the office of Delegate” in order to be elected. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that Congress could have used similar language of limitation if it had intended the election of a Governor and Lieutenant Governor to require only a majority of votes cast for gubernatorial slates. 179 F. 3d, at 678. The Ninth Circuit stayed its mandate pending disposition of petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari.
We granted certiorari, 527 U. S. 1063 (1999), to resolve a split between the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the Organic Act of Guam and the Third Circuit’s reading of identical language in the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands. See 68 Stat. 503, as amended, 48 U. S. C. § 1591 (providing for a runoff election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Virgin Islands “[i]f no candidates receive a majority of the votes cast in any election”); Todman v. Boschulte, 694 F. 2d 939 (CA3 1982). We reverse.
II
The key to understanding what the phrase “in any election” means is also the most salient feature of the provision in which it occurs. The section contains six express references to an election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor: “The Governor of Guam, together with the Lieutenant Governor, shall be elected ...”; “[t]he Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be chosen jointly, by the casting by each voter of a single vote..“a runoff election shall be held between the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor ...”; “[t]he first election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be held . .“the Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be elected every four years . .“[t]he Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall hold office ... until their successors are elected_” 48 U. S. C. § 1422. The reference to “any election” is preceded by two references to gubernatorial election and followed by four. With “any election” so surrounded, what could it refer to except an election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, the subject of such relentless repetition? To ask the question is merely to apply an interpretive rule as familiar outside the law as it is within, for words and people are known by their companions. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 575 (1995) (“[A] word is known by the company it keeps”); Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961) ("The maxim noscitur a sociis, ... while not an inescapable rule, is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress”). Cf. Foster v. Love, 522 U. S. 67, 71 (1997) (“When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’ of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder (subject only to the possibility of a later run-off...)”).
Other clues confirm that Congress did not shift its attention when it used “any election” unadorned by a gubernatorial reference or other definite modifier. Later on in the same provision, Congress did vary the specific modifier when it spoke of the “general election” at which the gubernatorial election would occur; it is thus significant that Congress did not peg the majority-vote requirement to “votes cast in any [general] election.” Congress would hardly have used “any election” to mean “general election,” only to mention “general election” a few lines further on.
It would be equally odd to think that after repeatedly using “votes” or “vote” to mean an expression of choice for the gubernatorial slate, Congress suddenly used “votes cast in any election” to mean “ballots cast.” And yet that is just what would be required if we were to treat the phrase respondents’ way, for they read “votes cast in any election” as referring to “ballots containing a vote for any office.” Surely a Congress that meant to refer to ballots, midway through a statute repeatedly referring to “votes” for gubernatorial slates, would have said “ballots.” To argue otherwise is to tag Congress with an extravagant preference for the opaque when the use of a clear adjective or noun would have worked nicely. But even aside from that, Congress has shown that it recognizes the difference between ballots and votes in the very context of Guamanian elections. From 1972 until 1998, 48 U. S. C. § 1712 expressly required that the Guam Delegate be elected “by separate ballot and by a majority of the votes cast for the office of Delegate.” There is simply no reason to think that Congress meant “ballots” when it said “votes” in § 1422.
To accept respondents’ reading would also impute to the Congress a strange preference for making it hard to select a Governor. On respondents’ reading the statute could require a runoff (as it would in this case) even though one slate already had a majority of all those who cared to make any choice among gubernatorial candidates. Respondents try to counter the unreality of their position by emphasizing state cases holding that passing a referendum requires a majority of voters going to the polls, not a mere majority of persons voting on a particular referendum issue. Cf. Allen v. Burkhart, 377 P. 2d 821 (Okla. 1963); Thurston County Farm Bureau v. Thurston County, 136 Neb. 575, 287 N. W. 180 (1939); Missouri v. Winkelmeier, 35 Mo. 103 (1864). But there is no uniform rule, see, e. g., Wooley v. Sterrett, 387 S. W. 2d 734, 739-740 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965); Munce v. O’Hara, 340 Pa. 209, 16 A. 2d 532 (1940); State ex rel. Short v. Clausen, 72 Wash. 409, 130 P. 479 (1913), and even if there were, treatment of referendums would not be a plausible model for elections of officials. Referendums are exceptions to the normal legislative process, and passage of a referendum is not itself essential to the functioning of government. If a ballot-majority requirement makes it impossible to pass a referendum measure, nothing need be done except record the failure. The same requirement to elect an official, on the other hand, would necessitate further action, the trouble and expense of which would not make any apparent sense when those who expressed any preference among candidates had already given a majority to one of them.
As a final confirmation of the obvious reading, we note that requiring a majority of the total number of voters on election day would be in some tension with § 1422a, which provides for recall elections for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Section 1422a(b) provides that “[a]ny Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or member of the legislature of Guam may be removed from office by a referendum election in which at least two-thirds of the number of persons voting for such official in the last preceding general election at which such official was elected vote in favor of recall and in which those so voting constitute a majority of all those participating in such referendum election.” The recall provision thus looks to the total number of persons who actually voted for Governor, not the total number who went to the polls. In a rational world, we would not expect the vote required to oust a Governor to be pegged to a lower number than it would take to elect one.
If all these considerations confirm the reading according to the rule of meaning by association, respondents nevertheless emphasize two considerations said to point the other way. First, as we noted before, § 1712 includes a specific statement that “a majority of the votes cast for the office of Delegate” is necessary and presumably sufficient to elect a Delegate. Without a comparably clear modifier in § 1422 referring to votes sufficient to elect gubernatorial slates, respondents argue, “a majority of the votes cast in any election” must refer to a majority of all those voting for any office. But the drafting difference supports no such inference. Congress adopted the language in § 1712 four years after enacting the phrase at issue in this case, and there is no affirmative indication in § 1712 that Congress gave any thought to differentiating the terms of Delegate and gubernatorial elections. Hence, as we have said before, later laws that “do not seek to clarify an earlier enacted general term” and “do not depend for their effectiveness upon clarification, or a change in the meaning of an earlier statute,” are “beside the point” in reading the first enactment. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 237 (1998). Congress may have spoken with explicit clarity when it passed § 1712, but we can say no more than that.
The second argument supposedly undermining the meaning naturally suggested by association was stressed by the Court of Appeals, which thought that reading “any election” to mean gubernatorial election would render the phrase a nullity and thus offend the rule against attributing redundancy to Congress, see Kungys v. United States, 485 U. S. 759, 778 (1988). The fact is that this argument has some force, but not enough. There is no question that the statute would be read as we read it even if the phrase were missing. But as one rule of construction among many, albeit an important one, the rule against redundancy does not necessarily have the strength to turn a tide of good cause to come out the other way. Besides, there is even a reason for thinking the phrase in question has some clarifying value. Section 1422 provides specifically for an initial gubernatorial election in 1970, and generally for successive elections every four years thereafter. “[A]ny election,” therefore, may be read to make it clear that the runoff requirement applies equally to the initial election and to those periodically scheduled in the future. That may not be very heavy work for the phrase to perform, but a job is a job, and enough to bar the rule against redundancy from disqualifying an otherwise sensible reading.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether Rule 28.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an investment company security holder first make a demand upon the company’s board of directors before bringing an action under § 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 to recover allegedly excessive fees paid by the company to its investment adviser. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in this case that the demand requirement of Rule 23.1 does not apply to such actions. Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc., 692 F. 2d 250 (1982). Two other Courts of Appeals have reached a contrary conclusion. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 460 U. S. 1021 (1983), and now affirm.
Respondent is a shareholder of petitioner Daily Income Fund,' Inc. (Fund), an open-end diversified management investment company, or “mutual fund,” regulated by the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA or Act), 15 U. S. C. §80a-l et seq. (1982 ed.). The Fund invests in a portfolio of short-term money market instruments with the aim of achieving high current income while preserving capital. Under a written contract, petitioner Reich & Tang, Inc. (R&T), provides the Fund with investment advice and other management services in exchange for a fee currently set at one-half of one percent of the Fund’s net assets. From 1978 to 1981, the Fund experienced substantial growth; its net assets increased from about $75 million to $775 million. During this period, R&T’s fee of one-half of one percent of net assets remained the same. Accordingly, annual payments by the Fund to R&T rose from about $375,000 to an estimated $3,875,000 in 1981.
Alleging that these fees were unreasonable, respondent brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming both the Fund and R&T as defendants. The complaint alleged that, because the Fund’s assets had been continually reinvested in a limited number of instruments, R&T’s investment decisions had remained routine and substantially unchanged as the Fund grew. By receiving significantly higher fees for essentially the same services, R&T had, according to respondent, violated the fiduciary duty owed investment companies by their advisers under § 36(b) of the ICA. Pub. L. 91-547, §20, 84 Stat. 1428, 15 U. S. C. §80a-35(b) (1982 ed.). The complaint sought damages in favor of the Fund as well as payment of respondent’s costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the suit for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, which governs “a derivative action brought by one or more shareholders... to enforce a right of a corporation..., the corporation... having failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it....” The Rule requires a shareholder bringing such a suit to set forth “the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires from the directors..., and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.” Respondent contended that the Rule 23.1 “demand requirement” does not apply to actions brought under § 36(b) of the ICA and that, in any event, demand was excused because the Fund’s directors had participated in the alleged wrongdoing and would be hostile to the suit. The District Court, finding Rule 23.1 applicable to § 36(b) actions and finding no excuse based on the directors’ possible self-interest or bias, dismissed the action. Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc., 94 F. R. D. 94 (1982).
The Court of Appeals reversed. Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc., 692 F. 2d 250 (1982). The court concluded that Rule 23.1 by its terms applies only when the corporation could itself “‘assert,’ in a court, the same action under the same rule of law on which the shareholder plaintiff relies.” Id., at 254. Relying on both the language and the legislative history of § 36(b), the court determined that an investment company may not itself sue under that section to recover excessive adviser fees. Id., at 254-261. Accordingly, the court held that Rule 23.1 does not apply to actions by security holders brought under §36(b). Id., at 261.
I — I I — I
Although any action m which a shareholder asserts the rights of a corporation could be characterized as “derivative,” see n. 11, infra, Rule 23.1 applies in terms only to a “derivative action brought by one or more shareholders or members to enforce a right of a corporation [when] the corporation [has] failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it” (emphasis added). This qualifying language suggests that the type of derivative action governed by the Rule is one in which a shareholder claims a right that could have been, but was not, “asserted” by the corporation in court. The “right” mentioned in the emphasized phrase, which cannot sensibly mean any right without limitation, is most naturally understood as referring to the same right, or at least its substantial equivalent, as the one asserted by the plaintiff shareholder. And, in the context of a rule of judicial procedure, the reference to the corporation’s “failure to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it” obviously presupposes that the right in question could be enforced by the corporation in court.
This interpretation of the Rule is consistent with the understanding we have expressed, in a variety of contexts, of the term “derivative action.” In Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450, 460 (1882), for instance, the Court explained that a derivative suit is one “founded on a right of action existing in the corporation itself, and in which the corporation itself is the appropriate plaintiff.” Similarly, Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 548 (1949), stated that a derivative action allows a stockholder “to step into the corporation’s shoes and to seek in its right the restitution he could not demand in his own”; and the Court added that such a stockholder “brings suit on a cause of action derived from the corporation.” Id., at 549. Finally, Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531, 534 (1970), described a derivative action as “a suit to enforce a corporate cause of action against officers, directors, and third parties” (emphasis in original) and viewed the question there presented — whether the Seventh Amendment confers a right to a jury in such an action — as the same as whether the corporation, had it brought the suit itself, would be entitled to a jury. Id., at 538-539. In sum, the term “derivative action,” which defines the scope of Rule 23.1, has long been understood to apply only to those actions in which the right claimed by the shareholder is one the corporation could itself have enforced in court. See also Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U. S. 518, 522 (1947); Price v. Gurney, 324 U. S. 100, 105 (1945); Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Albany & Susquehanna R. Co., 213 U. S. 435, 447 (1909).
The origin and purposes of Rule 23.1 support this understanding of its scope. The Rule’s provisions derive from this Court’s decision in Hawes v. Oakland, supra. Prior to Hawes, federal courts exercising their equity powers had commonly entertained suits by minority stockholders to enforce corporate rights in circumstances where the corporation had failed to sue on its own behalf. Id., at 452. See Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 339 (1856); 7A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1821, pp. 296-297 (1972). The Court in Hawes, while emphasizing the importance of such suits as a means of “protecting the stockholder against the frauds of the governing body of directors or trustees,” 104 U. S., at 453, noted that this equitable device was subject to two kinds of potential abuse. First, corporations that were engaged in disputes with citizens of their home State could collude with out-of-state stockholders to obtain diversity jurisdiction in order to litigate the dispute in the federal courts. Id., at 452-453. Second, derivative actions brought by minority stockholders could, if unconstrained, undermine the basic principle of corporate governance that the decisions of a corporation — including the decision to initiate litigation — should be made by the board of directors or the majority of shareholders. See id., at 454-457.
To address these problems, the Court in Hawes established a number of prerequisites to bringing derivative suits in the federal courts. These requirements were designed to limit the use of the device to situations in which, due to an unjustified failure of the corporation to act for itself, it was appropriate to permit a shareholder “to institute and conduct a litigation which usually belongs to the corporation.” Id., at 460. With some additions and changes in wording, the conditions set out in Hawes have been carried forward in successive revisions of the federal rules.
Some of the requirements first announced in Hawes were intended to reduce the burden on the federal courts by diverting corporate causes of action “to the State courts, which are their natural, their lawful, and their appropriate forum.” Id., at 452-453. At the same time, however, the Court sought to maintain derivative suits as a limited exception to the usual rule that the proper party to bring a claim on behalf of a corporation is the corporation itself, acting through its directors or the majority of its shareholders. Id., at 460-461. As the Court later explained, this aspect of the rules governing derivative suits reflects the basic policy that “[w]hether or not a corporation shall seek to enforce in the courts a cause of action for damages is, like other business questions, ordinarily a matter of internal management and is left to the discretion of the directors, in the absence of instruction by vote of the stockholders.” United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 244 U. S. 261, 263 (1917). See also Corbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Co., 187 U. S. 455, 463 (1903).
The principal means by which the Court in Hawes sought to vindicate this policy was, of course, its requirement that a shareholder seek action by the corporation itself before bringing a derivative suit. 104 U. S., at 460-461. This “demand requirement” affords the directors an opportunity to exercise their reasonable business judgment and “waive a legal right vested in the corporation in the belief that its best interests will be promoted by not insisting on such right. They may regard the expense of enforcing the right or the furtherance of the general business of the corporation in determining whether to waive or insist upon the right.” Corbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Co., supra, at 463. On the other hand, if, in the view of the directors, “litigation is appropriate, acceptance of the demand places the resources of the corporation, including its information, personnel, funds, and counsel, behind the suit.” Note, The Demand and Standing Requirements in Stockholder Derivative Actions, 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 168,171-172 (1976) (footnote omitted). Like the Rule in general, therefore, the provisions regarding demand assume a lawsuit that could be controlled by the corporation’s board of directors.
In sum, the conceptual basis and purposes of Rule 23.1 confirm what its language suggests: the Rule governs only suits “to enforce a right of a corporation” when the corporation itself has “failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it” in court. In this case, therefore, we must decide whether the right asserted by a shareholder suing under § 36(b) of the ICA could be judicially enforced by the investment company. We turn to consider that question.
I ► — I
In determining whether § 36(b) confers a right that could be judicially enforced by an investment company, we look first, of course, at the language of the statute. As noted in n. 2, supra, § 36(b) imposes a fiduciary duty on an investment company’s adviser “with respect to the receipt of compensation for services” paid by the company and provides that “[a]n action may be brought under this subsection by the [Securities and Exchange] Commission, or by a security holder of such registered investment company on behalf of such company” against the adviser and other affiliated parties. By its terms, then, the unusual cause of action created by § 36(b) differs significantly from those traditionally asserted in shareholder derivative suits. Instead of establishing a corporate action from which a shareholder’s right to sue derivatively may be inferred, § 36(b) expressly provides only that the new corporate right it creates may be enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and security holders of the company.
Petitioners nevertheless contend that an investment company has an implied right of action under § 36(b). In evaluating such a claim, our focus must be on the intent of Congress when it enacted the statute in question. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 377-378 (1982). That intent may in turn be discerned by examining a number of factors, including the legislative history and purposes of the statute, the identity of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was passed, the existence of express statutory remedies adequate to serve the legislative purpose, and the traditional role of the States in affording the relief claimed. Ibid.; Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U. S. 1, 13-15 (1981); California v. Sierra Club, 451 U. S. 287, 292-293 (1981); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979); Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975). In this case, consideration of each of these factors plainly demonstrates that Congress intended the unique right created by § 36(b) to be enforced solely by the SEC and security holders of the investment company.
As we have previously noted, Congress adopted the ICA because of its concern with “the potential for abuse inherent in the structure of investment companies.” Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S. 471, 480 (1979). Unlike most corporations, an investment company is typically created and managed by a pre-existing external organization known as an investment adviser. Id., at 481. Because the adviser generally supervises the daily operation of the fund and often selects affiliated persons to serve on the company’s board of directors, the “‘relationship between investment advisers and mutual funds is fraught with potential conflicts of interest.’” Ibid., quoting Golf and v. Chestnutt Corp., 545 F. 2d 807, 808 (CA2 1976). In order to minimize such conflicts of interest, Congress established a scheme that regulates most transactions between investment companies and their advisers, 15 U. S. C. § 80a-17 (1982 ed.); limits the number of persons affiliated with the adviser who may serve on the fund’s board of directors, § 80a-10; and requires that fees for investment advice and other services be governed by a written contract approved both by the directors and the shareholders of the fund, § 80a-15.
In the years following passage of the Act, investment companies enjoyed enormous growth, prompting a number of studies of the effectiveness of the Act in protecting investors. One such report, commissioned by the SEC, found that investment advisers often charged mutual funds higher fees than those charged the advisers’ other clients and further determined that the structure of the industry, even as regulated by the Act, had proved resistant to efforts to moderate adviser compensation. Wharton School Study of Mutual Funds, H. R. Rep. No. 2274, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 28-30, 34, 66-67 (1962). Specifically, the study concluded that the unaffiliated directors mandated by the Act were “of restricted value as an instrument for providing effective representation of mutual fund shareholders in dealings between the fund and its investment adviser.” Id., at 34. A subsequent report, authored by the SEC itself, noted that investment advisers were generally compensated on the basis of a fixed percentage of the fund’s assets, rather than on services rendered or actual expenses. Securities and Exchange Commission, Public Policy Implications of Investment Company Growth, H. R. Rep. No. 2337, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 89 (1966) (hereinafter SEC Report). The Commission determined that, as a fund’s assets grew, this form of payment could produce unreasonable fees in light of the economies of scale realized in managing a larger portfolio. Id., at 94, 102. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that lawsuits by security holders challenging the reasonableness of adviser fees had been largely ineffective due to the standards employed by courts to judge the fees. Id., at 132-143. See infra, at 540, and n. 12.
In order to remedy this and other perceived inadequacies in the Act, the SEC submitted a series of legislative proposals to Congress that led to the 1970 Amendments to the Act. Some of the proposals Congress ultimately adopted were intended to make the fund’s board of directors more independent of the adviser and to encourage greater scrutiny of adviser contracts. See, e. g., 15 U. S. C. §80a-10(a) (1982 ed.) (requiring that at least 40% of the directors not be “interested persons,” a broader category than the previously identified group of persons “affiliated” with the adviser, see §80a-2(a)(19)); §80a-15(c) (requiring independent directors as well as shareholders to approve adviser contracts); Burks v. Lasker, supra, at 482-483. The SEC had, however, determined that approval of adviser contracts by shareholders and independent directors could not alone provide complete protection of the interests of security holders with respect to adviser compensation. See SEC Report, at 128-131, 144, 146-147. Accordingly, the Commission also proposed amending the Act to require “reasonable” fees. Id., at 143-147. As initially considered by Congress, the bill containing this proposal would have empowered the SEC to bring actions to enforce the reasonableness standard and to intervene in any similar action brought by or on behalf of the company. H. R. 9510, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., §8(d) (1967); S. 1659, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., §8(d) (1967).
Representatives of the investment company industry, led by amicus Investment Company Institute (ICI), expressed concern that enabling the SEC to enforce the fairness of adviser fees might in essence provide the Commission with ratemaking authority. Accordingly, ICI proposed an alternative to the SEC bill which would have provided that actions to enforce the reasonableness standard “be brought only by the company or a security holder thereof on its behalf.” Mutual Fund Legislation of 1967: Hearings on S. 1659 before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, pp. 100-101 (1967) (hereinafter 1967 Hearings). The version that the Senate finally passed, however, rejected the industry’s suggestion that the investment company itself be expressly authorized to bring suit. S. 3724, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., §8(d)(6) (1968). Instead, the Senate bill required a security holder to make demand on the SEC before bringing suit and provided that, if the Commission refused or failed to bring an action within six months, the security holder could maintain a suit against the adviser in a “derivative” or representative capacity. Ibid. Like the original SEC proposal, however, the Senate bill provided that the SEC could intervene in any action brought by the company or by a security holder on its behalf. Id., §22.
After the bill was reintroduced in the 91st Congress, further hearings and consultations with the industry led to the present version of §86(b). See S. 2224, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., §20(b) (1969); 115 Cong. Rec. 13648 (1969) (statement of Sen. McIntyre). The new version adopted “a different method of testing management compensation.” S. Rep. No. 91-184, p. 5 (1969). Instead of containing a statutory standard of “reasonableness,” the new version imposed a “fiduciary duty” on investment advisers. Id., at 5-6. The new bill further provided that “either the SEC or a shareholder may sue in court on a complaint that a mutual fund’s management fees involve a breach of fiduciary duty.” Id., at 7. The reference in the previous bill to the derivative or representative nature of the security holder action was eliminated, as was the earlier provision for intervention by the SEC in actions brought by the investment company itself. See S. 2224, supra, §22.
In short, Congress rejected a proposal that would have expressly made the statutory standard governing adviser fees enforceable by the investment company itself and adopted in its place a provision containing none of the indications in earlier drafts that the company could bring such a suit. This legislative history strongly suggests that, in adopting § 36(b), Congress did not intend to create an implied right of action in favor of the investment company.
That conclusion is further supported by the purposes of the statute. As noted above, the SEC proposed the predecessor to § 86(b) because of its concern that the structural requirements for investment companies imposed by the Act would not alone ensure reasonable adviser fees. See supra, at 538. Indeed, the Commission concluded that the Act’s provisions for independent directors and approval of adviser contracts had actually frustrated effective challenges to adviser fees. In particular, the Commission noted that in the three fully litigated cases in which security holders had attacked such fees under state law, the courts had relied on the approval of adviser contracts by security holders or unaffiliated directors to uphold the fees. SEC Report, at 132-148. For this reason, the Senate Report proposing the final version of the statute noted that, while shareholder and directorial approval of the adviser’s contract is entitled to serious consideration by the court in a § 36(b) action, “such consideration would not be controlling in determining whether or not the fee encompassed a breach of fiduciary duty.” S. Rep. No. 91-184, at 15; see id., at 5. In contrast to its approach in other aspects of the 1970 Amendments, then, Congress decided not to rely solely on the fund’s directors to assure reasonable adviser fees, notwithstanding the increased disinterestedness of the board. See Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S., at 481-482, n. 10, and 484. See also SEC Report, at 146-148 (right of SEC and security holders to bring actions essential; although role of disinterested directors should be enhanced, “even a requirement that all of the directors of an externally managed investment company be persons unaffiliated with the company’s adviser-underwriter would not be an effective check on advisory fees and other forms of management compensation”). This policy choice strongly indicates that Congress intended security holder and SEC actions under § 36(b), on the one hand, and directorial approval of adviser contracts, on the other, to act as independent checks on excessive fees.
Nor do other factors on which we have relied to identify an implied cause of action support petitioners’ claim that the right asserted by a shareholder in a § 36(b) action could be enforced by the investment company. First, investment companies, as well as the investing public, are undoubtedly within “the class for whose especial benefit” § 36(b) was enacted, Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S., at 78 (emphasis in original); see n. 11, supra. Section §36(b)’s express provision for actions by security holders, however, ensures that, even if the company’s directors cannot bring an action in the fund’s name, the company’s rights under the statute can be fully vindicatéd by plaintiffs authorized to act on its behalf. For this reason, it is unnecessary to infer a right of action in favor of the corporation in order to serve the statute’s “broad remedial purposes.” Cf. Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U. S. 375, 386-387 (1983). See also Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U. S., at 13-15. Second, because § 36(b) creates an entirely new right, it was obviously not enacted “in a statutory context in which an implied private remedy [had] already been recognized by the courts.” Cf. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S., at 378; Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, supra, at 384-386. Third, a corporation’s rights against its directors or third parties with whom it has contracted are generally governed by state, not federal, law. Burks v. Lasker, supra, at 478. See Cort v. Ash, supra, at 78.
> f — (
A shareholder derivative action is an exception to the normal rule that the proper party to bring a suit on behalf of a corporation is the corporation itself, acting through its directors or a majority of its shareholders. Accordingly, Rule 23.1, which establishes procedures designed to prevent minority shareholders from abusing this equitable device, is addressed only to situations in which shareholders seek to enforce a right that “may properly be asserted” by the corporation itself. In contrast, as the language of § 36(b) indicates, Congress intended the fiduciary duty imposed on investment advisers by that statute to be enforced solely by security holders of the investment company and the SEC. It would be anomalous, therefore, to apply a Rule intended to prevent a shareholder from improperly suing in place of the corporation to a statute, like § 36(b), conferring a right which the corporation itself cannot enforce. It follows that Rule 23.1 does not apply to an action brought by a shareholder under § 36(b) of the Investment Company Act and that the plaintiff in such a case need not first make a demand upon the fund’s directors before bringing suit.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Weiss v. Temporary Investment Fund, Inc., 692 F. 2d 928 (CA3 1982), cert. pending, No. 82-1592; Grossman v. Johnson, 674 F. 2d 115 (CA1), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 838 (1982).
Section 36(b) of the ICA provides, in relevant part:
“For the purposes of this subsection, the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company or by the security holders thereof, to such investment adviser or any affiliated person of such investment adviser. An action may be brought under this subsection by the Commission, or by a security holder of such registered investment company on behalf of such company, against such investment adviser, or any affiliated person of such investment adviser, or any other person enumerated in subsection (a) of this section who has a fiduciary duty concerning such compensation or payments, for breach of fiduciary duty in respect of such compensation or payments paid by such registered investment company or by the security holders thereof to such investment adviser or person.” 15 U. S. C. §80a-35(b) (1982 ed.).
Section 36(b) goes on to provide, inter alia, that proof of a defendant’s misconduct is unnecessary, § 80a-35(b)(l), that approval by the board of directors or shareholders of the adviser’s compensation “shall be given such consideration by the court as is deemed appropriate under all the circumstances,” § 80a-35(b)(2), and that recovery is limited to actual damages for a period of one year prior to suit, § 80a-35(b)(3).
Rule 23.1 provides in full:
“In a derivative action brought by one or more shareholders or members to enforce a right of a corporation or of an unincorporated association, the corporation or association having failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it, the complaint shall be verified and shall allege (1) that the plaintiff was a shareholder or member at the time of the transaction of which he complains or that his share or membership thereafter devolved on him by operation of law, and (2) that the action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction on a court of the United States which it would otherwise not have. The complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. The derivative action may not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association. The action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to shareholders or members in such manner as the court directs.”
One commentator has explained that “the derivative suit may be viewed as the consolidation in equity of, on the one hand, a suit by the shareholder against the directors in their official capacity, seeking an affirmative order that they sue the alleged wrongdoers, and, on the other, a suit by the corporation against these wrongdoers.” Note, Demand on Directors and Shareholders as a Prerequisite to a Derivative Suit, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 746, 748 (1960). The Court in Hawes embraced this conception of the suit as consolidating “two causes of action,” 104 U. S., at 452, and referred throughout its opinion to a derivative action as “one in which the right of action [is] in the company,” id., at 455; see id., at 457 (cases impose limits on “the right of a stockholder to sue in cases where the corporation is the proper party to bring the suit”). See also Gorbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Co., 187 U. S. 455, 463 (1903) (describing rules governing derivative suits as limiting situations in which “a court of equity may... be called upon at the appeal of any single stockholder to compel the directors of the corporation to enforce every right which it may possess, irrespective of other considerations”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1272 (5th ed., 1979).
Shortly after Hawes was decided, the Court codified its requirements in Equity Rule 94, which provided:
“Every bill brought by one or more stockholders in a corporation, against the corporation and other parties, founded on rights which may properly be asserted by the corporation, must be verified by oath, and must contain an allegation that the plaintiff was a shareholder at the time of the transaction of which he complains, or that his share had devolved on him since by operation of law; and that the suit is not a collusive one to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction of a case of which it would not otherwise have cognizance. It must also set forth with particularity the efforts of the plaintiff to secure such action as he desires on the part of the managing directors or trustees, and, if necessary, of the shareholders, and the causes of his failure to obtain such action.” 104 U. S. ix-x (1882).
In 1912, the Court replaced the original Rule with Equity Rule 27, identical to its predecessor except that it added at the very end the phrase “or the reasons for not making such effort.” 226 U. S., Appendix, p. 8. This language was apparently intended to codify a judicially recognized exception to the old Rule in certain circumstances where, in the discretion of the court, a demand may be excused. See Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Albany & Susquehanna R. Co., 213 U. S. 435 (1909).
When the Federal Rules were promulgated in 1937, the provisions of Equity Rule 27 were substantially restated in Rule 23(b). See 3B J. Moore & J. Kennedy, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶23.1.15[1], p. 23.1-10 (2d ed. 1982). Finally, in 1966, the present version of new Rule 23.1 was adopted as part of a comprehensive revision of the Rules governing class actions. See id., ¶23.1.01, p. 23.1-3.
In particular, the Court required the complaint in a derivative suit to allege that the plaintiff “was a shareholder at the time of the transactions of which he complains, or that his shares have devolved on him since by operation of law, and that the suit is not a collusive one to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction in a case of which it could otherwise have no cognizance....” 104 U. S., at 461. The second of these requirements was clearly meant to discourage efforts to bring disputes between a company and citizens of the State of incorporation within the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. See supra, at 530; 3B J. Moore & J. Kennedy, supra, ¶ 23.1.15[1], p. 23.1-14. Although the first requirement may also have been intended to discourage contrived diversity suits, see id., ¶23.1.15[1], p. 23.1-15, it is now understood as generally “aimed at preventing the federal courts from being used to litigate purchased grievances.” 7A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1828, pp. 341-342 (1972).
Like the requirements adopted in Hawes, the two major features of Rule 23.1 added since that decision — the requirement that the plaintiff “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association” and the provision requiring notice and court approval of settlements — are also intended to prevent shareholders from suing in place of the corporation in circumstances where the action would disserve the legitimate interests of the company or its shareholders. See generally 7A C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, §§ 1833 and 1839; 3B J. Moore & J. Kennedy, supra, ¶¶23.1.16[3] and 23.1.24.
Although the Court in Hawes imposed a direct requirement that shareholders make demand on directors before bringing suit, 104 U. S., at 460-461, Rule 23.1 as presently written requires only that a shareholder’s “complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
As the District Court below observed, this is now the 12th round of judicial review in a murder case which began 11 years ago. Yet despite having had 11 years to produce exculpatory evidence, Coleman has produced what, in the words of the District Court, does not even amount to a “colorable showing of ‘actual innocence.’” Civ. Action No. 92-0352-R (WD Va., May 12, 1992), p. 19. We are hardly well positioned to second-guess the District Court’s factual conclusion — we certainly have no basis for concluding that Coleman has produced “substantial evidence that he may be innocent.” Post, at 189 (emphasis added). Indeed, a good deal of Coleman’s effort in this latest round is devoted to an attempt to undermine an expert’s genetic analysis that further implicated him in the crime — an analysis conducted after trial at Coleman’s request under the supervision of the Commonwealth’s courts.
Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, Coleman’s claim is far from “substantially identical” to that of Leonel Herrera, see Herrera v. Collins, No. 91-7328, cert. granted, 502 U. S. 1085 (1992). In Herrera the District Court concluded that the evidence of innocence warranted further inquiry. See 954 F. 2d 1029 (CA5 1992), Here, in contrast, the District Court reviewed Coleman’s claim of innocence and rejected it on the merits.
The application for stay of execution presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the full Court is denied.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens concurs in the denial of a stay and would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether international air carriers lose the benefit of the limitation on damages for passenger injury or death provided by the multilateral treaty known as the Warsaw Convention if they fail to provide notice of that limitation in the 10-point type size required by a private accord among carriers, the Montreal Agreement.
I
On September 1, 1983, over the Sea of Japan, a military aircraft of the Soviet Union destroyed a Korean Air Lines, Ltd. (KAL), Boeing 747 en route from Kennedy Airport in New York to Seoul, South Korea. All 269 persons on board the plane perished. Survivors of the victims filed wrongful-death actions against KAL in several Federal District Courts, all of which were transferred for pretrial proceedings to the District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1407. All parties agree that their rights are governed by the Warsaw Convention, a multilateral treaty governing the international carriage of passengers, baggage, and cargo by air. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, T. S. No. 876 (1934), reprinted in note following 49 U. S. C. App. § 1502.
The present controversy centers on the per passenger damages limitation for personal injury or death. This was fixed at approximately $8,300 by the Convention, but was raised to $75,000 by the Montreal Agreement, an agreement among carriers executed (and approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)) in 1966, and joined by KAL in 1969. Agreement Relating to Liability Limitations of the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol, CAB Agreement 18900, note following 49 U. S. C. App. § 1502 (approved by CAB Order E-23680, May 13, 1966, 31 Fed. Reg. 7302). In addition to providing for a higher damages limitation, this agreement required carriers to give passengers written notice of the Convention’s damage limitations in print size no smaller than 10-point type. The notice of the Convention’s liability rules printed on KAL’s passenger tickets for the flight in question here appeared in only 8-point type. By motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiffs sought a declaration that this discrepancy deprived KAL of the benefit of the damages limitation.
On July 25, 1985, the District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion, finding that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement prescribes that the sanction for failure to provide the required form of notice is the elimination of the damages limitation. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 664 F. Supp. 1463. Its opinion specifically considered and rejected contrary Second Circuit precedent. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 14, 1980, 705 F. 2d 85, cert. denied sub nom. Polskie Linie Lotnicze v. Robles, 464 U. S. 845 (1983). On September 24, 1985, the District Court certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) (1982 ed., Supp. IV) the question whether KAL “is entitled to avail itself of the limitation of damages provided by the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Agreement despite its defective tickets.” The District of Columbia Circuit allowed the appeal and (following a remand of the record for clarification of the scope of the District Court’s order) affirmed, adopting the District Court’s opinion in full. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 265 U. S. App. D. C. 39, 829 F. 2d 1171 (1987). We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 986 (1988), to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. (In addition to the Second Circuit, the Fifth is in disagreement with the District of Columbia Circuit’s resolution here. See In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana, on July 9, 1982, 789 F. 2d 1092 (1986), reinstated, 821 F. 2d 1147 (1987) (en banc).)
II
Petitioners concede that by itself the Montreal Agreement imposes no sanction for failure to comply with its 10-point type requirement. They argue, however, that such a requirement is created by reading the Montreal Agreement in conjunction with the Warsaw Convention. This argument proceeds in two steps. First, petitioners assert that Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention removes the protection of limited liability if a carrier fails to provide adequate notice of the Convention’s liability limitation in its passenger tickets. Second, they contend that the Montreal Agreement’s 10-point type requirement supplies the standard of adequate notice under Article 3. Because we reject the first point, we need not reach the second.
Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention provides:
“(1) For the transportation of passengers the carriers must deliver a passenger ticket which shall contain the following particulars:
“(a) The place and date of issue;
“(b) The place of departure and of destination;
“(c) The agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of necessity, and that if he exercises that right, the alteration shall not have the effect of depriving the transportation of its international character;
“(d) The name and address of the carrier or carriers;
“(e) A statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.
“(2) The absence, irregularity, or loss of the passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.”
Although Article 3(1)(e) specifies that a passenger ticket shall contain “[a] statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention,” nothing in Article 3 or elsewhere in the Convention imposes a sanction for failure to provide an “adequate” statement. The only sanction in Article 3 appears in the second clause of Article 3(2), which subjects a carrier to unlimited liability if it “accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered.” Several courts have equated nondelivery of a ticket, for purposes of this provision, with the delivery of a ticket in a form that fails to provide adequate notice of the Warsaw limitation. See In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana, on July 9, 1982, supra; In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 11, 1980, 705 F. 2d 85 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Polskie Linie Lotnicze v. Robles, 464 U. S. 845 (1983); Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft v. CAB, 156 U. S. App. D. C. 191, 196-197, 479 F. 2d 912, 917-918 (1973); Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S. p. A., 370 F. 2d 508 (CA2 1966), aff’d by equally divided Court, 390 U. S. 455 (1968); Egan v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., 21 N. Y. 2d 160, 234 N. E. 2d 199 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 1039 (1968). See also Warren v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 352 F. 2d 494 (CA9 1965) (conditioning liability limitation upon delivery of tickets in such manner as to afford passengers a reasonable opportunity to take measures to protect against liability limitation); Mertens v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 341 F. 2d 851 (CA2) (same), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 816 (1965). But see Ludecke v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 98 D. L. R. 3d 52, 57 (Can. 1979) (rejecting the view of the American cases).
We cannot accept this interpretation. All that the second sentence of Article 3(2) requires in order to avoid its sanction is the “delivery]” of “a passenger ticket.” Expanding this to mean “a passenger ticket in compliance with the requirements of this Convention” is rendered implausible by the first sentence of Article 3(2), which specifies that “[t]he . . . irregularity ... of the passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention.” It is clear from this (1) that an “irregularity” does not prevent a document from being a “passenger ticket”; and (2) that an “irregularity” in a passenger ticket does not eliminate the contractual damages limitation provided for by the Convention. “Irregularity” means the “[qjuality or state of not conforming to rule or law,” Webster’s Second International Dictionary (1950), and in the present context the word must surely refer to the rules established by the Convention, including the notice requirement. Thus, a delivered document does not fail to qualify as a “passenger ticket,” and does not cause forfeiture of the damages limitation, merely because it contains a defective notice. When Article 3(2), after making this much clear, continues (in the second sentence) “Nevertheless, if a carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered, etc.,” it can only be referring to the carrier’s failure to deliver any document whatever, or its delivery of a document whose shortcomings are so extensive that it cannot reasonably be described as a “ticket” (for example, a mistakenly delivered blank form, with no data filled in). Quite obviously, the use of 8-point type instead of 10-point type for the liability limitation notice is not a shortcoming of such magnitude; indeed, one might well select that as a polar example of what could not possibly prevent a document from being a ticket.
Besides being incompatible with the language of the Convention, the proposition that, for purposes of Article 3(2), delivering a defective ticket is equivalent to failure to deliver a ticket, produces absurd results. It may seem reasonable enough that a carrier “shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability” when the ticket defect consists precisely of a failure to give the passenger proper notice of those provisions. But there is no textual basis for limiting the “defective-ticket-is-no-ticket” principle to that particular defect. Thus, the liability limitation would also be eliminated if the carrier failed to comply, for example, with the requirement of Article 3(1 )(d) that the ticket contain the address of the carrier.
The conclusion that defective compliance with the notice provision does not eliminate the liability limitation is confirmed by comparing Article 3(2) with other provisions of the Convention. Article 3 is a part of Chapter II of the Convention, entitled “Transportation Documents.” Just as Section I of that Chapter (which includes Article 3) specifies what information must be included in passenger tickets, Sections II and III specify what information must be included in, respectively, baggage checks and air waybills for cargo. All three sections require, in identical terms, “[a] statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.” Articles 3(l)(eJ, 4(2)(h), 8(q). All three sections also provide, again in identical terms, that if the relevant document (ticket, baggage check, or air waybill) has not been delivered (or, in the case of air waybill, “made out”), the carrier “shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.” Articles 3(2), 4(4), and 9. But, unlike Section I, Sections II and III also specifically impose the latter sanction for failure to include in the documents certain particulars, including (though not limited to) the notice of liability limitation. Sections II and III thus make doubly clear what the text of Article 3(2) already indicates: that delivery of a defective document is something quite different from failure to deliver a document. And given the parallel structures of these provisions it would be a flouting of the text to imply in Section I a sanction not only withheld there but explicitly granted elsewhere. When such an interpretation is allowed, the art of draftsmanship will have become obsolete.
Petitioners and the United States as amicus curiae seek to explain the variance between Section I and Sections II and III (as well as the clear text of Article 3) as a drafting error, and lead us through the labyrinth of the Convention’s drafting history in an effort to establish this point. It would be absurd, they urge, for defective notice to eliminate liability limits on baggage and air freight but not on personal injury and death. Perhaps not. It might have been thought, by the representatives from diverse countries who drafted the Convention in 1925 and 1929 (an era when even many States of this country had relatively low limits on wrongful-death recovery) that the $8,300 maximum liability established for personal injury or death was a “fair” recovery in any event, so that even if the defective notice caused the passenger to forgo the purchase of additional insurance, he or his heirs would be treated with rough equity in any event. Cf. C. McCormick, Law of Damages § 104 (1935) (“In about one-third of the states, a fixed limit upon the recovery under the Death Act is imposed in the statute. The usual limit is $10,000, but in some instances the maximum is $7,500 or $5,000”). Quite obviously, however, the limitation of liability for baggage and freight (about $16.50 per kilogram, see Article 22(2)) was not set with an eye to fair value (the very notion of a “fair” average value of goods per kilogram is absurd), but perhaps with an eye to fair level of liability in relation to profit on the carriage — so that the shipper of lost goods misled by the inadequate notice would not be compensated equitably. Another possible explanation for the difference in treatment is that the limitations on liability prescribed for baggage and freight are much more substantial and thus notice of them is much more important. They include not just a virtually nominal monetary limit, but also total exclusion of liability for “an error in piloting, in the handling of the aircraft, or in navigation.” Article 20. Or perhaps the difference in treatment can be traced to a belief that people were much more likely, if adequate notice was given, to purchase additional insurance on goods than on their own lives — not only because baggage and freight are lost a lot more frequently than passengers, but also because the Convention itself establishes, in effect, an insurance-purchasing counter at the airport for baggage and freight, providing that if the consignor makes “a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires,” the carrier will be liable for actual value up to the declared sum. Article 22(2); see also Articles 4(g), 8(to).
These estimations of what the drafters might have had in mind are of course speculation, but they suffice to establish that the result the text produces is not necessarily absurd, and hence cannot be dismissed as an obvious drafting error. We must thus be governed by the text — solemnly adopted by the governments of many separate nations — whatever conclusions might be drawn from the intricate drafting history that petitioners and the United States have brought to our attention. The latter may of course be consulted to elucidate a text that is ambiguous, see, e. g., Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392 (1985). But where the text is clear, as it is here, we have no power to insert an amendment. As Justice Story wrote for the Court more than a century and a half ago:
“[T]o alter, amend, or add to any treaty, by inserting any clause, whether small or great, important or trivial, would be on our part an usurpation of power, and not an exercise of judicial functions. It would be to make, and not to construe a treaty. Neither can this Court supply a casus omissus in a treaty, any more than in a law. We are to find out the intention of the parties by just rules of interpretation applied to the subject matter; and having found that, our duty is to follow it as far as it goes, and to stop where that stops — whatever may be the imperfections or difficulties which it leaves behind.” The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat. 1, 71 (1821).
For the reasons given above, we agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, see Ludecke v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 98 D. L. R. 3d 52 (1979), that the Warsaw Convention does not eliminate the limitation on damages for passenger injury or death as a sanction for failure to provide adequate notice of that limitation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District of Columbia Circuit.
So ordered.
The relevant portion of the Montreal Agreement provides:
“2. Each carrier shall, at the time of delivery of the ticket, furnish to each passenger whose transportation is governed by the Convention . . . the following notice, which shall be printed in type at least as large as 10 point and in ink contrasting with the stock on (i) each ticket; (ii) a piece of paper either placed in the ticket envelope with the ticket or attached to the ticket; or (iii) on the ticket envelope:
“ADVICE TO INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
“Passengers on a journey involving an ultimate destination or a stop in a country other than the country of origin are advised that the provisions of a treaty known as the Warsaw Convention may be applicable to the entire journey, including any portion entirely within the country of origin or destination. For such passengers on a journey to, from, or with an agreed stopping place in the United States of America, the Convention and special contracts of carriage embodied in applicable tariffs provide that the liability of certain (name the carrier) and certain other[*] carriers parties to such special contracts for death of or personal injury to passengers is limited in most cases to proven damages not to exceed US $75,000 per passenger, and that this liability up to such limit shall not depend on negligence on the part of the carrier. For such passengers travelling by a carrier not a party to such special contracts or on a journey not to, from, or having an agreed stopping place in the United States of America, liability of the carrier for death or personal injury to passengers is limited in most cases to approximately US $8,290 or US $16,580.
“The names of Carriers parties to such special contracts are available at all ticket offices of such carriers and may be examined on request.
“Additional protection can usually be obtained by purchasing insurance from a private company. Such insurance is not affected by any limitation of the carrier’s liability under the Warsaw Convention or such special contracts of carriage. For further information please consult your airline or insurance company representative.
“[*] Either alternative may be used.” Aeronautical Statutes and Related Materials 515 (compiled by Office of General Counsel, CAB, 1974).
For a similar reason, we need not discuss Department of Transportation (formerly CAB) Economic Regulation Part 221, 14 CFR §221.175(a) (1988), which was originally promulgated in 1963, before the Montreal Agreement, and which contains a similar requirement of 10-point type. This imports no sanctions of its own except a civil penalty, see 49 U. S. C. App. § 1471. Thus, even if (per impossibile) the Executive Branch could unilaterally prescribe what adequate notice under an international treaty consists of, the sanction of invalidating the damages limitations would still be lacking.
Justice Beennan accuses us of being “disingenuous” in saying that this is the only possible reading of Article 3. In the single paragraph supporting this accusation, he offers two arguments to show that Article 3 is “surely susceptible,” post, at 137, of another interpretation. First, he thinks it “not at all unreasonable to read the term ‘passenger ticket,’ when used ... in Article 3(2)” to mean, not what it meant in Article 3(1), but rather to be a “shorthand for [the] longer phrase” consisting of all the requirements that Article 3(1) says a passenger ticket must contain. It seems to us that this suggested reading is unreasonable — not only because no sensible draftsman would use such strange “shorthand” instead of referring, in Article 3(2), to “such a passenger ticket” rather than simply “passenger ticket,” but also because the result produced by the suggested reading is nonsensical. The effect of the concurrence’s exegesis can be assessed by substituting for the phrase “the passenger ticket” in Article 3(2) the phrase “a regular passenger ticket” — by which we mean (as does the concurrence) a ticket in full compliance with Article 3(1). The first sentence of Article 3(2) then reads, in relevant part: “The . . . irregularity. . . of a regular passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation.” The only way out of this absurdity is to posit that by “irregularity” Article 3(2) means something other than failure to comply with all the requirements of Article 3(1) — but there is no plausible “something other.”
Justice Brennan’s second argument is that the first sentence of Article 3(2) “quite clearly,” post, at 137 (emphasis in original), does not have the meaning we have described. As he reads that sentence, when it says that an irregular ticket “shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention” it means to include among those “rules” the rule of the second sentence, that (as he interprets it) if a “regular passenger ticket” is not delivered the rule limiting liability does not apply. Though this is put forward as a separate argument, it obviously assumes the correctness of the first one, since if “passenger ticket” in the second sentence does not mean a “regular passenger ticket” the “rule” of that second sentence does not apply to the delivery of an “irregular” ticket, as opposed to the delivery of no ticket at all. Quite apart from that flaw, however, it is impossible to read the second sentence as setting forth a “rule” that is included among the “rules” referred to in the first sentence, because that second sentence begins with the word “Nevertheless,” It sets forth an exception to the operation of the first sentence — not a specification of something already included within it. The latter would be conveyed, not by a new sentence beginning “Nevertheless,” but by a new clause beginning “including the rule that.” As written, the second sentence plainly conveys the meaning that if the reason for the “absence” of a passenger ticket (covered by the first sentence) is that a passenger ticket was never delivered, the carrier shall “nevertheless” — despite the first sentence — be unable to avail himself of the rules excluding or limiting liability.
We may note that the alternative interpretation the concurrence believes it sees in the text — which would render the omission of any single particular listed in Article 3(1) a basis for imposing the sanction of the second sentence of Article 3(2) — is evidently not an interpretation that the concurrence itself is prepared to adopt, since it finds that to have been quite plainly rejected by the drafters. See post, at 146-147. Ultimately, then, even on its own terms the concurrence does not use the drafting history to resolve an ambiguity but rather to depart from any possible reading of the Treaty.
The relevant provisions of Sections II and III are as follows:
“SECTION II. BAGGAGE CHECK
“Article U
“(3) The baggage check shall contain the following particulars:
“(a) The place and date of issue;
“(b) The place of departure and of destination;
‘Yc) The name and address of the carrier or carriers;
“(d) The number of the passenger ticket;
“(e) A statement that delivery of the baggage will be made to the bearer of the baggage check;
“(f) The number and weight of the packages;
“(g) The amount of the value declared in accordance with article 22(2);
“(h) A statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.
“(4) The absence, irregularity, or loss of the baggage check shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts baggage without a baggage cheek having been delivered, or if the baggage check does not contain the particulars set out at (d), (f), and (h) above, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of the convention which exclude or limit his liability.
“SECTION III. AIR WAYBILL
“Article 8
“The air waybill shall contain the following particulars:
“(a) The place and date of its execution;
“(b) The place of departure and of destination;
“(c) The agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of necessity, and that if he exercies that right the alteration shall not have the effect of depriving the transportation of its international character.
“(d) The name and address of the consignor;
“(e) The name and address of the first carrier;
“(f) The name and address of the consignee, if the case so requires;
“(g) The nature of the goods;
“(h) The number of packages, the method of packing, and the particular marks or numbers upon them;
“(i) The weight, the quantity, the volume, or dimensions of the goods; “(j) The apparent condition of the goods and of the packing;
“(k) The freight, if it has been agreed upon, the date and place of payment, and the person who is to pay it;
“(l) If the goods are sent for payment on delivery, the price of the goods, and, if the case so requires, the amount of the expenses incurred; “(m) The amount of the value declared in accordance with article 22(2); “(n) The number of parts of the air waybill;
“(o) The documents handed to the carrier to accompany the air waybill; “(p) The time fixed for the completion of the transportation and a brief note of the route to be followed, if these matters have been agreed upon;
“(q) A statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.
“Article 9
“If the carrier accepts goods without an air waybill having been made out, or if the air waybill does not contain all the particulars set out in article 8 (a) to (i), inclusive, and (q), the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.”
Even if the text were less clear, its most natural meaning could properly be contradicted only by clear drafting history. It is interesting, therefore, that the concurrence, after performing the examination we consider inappropriate, concludes that it is “impossible to say with certainty what the treatymakers at Warsaw intended.” Post, at 146. One would think that would be enough to cause the concurrence to resort to the treaty’s text. Instead, however, the concurrence shifts to an entirely different mode of analysis — one that it could as well have employed at the outset were it not intent upon demonstrating the technique of pursuing drafting history to a dead end. In its last four pages, the concurrence assumes for the sake of argument that there is an “adequate notice” requirement in the Warsaw Convention — an assumption that it justifies by the fact that “[c]ourts in this country have generally read [such a] requirement into the Warsaw Convention.” Post, at 149. Of course they have read in such a requirement, and of course determining the validity of doing so — rather than assuming it — was the very reason we selected this case for review. The object of our granting writs of certiorari on points of statutory or treaty interpretation is to determine the correctness of fundamental points that lower courts have resolved, not to assume those points to be correct in order to decide particular cases on reasoning useless elsewhere. The concurrence’s analysis provides guidance in all cases where notice of liability limitation is provided in 8-point rather than 10-point type. Four-point type, we are told, “may well” yield a different result, see post, at 150— always assuming, of course (what the concurrence does not venture to decide) that the Convention contains an “adequate notice” requirement. As for 6-point type, we have no hint whether that might entail liability — if there is any liability for inadequate notice. We choose not to follow a mode of analysis that seems a wasteful expenditure of this Court’s time.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine whether petitioners’ state-law tort claims for defective design and failure to warn are pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U. S. C. §20701 et seq. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that petitioners’ claims fall within the field pre-empted by that Act, as that field was defined by this Court’s decision in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U. S. 605 (1926). We agree.
I
George Corson was employed as a welder and machinist by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad from 1947 until 1974. Corson worked in locomotive repair and maintenance facilities, where his duties included installing brakeshoes on locomotives and stripping insulation from locomotive boilers. In 2005, Corson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.
In 2007, Corson and his wife filed suit in Pennsylvania state court against 59 defendants, including respondents Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) and Viad Corp (Viad). According to the complaint, RFPC distributed locomotive brakeshoes containing asbestos, and Viad was the successor-in-interest to a company that manufactured and sold locomotives and locomotive engine valves containing asbestos. Corson alleged that he handled this equipment and that he was injured by exposure to asbestos. The complaint asserted state-law claims that the equipment was defectively designed because it contained asbestos, and that respondents failed to warn of the dangers of asbestos or to provide instructions regarding its safe use. After the complaint was filed, Corson passed away, and the executrix of his estate, Gloria Kurns, was substituted as a party. Corson’s widow and the executrix are petitioners here.
Respondents removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and moved for summary judgment. Respondents argued that petitioners’ state-law claims were pre-empted by the LIA. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment for respondents. See Kurns v. A. W. Chesterton, Civ. Action No. 08-2216 (ED Pa., Feb. 3, 2009), App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a. The Third Circuit affirmed. See Kurns v. A. W. Chesterton Inc., 620 F. 3d 392 (2010). We granted certiorari. 563 U. S. 1032 (2011).
II
Congress enacted the predecessor to the LIA, the Boiler Inspection Act (BIA), in 1911. The BIA made it unlawful to use a steam locomotive “unless the boiler of said locomotive and appurtenances thereof are in proper condition and safe to operate ... without unnecessary peril to life or limb.” Act of Feb. 17, 1911, ch. 103, §2, 36 Stat. 913-914. In 1915, Congress amended the BIA to apply to “the entire locomotive and tender and all parts and appurtenances thereof.” Act of Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 169, § 1, 38 Stat. 1192. The BIA as amended became commonly known as the Locomotive Inspection Act. As relevant here, the LIA provides:
“A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a locomotive or tender on its railroad line only when the locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances—
“(1) are in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury;
“(2) have been inspected as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter; and
“(3) can withstand every test prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter.” 49 U. S. C. §20701.
The issue presented in this case is whether the LIA preempts petitioners’ state-law claims that respondents defectively designed locomotive parts and failed to warn Corson of dangers associated with those parts. In light of this Court’s prior decision in Napier, supra, we conclude that petitioners’ claims are pre-empted.
Ill
A
The Supremacy Clause provides that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land .. . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Pre-emption of state law thus occurs through the “direct operation of the Supremacy Clause.” Brown v. Hotel Employees, 468 U. S. 491, 501 (1984). Congress may, of course, expressly pre-empt state law, but “[e]ven without an express provision for preemption, we have found that state law must yield to a congressional Act in at least two circumstances.” Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U. S. 363, 372 (2000). First, “state law is naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.” Ibid. Second, we have deemed state law pre-empted “when the scope of a [federal] statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to occupy a field exclusively.” Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U. S. 280, 287 (1995). We deal here only with the latter, so-called field pre-emption.
B
We do not, however, address the LIA’s pre-emptive effect on a clean slate, because this Court addressed that issue 85 years ago in Napier. In that case, railroads challenged two state laws that “prohibited] use within the State of locomotives not equipped with” certain prescribed devices, on the ground that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the agency then vested with the authority to carry out the LIA’s requirements, had not required the devices in question. 272 U. S., at 607, 609. In response, the States argued that their requirements were not pre-empted because they were directed at a different objective than the LIA. Id., at 612. According to the States, their regulations were intended to protect railroad workers from sickness and disease, whereas “the federal regulation endeavors solely to prevent accidental injury in the operation of trains.” Ibid.
To determine whether the state requirements were preempted, this Court asked whether the LIA “manifest[s] the intention to occupy the entire field of regulating locomotive equipment.” Id., at 611. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, stating that “[t]he broad scope of the authority conferred upon the [ICC]” by Congress in the LIA led to that conclusion. Id., at 613. The power delegated to the ICC, the Court explained, was a “general one” that “extends to the design, the construction and the material of every part of the locomotive and tender and of all appurtenances.” Id., at 611.
The Court rejected the States’ contention that the scope of the pre-empted field was to “be determined by the object sought through the legislation, rather than the physical elements affected by it.” Id., at 612. The Court found it dis-positive that “[t]he federal and the state statutes are directed to the same subject — the equipment of locomotives.” Ibid. Because the States’ requirements operated upon the same physical elements as the LIA, the Court held that the state laws, “however commendable or however different their purpose,” id., at 613, fell within the LIA’s pre-empted field.
> i — I
Against the backdrop of Napier, petitioners advance two arguments in support of their position that their state-law claims related to the use of asbestos in locomotive equipment do not fall within the LIA’s pre-empted field. Petitioners first contend that Napier no longer defines the scope of the LIA’s pre-empted field because that field has been narrowed by a subsequently enacted federal statute. Alternatively, petitioners argue that their claims do not fall within the LIA’s pre-empted field, even as that field was defined by Napier. We address each of petitioners’ arguments in turn.
A
First, petitioners suggest that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA), 84 Stat. 971 (codified at 49 U. S. C. §20102 et seq.), altered the LIA’s pre-emptive scope. The FRSA grants the Secretary of Transportation broad regulatory authority over railroad safety. See § 20103(a). Petitioners point to the FRSA’s pre-emption provision, which provides in part that “[a] State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety ... until the Secretary of Transportation ... prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement.” § 20106(a)(2) (2006 ed., Supp. IV). According to petitioners, the FRSA’s pre-emption provision supplanted the LIA’s pre-emption of the field, with the result that petitioners’ claims are not pre-empted because the Secretary has not issued a regulation or order addressing the use of asbestos in locomotives or locomotive parts.
Petitioners’ reliance on the FRSA is misplaced. The FRSA instructs that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation, as necessary, shall prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety supplementing laws and regulations in effect on October 16, 1970.” § 20103(a) (2006 ed.) (emphasis added). By its terms, the FRSA does not alter pre-existing federal statutes on railroad safety. “Rather, it leaves existing statutes intact,... and authorizes the Secretary to fill interstitial areas of railroad safety with supplemental regulation.” Marshall v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 720 F. 2d 1149, 1152-1153 (CA9 1983) (Kennedy, J.). Because the LIA was already in effect when the FRSA was enacted, we conclude that the FRSA left the LIA, and its pre-emptive scope as defined by Napier, intact.
B
Since the LIA’s pre-emptive scope remains unaltered, petitioners must contend with Napier. Petitioners do not ask us to overrule Napier and thus do not seek to overcome the presumption of stare decisis that attaches to this 85-year-old precedent. See Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U. S. 754, 765 (2011) (noting the “special force of the doctrine of stare decisis with regard to questions of statutory interpretation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Instead, petitioners advance several arguments aimed at demonstrating that their claims fall outside of the field preempted by the LIA, as it was defined in Napier. Each is unpersuasive.
1
Petitioners, along with the Solicitor General as amicus curiae, first argue that petitioners’ claims do not fall within the LIA’s pre-empted field because the claims arise out of the repair and maintenance of locomotives, rather than the use of locomotives on a railroad line. Specifically, they contend that the scope of the field pre-empted by the LIA is coextensive with the scope of the Federal Government’s regulatory authority under the LIA, which, they argue, does not extend to the regulation of hazards arising from the repair or maintenance of locomotives. Therefore, the argument goes, state-law claims arising from repair or maintenance — as opposed to claims arising from use on the line — do not fall within the pre-empted field.
We reject this attempt to redefine the pre-empted field. In Napier, the Court held that Congress, in enacting the LIA, “manifested] the intention to occupy the entire field of regulating locomotive equipment,” and the Court did not distinguish between hazards arising from repair and maintenance as opposed to those arising from use on the line. 272 U. S., at 611. The pre-empted field as defined by Napier plainly encompasses the claims at issue here. Petitioners’ common-law claims for defective design and failure to warn are aimed at the equipment of locomotives. Because those claims “are directed to the same subject” as the LIA, Napier dictates that they fall within the pre-empted field. Id., at 612.
2
Petitioners farther argue that, even if their design-defect claims are pre-empted, their failure-to-warn claims do not suffer the same fate. In their complaint, petitioners alleged in closely related claims (1) that respondents negligently failed to warn of the risks associated with asbestos and to provide instructions concerning safeguards for working with asbestos; and (2) that the asbestos-containing products were defective because respondents failed to give sufficient warnings or instructions concerning the “risks, dangers, and harm inherent in said asbestos products.” See App. 20-27 (¶¶7-10, 12), 42 (¶8); see also Brief for Petitioners 11. According to petitioners, these claims do not fall within the LIA’s preempted field because “[t]he basis of liability for failure to warn ... is not the ‘design’ or ‘manufacture’ of a product,” but is instead “the failure to provide adequate warnings regarding the product’s risks.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 16.
.We disagree. A failure-to-warn claim alleges that the product itself is unlawfully dangerous unless accompanied by sufficient warnings or instructions. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(c) (1997) (A failure-to-warn claim alleges that a product is defective “when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, . . . and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe”); see also id., Comment l, at 33 (“Reasonable designs and instructions or warnings both play important roles in the production and distribution of reasonably safe products”). Thus, the “gravamen” of petitioners’ failure-to-warn claims “is still that [Corson] suffered harmful consequences as a result of his exposure to asbestos contained in locomotive parts and appurtenances.” 620 F. 3d, at 398, n. 8. Because petitioners’ failure-to-warn claims are therefore directed at the equipment of locomotives, they fall within the pre-empted field defined by Napier. 272 U. S., at 612.
3
Petitioners also contend that their state-law claims against manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive parts fall outside of the LIA’s pre-empted field because manufacturers were not regulated under the LIA at the time that Corson was allegedly exposed to asbestos. Petitioners point out that the LIA, as originally enacted in the BIA, subjected only common carriers to civil penalties. Act of Feb. 17,1911, § 9, 36 Stat. 916. It was not until 1988, well after the events of this case, that the LIA’s penalty provision was revised to apply to “[a]ny person” violating the LIA. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988, § 14(7)(A), 102 Stat. 633; see also §14(7)(B) (amending penalty provision to provide that “an act by an individual that causes a railroad to be in violation . . . shall be deemed a violation”).
This argument fails for the same reason as the two preceding arguments: It is inconsistent with Napier. Napier defined the field pre-empted by the LIA on the basis of the physical elements regulated — “the equipment of locomotives” — not on the basis of the entity directly subject to regulation. 272 U. S., at 612. Because petitioners’ claims are directed at the equipment of locomotives, they fall within the pre-empted field.
Petitioners’ proposed rule is also contrary to common sense. Under petitioners’ approach, a State could not require railroads to equip their locomotives with parts meeting state-imposed specifications, but could require manufacturers of locomotive parts to produce only parts meeting those state-imposed specifications. We rejected a similar approach in an express pre-emption context in Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dish, 541 U. S. 246 (2004). There, a state entity argued that its rules prohibiting the purchase or lease of vehicles that failed to meet stringent emissions requirements were not pre-empted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7543(a), because the rules in question were aimed at the purchase of vehicles, rather than their manufacture or sale. 541 U. S., at 248. We observed, however, that “treating sales restrictions and purchase restrictions differently for pre-emption purposes would make no sense,” because the “manufacturer’s right to sell federally approved vehicles is meaningless in the absence of a purchaser’s right to buy them.” Id., at 255. Similarly, a railroad’s ability to equip its fleet of locomotives in compliance with federal standards is meaningless if manufacturers are not allowed to produce locomotives and locomotive parts that meet those standards. Petitioners’ claims thus do not avoid pre-emption simply because they are aimed at the manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive parts.
4
Finally, petitioners contend that the LIA’s pre-emptive scope does not extend to state common-law claims, as opposed to state legislation or regulation. Petitioners note that “a preempted field does not necessarily include state common law.” Brief for Petitioners 38-39 (citing Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238 (1984); Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U. S. 51 (2002)). Napier, however, held that the LIA “occupied] the entire field of regulating locomotive equipment” to the exclusion of state regulation. 272 U. S., at 611-612. That categorical conclusion admits of no exception for state common-law duties and standards of care. As we have recognized, state “regulation can be . . . effectively exerted through an award of damages,” and “[t]he obligation to pay compensation can be, indeed is designed to be, a potent method of governing conduct and controlling policy.” San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 247 (1959). Cf. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U. S. 312, 324 (2008) (“Absent other indication, reference to a State’s ‘requirements’ [in a federal express pre-emption provision] includes its common-law duties”). We therefore conclude that state common-law duties and standards of care directed to the subject of locomotive equipment are preempted by the LIA.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that petitioners’ state-law design-defect and failure-to-warn claims fall within the field of locomotive equipment regulation pre-empted by the LIA, as that field was defined in Napier. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
A “tender” is “[a] car attached to a locomotive, for carrying a supply of fuel and water.” Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 2126 (1913).
At the time of Corson’s employment, this provision of the LIA was worded somewhat differently. See 45 U. S. C. § 23 (1946 ed.). Petitioners do not argue that the change in statutory language makes any difference in this case.
Act of Feb. 17, 1911, §6, 36 Stat. 915. That authority has since been transferred to the Secretary of Transportation. Department of Transportation Act, §§ 6(e)(1)(E) and (F), 80 Stat. 939; see 49 U.S.C. §§20701-20702.
Justice Sotomayor apparently agrees that petitioners’ failure-to-warn claims are directed at the equipment of locomotives. Post, at 644 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Yet, she argues, those claims affect locomotive equipment only “ ‘tangentially.’ ” Ibid, (quoting English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 85 (1990)). Not so. A failure-to-warn claim imposes liability on a particular design of locomotive equipment unless warnings deemed sufficient under state law are given. This duty to warn and the accompanying threat of liability will inevitably influence a manufacturer’s choice whether to use that particular design. By influencing design decisions in that manner, failure-to-warn liability has a “ ‘direct and substantial effect’ ” on the “physical equipment” of a locomotive. Post, at 644 (quoting English, supra, at 85).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 is a private treble damage action under the antitrust laws. Continental Ore Company, a partnership, and its individual partners, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, are petitioners here. Henry J. Leir, the principal party in Continental, had engaged in the buying and selling of metals, including vanadium products, in Europe prior to 1938, in which year he immigrated to the United States. This case concerns his subsequent efforts in this country to build a successful business in the production and sale of vanadium.
Vanadium is a metal obtained from certain ores which, in this country, are mined principally on the Colorado plateau. The ore is processed at mills near the mines into a substance commonly known as vanadium oxide. The oxide is then transported to the East and converted into ferrovanadium, which is purchased chiefly by steel companies for use as an alloy in hardening steels.
The defendants named in the complaint were Vanadium Corporation of America (VCA), a fully integrated miner and manufacturer of vanadium products, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation (Carbide), and the following four wholly owned subsidiary corporations of the latter company: United States Vanadium Corporation (USV), engaged in mining vanadium ore and processing vanadium oxide; Electro Metallurgical Company (Electro Met), engaged in making ferrovanadium; Electro Metallurgical Sales Corporation (Electro Met Sales), engaged in the sale of vanadium oxide and ferrovanadium; and Elec-tro Metallurgical Company of Canada, Ltd. (Electro Met of Canada), engaged in selling vanadium products in Canada. The complaint was filed on November 15, 1949, and service was had on VCA, Carbide and USV. There was no service on Electro Met, Electro Met Sales or Electro Met of Canada. Carbide acquired the assets of Electro Met and Electro Met Sales by dissolution or merger during the year 1949, prior to the filing of the complaint herein.
The complaint alleged that, beginning in about 1933, the defendants and others acting in concert with them violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrain, by monopolizing, and by attempting and conspiring to monopolize, trade and commerce in ferro-vanadium and vanadium oxide. The defendants were charged with purchasing and acquiring control over substantially all accessible vanadium-bearing ore deposits in the United States and substantially all vanadium oxide produced by others in the United States, with refusing to sell vanadium oxide to other potential producers of ferrovanadium, including Continental and its associates, with apportioning and dividing sales of ferrovanadium and vanadium oxide among themselves in certain proportions, with fixing identical prices for the sale of ferrovanadium and vanadium oxide and for the purchase of ore, and with making certain mutual arrangements whereby one or more Carbide subsidiaries supplied VCA with substantial quantities of vanadium oxide at preferential prices to VCA. The complaint stated that between 1933 and 1949 the defendants produced over 99% of all ferrovanadium and over 90% of all vanadium oxide produced in the United States and that during the same period the defendants sold over 99% of the ferro-vanadium and vanadium oxide sold in this country.
According to the complaint, as a proximate consequence of defendants’ monopolistic and restrictive practices, independent producers and distributors of ferrovanadium and vanadium oxide, including Continental, were eliminated from the business. Specifically, the complaint detailed several efforts which Continental made to enter and maintain itself in the vanadium business, all of which were allegedly frustrated by defendants’ Sherman Act violations: (1) In 1938, Continental negotiated a contract with Apex Smelting Company of Chicago whereby Apex was to build and operate a plant for the conversion of oxide to ferrovanadium by use of the aluminothermic process. Continental and Apex were to share the profits of this venture. On its part, Continental agreed to obtain raw materials for Apex and to sell the finished product. Operations under this contract began in the spring of 1940, but Apex terminated the agreement in 1942 allegedly because the illegal activities of defendants prevented the obtaining of a sufficient supply of vanadium oxide. (2) Meanwhile, Continental itself had begun to produce a compound called “Van-Ex,” composed of vanadium oxide and other materials, which was designed for direct introduction into the steel-making process without prior conversion to ferrovanadium. This venture was allegedly terminated in 1944 because of the difficulty of securing raw materials caused by defendants’ unlawful practices, including the efforts of defendants to obtain ownership or control of the mines and mills of Continental’s suppliers. (3) Continental had developed a business with a Canadian customer during 1942. When Electro Met Sales of Canada was appointed by the Canadian Government as the exclusive wartime agent to purchase and allocate vanadium for Canadian industries, that company, it is alleged, acting under the control and direction of its parent, Carbide, eliminated Continental entirely from the Canadian market and divided Continental’s business solely between defendants. (4) Defendants in 1943, by open threats of reprisals, allegedly frustrated certain arrangements which Continental had with the Climax Molybdenum Corporation for the manufacture of ferrovanadium. (5) In January 1944, Continental contracted with Imperial Paper & Color Corporation for the processing by the latter of vanadium oxide and ferrovanadium. Continental agreed to act as sales agent for the output. The complaint charged that Imperial abandoned the contract at the end of 1944 because of the inability to secure raw materials and that Continental then left the vanadium business altogether, all as a result of the restrictive and monopolistic practices of the defendants.
Trial was to a jury and a verdict was returned for defendants. Continental appealed, asserting error in the trial court’s exclusion of various evidentiary items, in certain of the instructions given to the jury, in the refusal to give other instructions, and in other rulings of the trial court. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit announced that its task was to review the correctness of the judgment below, not the reasons therefor, and on that basis affirmed the judgment, 289 F. 2d 86, holding that there was insufficient evidence to justify a jury finding that defendants’ illegal acts were in fact the cause of Continental’s failure in the vanadium business, and hence, that a verdict for defendants should have been directed. In reaching its decision, the court stated that it had considered not only all the evidence admitted by the trial judge, but also all the evidence offered by the plaintiffs which the trial judge excluded. The court did not deal with or rule upon any of the alleged trial errors relied upon by Continental, except for the issue relating to Continental’s alleged exclusion from the Canadian market. Certiorari was granted, limited to issues which required examination in the light of previous decisions of this Court and which presented important questions under the antitrust laws. 368 U. S. 886. We have concluded, for the reasons discussed hereafter, that the Court of Appeals’ decision must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
I.
The Court of Appeals was, of course, bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Continental and to give it the benefit of all inferences which the evidence fairly supports, even though contrary inferences might reasonably be drawn. From our examination of the rather extensive record, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals departed from this rule and erred in holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that respondents’ conduct in fact caused injury to Continental’s business.
Continental’s fundamental claim throughout was that inadequate supplies of vanadium oxide were available to it and its associates, and that respondents’ alleged Sherman Act violations caused or contributed to this shortage. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the principle in antitrust cases that “where the plaintiff proves a loss, and a violation by defendant of the antitrust laws of such a nature as to be likely to cause that type of loss, there are cases which say that the jury, as the trier of the facts, must be permitted to draw from this circumstantial evidence the inference that the necessary causal relation exists.” The court also assumed that the evidence was adequate to support a jury finding that respondents committed the alleged violations of the Sherman Act and that the specific acts charged to have been done by respondents were performed as part of the basic plan to monopolize the vanadium market. Nor did the court take express issue with the averments that adequate supplies of vanadium oxide were unavailable to Continental during certain periods or with the argument that a shortage of vanadium oxide was the type of consequence that would reasonably be expected to flow from a conspiratorial and monopolistic arrangement controlling 99% of the ferrovanadium and vanadium oxide sold in this country. The court nevertheless concluded, in effect, that before there could be a sufficient showing of any shortage of vanadium oxide, or at least before the jury could be permitted to infer that any such lack of material was chargeable to respondents, Continental was required to demonstrate both that it made timely demands for oxide from respondents and that it exhausted all other possible sources of that material.
The court then examined seriatim the Apex, Van-Ex, Climax, Canadian and Imperial ventures and ruled separately upon the respondents’ alleged damage to Continental in connection with each of these episodes. As to Apex and Imperial, it was said that Continental’s demands for oxide from respondents were not sufficiently contemporaneous with the failure of these ventures to subject respondents to liability. As to the Van-Ex period, respondents were blameless not because oxide had not been requested from them but because Continental failed, in the court’s view, to exhaust at least one other available source. The Canadian and Climax issues were disposed of on different grounds.
It is apparent from the foregoing that the Court of Appeals approached Continental’s claims as if they were five completely separate and unrelated lawsuits. We think this was improper. In cases such as this, plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each. “... [T]he character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole. United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, 544... ; and in a case like the one before us, the duty of the jury was to look at the whole picture and not merely at the individual figures in it.” American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 147 F. 2d 93, 106 (C. A. 6th Cir.). See Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 45-46.
Furthermore, we do not believe that respondents’ liability under the antitrust laws can be measured by any rigid or mechanical formula requiring Continental both to demand materials from respondents and to exhaust all other sources of supply. The Court of Appeals appears to have accorded no weight to Continental’s evidence which was offered to show that respondents had interfered with, acquired, or destroyed the several small independent sources of vanadium oxide relied upon by Continental. Under the criteria used by the Court of Appeals, respondents could, with impunity, concertedly refuse to deal with Continental while the latter was able to obtain some oxide from independent sources, then proceed at their leisure to dry up those other sources, and finally insist that Continental make repeated demands for respondents’ oxide before incurring antitrust liability. The cases relied upon by the Court of Appeals clearly do not support any such formula and we cannot deem the injury alleged to flow from a monopolist’s elimination of one’s independent suppliers to be so “remote” as to justify refusing to let the damages issue go to the jury.
Our review of the record discloses sufficient evidence for a jury to infer the necessary causal connection between respondents’ antitrust violations and petitioners’ injury. In concluding that Continental and Apex had not made, sufficient efforts to obtain vanadium oxide from respondents, the Court of Appeals either overlooked or interpreted into insignificance the repeated approaches made to respondents by Continental and Apex in July and October of 1939, in March and October of 1940 and in June and July of 1941. The court also failed to notice certain communications from Apex in September and December 1941, saying that it could operate at only partial capacity due to the lack of raw materials. Nor did the court mention the testimony of an officer of Apex to the effect that Apex’s supply of oxide was irregular and intermittent and that the unavailability of oxide was one of the reasons that Apex did not operate at full capacity. According to the Court of Appeals, the “critical period” during which Continental and Apex should have demanded materials from the respondents was the year preceding the termination of the Apex contract, which the court placed in June 1942. But it is quite plain from the record that Apex notified Continental of its determination to terminate the contract in January and February of 1942, which followed much more closely the previous refusals of respondents to deal with Continental and Apex.
Undoubtedly, all of the evidence during this period does not point in one direction and different inferences might reasonably be drawn from it. There was, however, sufficient evidence to go to the jury and it is the jury which “weighs the contradictory evidence and inferences” and draws “the ultimate conclusion as to the facts.” Tennant v. Peoria & P. U. R. Co., 321 U. S. 29, 35.
During the so-called Yan-Ex period, the court did not exculpate respondents because of petitioners’ failure to request oxide from them but because petitioners supposedly failed to take advantage of an independent source of supplies. But the evidence relied upon by the court can just as reasonably be read in a manner favorable to Continental and it appears that the court may have misapprehended significant parts of this record. In any event, the interpretation and significance of this evidence were for the jury.
The Court of Appeals also concluded that the respondents did not contribute to the failure of Imperial to produce ferrovanadium under its contract with Continental. The court acknowledged, and there appears to be substantial evidence to this effect, that Imperial’s decision was based upon its concern about a steady and reliable source of raw materials. Continental had requested VCA and USV to provide sizable monthly supplies of oxide in November of 1943, but the Court of Appeals bracketed this evidence with the Yan-Ex period even though the testimony clearly was that the supplies then sought were for the Imperial arrangement which was then being negotiated. Imperial, after signing the contract, carefully surveyed foreign sources of vanadium, concluded they were inadequate and determined not to go into production because a reliable, long-range source of oxide was not available. In spite of the refusal of respondents to deal with Continental in November 1943 and in previous months and years, and in spite of the assumed monopolistic control of almost all of the vanadium oxide in the United States, the court ruled that Continental must have requested oxide from respondents after the contract with Imperial was signed in January of 1944. We think the jury should be allowed to determine whether respondents’ conduct materially contributed to the failure of the Imperial venture, to Continental’s damage.
II.
Continental’s alleged elimination from the Canadian market raises different issues. At the trial Continental introduced evidence to show that beginning in March 1942, it had shipped Van-Ex to a Canadian customer each month during the remainder of that year. There was then received in evidence a letter dated January 19, 1943, from Continental to Electro Met in New York City reciting that the new allocation system in Canada had eliminated Continental from the Canadian market in January, that Continental had inquired about the matter from the Metals Controller for the Canadian Government and that the latter had referred Continental to Electro Met. The court then struck this letter from the record and rejected petitioners’ offer to prove that Continental was excluded from the Canadian market by Electro Met of Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary corporation of Carbide, acting as exclusive purchasing agent for the Metals Controller but allegedly operating in this connection under the control and direction of Carbide for the purpose of carrying out the overall conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the vanadium industry. To that end, Continental offered to prove that its former share of the Canadian market was divided between Carbide and YCA. Continental offered various correspondence with Electro Met of Canada and a memorandum and proposed testimony by Continental’s vice president concerning his conversations with an employee of Electro Met who had communicated with Continental in response to Continental’s letter of January 19, 1943, to Electro Met. The court denied the entire offer of proof “for the reason that this is a transaction wholly in the hands of the Canadian Government and that whether or not this plaintiff was permitted to sell his material to a customer in Canada was a matter wholly within the control of the Canadian Government.”
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and concluded that Continental was not legally entitled to recover from respondents for the destruction of its Canadian business. The court said that no vanadium oxide could be imported into Canada by anyone' other than the Canadian Government’s agent, Electro Met of Canada, which refused to purchase from the petitioners. Thus, according to the court, “even if we assume that Electro Metallurgical Company of Canada, Ltd., acted for the purpose of entrenching the monopoly position of the defendants in the United States, it was acting as an arm of the Canadian Government, and we do not see how such efforts as appellants claim defendants took to persuade and influence the Canadian Government through its agent are within the purview of the Sherman Act.” 289 F. 2d, at 94. This ruling was erroneous and we hold that Continental’s offer of proof was relevant evidence of a violation of the Sherman Act as charged in the complaint and was not inadmissible on the grounds stated by the courts below.
Respondents say that American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, shields them from liability. This Court there held that an antitrust plaintiff could not collect damages from a defendant who had allegedly influenced a foreign government to seize plaintiff’s properties. But in the light of later cases in this Court respondents’ reliance upon American Banana is misplaced. A conspiracy to monopolize or restrain the domestic or foreign commerce of the United States is not outside the reach of the Sherman Act just because part of the conduct complained of occurs in foreign countries. United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106; United States v. Pacific & Arctic R. & Navigation Co., 228 U. S. 87; Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U. S. 66; United States v. Sisal Sales Corp., 274 U. S. 268. Cf. Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U. S. 280; Branch v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 141 F. 2d 31 (C. A. 7th Cir.). See United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416 (C. A. 2d Cir.); United States v. National Lead Co., 63 F. Supp. 513 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), aff’d, 332 U. S. 319.
Furthermore, in the Sisal case, supra, a combination entered into within the United States to monopolize an article of commerce produced abroad was held to violate the Sherman Act even though the defendants’ control of that production was aided by discriminatory legislation of the foreign country which established an official agency as the sole buyer of the product from the producers and even though one of the defendants became the exclusive selling agent of that governmental authority. Since the activities of the defendants had an impact within the United States and upon its foreign trade, American Banana was expressly held not to be controlling.
Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332; United States v. Rock Royal Co-op, 307 U. S. 533; and Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341, do not help respondents. These decisions, each of which sustained the validity of mandatory state or federal governmental regulations against a claim of antitrust illegality, are wide of the mark. In the present case petitioners do not question the validity of any action taken by the Canadian Government or by its Metals Controller. Nor is there left in the case any question of the liability of the Canadian Government’s agent, for Electro Met of Canada was not served. What the petitioners here contend is that the respondents are liable for actions which they themselves jointly took, as part of their unlawful conspiracy, to influéñce~or to direct the elimination of Continental from the Canadian market. As in Sisal, the conspiracy was laid in the United States, was effectuated both here and abroad, and respondents are not insulated by the fact that their conspiracy involved some acts by the agent of a foreign government.
From the evidence which petitioners offered it appears that Continental complained to the Canadian Metals Controller that Continental had lost its Canadian business. The Controller referred Continental to one of the respondents. But there is no indication that the Controller or any other official within the structure of the Canadian Government approved or would have approved of joint efforts to monopolize the production and sale of vanadium or directed that purchases from Continental be stopped. The exclusion, Continental claims, resulted from the action of Electro Met of Canada, taken within the area of its discretionary powers granted by the Metals Controller and in concert with or under the direction of the respondents. The offer of proof at least presented an issue for the jury’s resolution as to whether the loss of Continental’s Canadian business was occasioned by respondents’ activities. Respondents are afforded no defense from the fact that Electro Met of Canada, in carrying out the bare act of purchasing vanadium from respondents rather than Continental, was acting in a manner permitted by Canadian law. There is nothing to indicate that such law in anv-wavucomnelled discriminatory purchasing, and it is well settled that acts which are in themselves legal lose that character when they become constituent elements of a,n unlawful scheme. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 396; American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, 809; Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U. S. 280, 287. See Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439, 457-458; Slick Airways v. American Airlines, 107 F. Supp. 199, 207 (D. C. N. J.).
The case of Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127, cited by the court below and much relied upon by respondents here, is plainly inap-posite. The Court there held not cognizable under the Sherman Act a complaint charging, in essence, that the defendants had engaged in a concerted publicity campaign to foster the adoptioiiof laws and law enforcementpractices inimical to plaintiffs’ business. Finding no basis for imputing to the ShiCTmanActa purpose to regu-' late political activity,'~a purpose "Which would have-encountered serious constitutional barriers, the Court ruled the defendants’ activities to be outside thsiban of" the Act “at least insofar as those activities comprise4 mere solicitation of governmental action with respect to the passage and enforcement of laws.” 365 U. S., at 138. In this case, respondents’ conduct is wholly dissimilar to that of the defendants in Noerr. Respondents were engaged in private commercial activity, no element of which involved seeking to procure the passage or enforcement of laws. To sublecUhem to liability under thei Sherman Act for eliminating a competitor from the Canadian market by exercise of the discretionary power" conferred upon Electro Met of Canada by the Canadian Government would effectuate the purposes of the Sherman Act and would not remotely infringe upon any of the constitutionally protected freedoms spoken of in Noerr.
III.
Since our decision concerning the alleged loss of Continental’s Canadian business will in any event require a new trial of the entire case in view of the close interconnection between the Canadian and domestic issues, we shall remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. We therefore deem it appropriate to pass upon certain of the alleged trial errors raised by Continental in the Court of Appeals but not considered by that court. In passing upon these issues, we are not to be understood as expressing any views on the merits of those matters raised by Continental before the Court of Appeals but not discussed here.
An error committed by the trial court, perhaps understandable because the trial preceded this Court’s decision in Klor’s, Inc., v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U. S. 207, was the “public injury” charge. Although petitioners pleaded a concerted refusal to deal with them by respondents, a price-fixing conspiracy, and an allocation of customers, all per se violations under § 1 of the Sherman Act, the court charged the jury that a conspiracy must be proved “which was reasonably calculated to prejudice the public interest by unduly” restraining trade, and which was intended “to injure the general public by” restraining trade. Under the rule stated in Klor’s, this charge was error.
■ The trial court also erred in its treatment of monopolization. Initially, in its charge to the jury, the court defined “monopolize” as referring to “the joint acquisition "*or maintenance by the members of the conspiracy formed for that purpose, of the power to control and dominate interstate trade and commerce in a commodity to such an extent that they are able, as a group, to exclude actual or potential competitors from the field, accompanied with the intention and purpose to exercise such power.” The court also related its definition of “attempt to monopolize” to action taken by a combination or conspiracy. The jury was further instructed that “an essential element of the illegal monopoly or monopolization is the existence of a combination or conspiracy to acquire and maintain the power” and that a verdict must be returned for the defendants “if you find that the plaintiffs have not proved that there was... a conspiracy.” Petitioners duly excepted to the charge on the ground that they were entitled to prevail if they could prove that either respondent monopolized unilaterally.
Petitioners’ complaint did not preclude reliance on unilateral monopolization and the evidence offered was relevant and material to such a charge. The trial court’s misinterpretation of the law in defining “monopolization” and “attempted monopolization” in terms of “conspiracy to monopolize” was therefore prejudicial rather than harmless. This error should not be repeated in a new trial.
The trial court further erred in its persistent exclusion of evidence relating to the pre-1938 period, on the ground that since Mr. Leir came to this country in 1938 nothing which transpired earlier could be relevant to his suit. Petitioners sought to introduce evidence that the conspiracy and monopolization alleged began in the early 1930’s, that overt acts in furtherance thereof occurred in the 1930’s, and that it was pursuant to this anticompetitive scheme that respondents sought to and did eliminate petitioners from the vanadium industry-after 1938. This evidence was clearly material to petitioners’ charge that there was a conspiracy and monopolization in existence when they came into the industry, and that they were eliminated in furtherance thereof. We do not mean that a trial court may not place reasonable limits upon such evidence or set a reasonable cut-off date, evidence before which point is to be considered too remote to have sufficient probative value to justify burdening the record with it. But that was not the basis for this exclusionary ruling.
We conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The action was brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. §15:
“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... and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
The partnership is the successor in interest to Continental Ore Corporation, organized in 1938 but later dissolved.
During the years in question here the conversion was accomplished by respondents in electric furnaces. Continental sought to introduce the making of ferrovanadium by the aluminothermic process, which it claimed was more efficient and economical than respondents’ method.
The Sherman Act, §§ 1-2, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1-2, provide in pertinent part:
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal....
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor....”
The complaint alleged that VCA sold approximately two-thirds of all ferrovanadium and vanadium oxide sold by defendants (which was said to amount to approximately 99% of all ferrovanadium and vanadium oxide sold and consumed in the United States), while Electro Met Sales (a Carbide subsidiary) sold approximately one-third. According to petitioners’ evidence, the Carbide group produced approximately 77% of domestic vanadium oxide, while VCA produced about 65% of ferrovanadium.
As Professor Moore has indicated, “In ruling on the motion [for directed verdict] the trial court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made. On appeal, likewise, the appellate court must consider the evidence in its strongest light in favor of the party against whom the motion for directed verdict was made, and must give him the advantage of every fair and reasonable intendment that the evidence carr justify.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice 2316 (2d ed., 1951). See Pawling v. United States, 4 Cranch 219; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 1J. S. 90; Tennant v. Peona & P. U. R. Co., 321 U. S. 29. Cf. Smith v. Reinauer Oil Transport, 256 F. 2d 646, 649 (C. A. 1st Cir.).
The same rule governs in ruling upon motions for directed verdict in treble damage suits under the antitrust laws. Schad v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 136 F. 2d 991, 993 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Wis consin Liquor Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp., 267 F. 2d 928, 930 (C. A. 7th Cir.). Cf. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U. S. 654, 655; Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U. S. 464, 473.
289 F. 2d, at 90. For this statement, the Court of Appeals relied upon Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U. S. 251; Eastman Kodak Co. of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 273 U. S. 359; Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U. S. 555; Martin v. Herzog, 228 N. Y. 164, 170-171, 126 N. E. 814, 816. Thus in Bigelow this Court stated: “[I]n the absence of more precise proof, the jury could conclude as a matter of just and reasonable inference from the proof of defendants’ wrongful acts and their tendency to injure plaintiffs’ business, and from the evidence of the decline in prices, profits and values, not shown to be attributable to other causes, that defendants’ wrongful acts had caused damage to the plaintiffs.” 327 U. S., at 264. “The most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created.” Id., at 265. See Bordonaro Bros. Theatres v. Paramount Pictures, 176 F. 2d 594, 597 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Atlas Building Prod. Co. v. Diamond Block & Gravel Co., 269 F. 2d 950, 957-959 (C. A. 10th Cir.).
Royster Drive-In Theatres, Inc., v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 268 F. 2d 246, 251; Standard Oil Co. of California v. Moore, 251 F. 2d 188, 198; Congress Bldg. Corp. v. Loew’s, Inc., 246 F. 2d 587, 596-598; Milwaukee Towne Corp. v. Loew’s, Inc., 190 F. 2d 561, 568.
Cf. Klor’s, Inc., v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U. S. 207.
The Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the evidence was that in 1943 Continental declined to deal with Nisley & Wilson, an independent producer of vanadium oxide, particularly in October 1943, when Continental supposedly failed to make any effort to procure Nisley & Wilson’s flaked vanadium oxide and in January 1944 when, according to the court, Continental refused to buy some 300,000 pounds of "oxide” offered by Nisley & Wilson at the time the latter went out of business. But in October 1943, Nisley & Wilson was entirely engaged in processing ore furnished by the Government and its vanadium oxide product was obtainable only through allocation by the War Production Board. The correspondence between Nisley & Wilson and Continental was looking toward a postwar relationship, and Continental’s letter might well be interpreted by a jury not as a refusal to buy but as a statement of intention by Continental to cooperate with Nisley & Wilson to keep the latter’s mill running during peacetime. As for the 300,000 pounds of “oxide” which the court said was offered to Continental, the material actually was ore, not oxide. Furthermore, Nisley & Wilson did not own the ore and failed in its effort to buy it from the Government.
Canada’s entry into World War II prompted the Canadian Government to take extraordinary measures to assure optimum availability of strategic materials to Canadian private industries engaged in the war effort. Pursuant to these measures, the Office of Metals Controller was established and given broad powers to regulate the procurement of the materials and to allocate them to industrial users. See Order of the Governor General in Council, P. C. 3187, July 15, 1940. The Metals Controller enlisted the aid of Electro Met of Canada in early 1943, delegating to it the discretionary agency power to purchase and allocate to Canadian industries all vanadium products required by them. The validity of these wartime measures and delegations under Canadian law is not here contested. Cf. Reference Re Regulations (Chemicals) Under War Measures Act, 1 D. L. R. [1943] 248.
See also Brewster, Antitrust and American Business Abroad 65-75 (1958); Fugate, Foreign Commerce and the Antitrust Laws 20-55 (1958); Atty. Gen. Nat. Comm. Antitrust Rep. 66-77 (1955); Kramer, Application of the Sherman Act to Foreign Commerce, 3 Antitrust Bull. 387 (1958); Carlston, Antitrust Policy Abroad, 49 N. W. U. L. Rev. 569 (1954).
“The circumstances of the present controversy are radically different from those presented in American Banana Co. v.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These direct appeals and the cross-appeal are from a judgment of a three-judge District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that declared the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (Rail Act), 87 Stat. 985, 45 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. Ill), unconstitutional in part and enjoined its enforcement. 383 F. Supp. 510 (1974). We noted probable jurisdiction, post, p. 801. We reverse.
I
Introduction
A rail transportation crisis seriously threatening the national welfare was precipitated when eight major railroads in the northeast and midwest region of the country entered reorganization proceedings under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 205. After interim measures proved to be insufficient, Congress concluded that solution of the crisis required reorganization of the railroads, stripped of excess facilities, into a single, viable system operated by a private, for-profit corporation. Since such a system cannot be created under § 77 rail reorganization law, and since significant federal financing would be necessary to make such a plan workable, Congress supplemented § 77 with the Rail Act, which became effective on January 2, 1974. The salient features of the Rail Act are:
1. Reorganization of each railroad in § 77 reorganization must proceed pursuant to the Rail Act unless the district court having jurisdiction over its reorganization (a) finds, within 120 days after January 2, 1974, “that the railroad is reorganizable on an income basis within a reasonable time under section [77] and that the public interest would be better served by such a reorganization than by a reorganization under this chapter,” or (b) within 180 days after January 2, 1974, “finds that this chapter does not provide a process which would be fair and equitable to the estate of the railroad in reorganization... § 207 (b), 45 U. S. C. § 717 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. III). Appeals from § 207 (b) orders may be taken within 10 days of entry to a Special Court constituted under § 209 (b), 45 U. S. C. § 719 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. Ill), and must be decided by the Special Court within 80 days after the appeal is taken. Section 207 (b) expressly provides that “[t]here shall be no review of the decision of the special court.”
2. Appellant United States Railway Association (USRA) is established as a new Government corporation. § 201 (a), 45 U. S. C. § 711 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. III). USRA must prepare a “Final System Plan” for restructuring the railroads in reorganization into a “financially self-sustaining rail service system.” § 206 (a)(1), 45 U. S. C. §716 (a)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. III). See §§ 201, 202, 204-206, 45 U. S. C. §§ 711, 712, 714-716 (1970 ed., Supp. III). The Final System Plan must provide for transfer of designated rail properties by the railroads in reorganization to a private state-incorporated corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), §301 (a), 45 U. S. C. §741 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. Ill), in return for securities of Conrail, plus up to $500 million of USRA obligations guaranteed by the United States, and “the other benefits accruing to such railroad by reason of such transfer.” §206 (d)(1), 45 U. S. C. §716 (d)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. III); see also §210, 45 U. S. C. § 720 (1970 ed., Supp. III).
3. USRA must submit a proposed Final System Plan to Congress within 570 days after January 2, 1974, §§207 (c), 207 (d), 208 (a), 45 U. S. C. §§ 717 (c), 717 (d), 718 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. Ill), that is, by July 26, 1976. The Plan becomes “effective” if neither House of Congress disapproves it within 60 continuous session days after submission. §§ 102 (4), 208 (a), 45 U. S. C. §§ 702 (4), 718 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. III). USRA is required to transmit the Plan within 90 days after its effective date to the Special Court which, under § 209 (b), is given exclusive jurisdiction of all “proceedings with respect to the final system plan.” 45 U. S. C. § 719 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. III). The Special Court “within 10 days after deposit... of” Conrail securities and USRA obligations “shall... order the trustee or trustees of each railroad in reorganization... to convey forthwith” to Conrail “all right, title, and interest in the rail properties of such railroad in reorganization...” designated in the Final System Plan. § 303 (b), 45 U. S. C. § 743 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. III).
4. The Special Court next determines whether the conveyances of the rail properties to Conrail “(A)... are in the public interest and are fair and equitable to the estate of each railroad in reorganization in accordance with the standard of fairness and equity applicable to the approval of a plan of reorganization... under section [77]... [or] (B) whether the transfers or conveyances are more fair and equitable than is required as a constitutional minimum.” § 303 (c), 45 U. S. C. § 743 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. III). If the Special Court finds that the transfer is not fair and equitable, the Special Court must reallocate, or order issuance of additional, Conrail securities and USRA obligations (subject to the overall $500 million limitation on USRA obligations for this purpose), or enter a judgment against Conrail, or decree a combination of these remedies. §303 (c)(2). The Special Court is not authorized to enter a judgment against the United States. Section 303 provides also that if the Special Court decides that the consideration exchanged for the rail properties is “more fair and equitable than is required as a constitutional minimum,” § 303 (c)(1)(B), it shall make necessary adjustments so that the “constitutional minimum” is not exceeded. § 303 (c) (3). Appeal from § 303 (c) determinations is to this Court. § 303 (d).
5. Although railroads in reorganization subject to the Act are free to abandon service and dispose as they wish of any rail properties not designated for transfer under the Final System Plan, §§ 304 (a)-(c), 45 U. S. C. §§ 744 (a)-(c) (1970 ed., Supp. Ill), until that Plan becomes effective none “may discontinue service or abandon any line of railroad... unless... authorized to do so by [USRA] and unless no affected State or local or regional transportation authority reasonably opposes such action...” § 304(f).
II
Proceedings in the District Court
Constitutional questions concerning the Act are raised in this litigation by parties with interests in the Penn Central Transportation Co. (Penn Central), the largest of the eight railroads in reorganization. The principal contention of the plaintiffs in the District Court was that the Rail Act in two respects effects a taking of rail properties of Penn Central without payment of just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. They contended, first, that the Conrail securities and USRA obligations and other benefits to be received would not be the constitutionally required equivalent of the rail properties compelled by § 303 (b) to be transferred. This is the “conveyance taking” issue. This claim was rejected by the District Court as premature. 383 F. Supp., at 517-518. They contended, second, that a taking of their property without just compensation will result from the severe inhibitions imposed upon discontinuance of service and abandonment of lines. In particular, they claimed that § 304 (f) compels continuation of rail operations pending implementation of the Final System Plan even if erosion of the Penn Central estate beyond constitutional limits occurs during this period. This is the “erosion taking” issue. The District Court agreed that § 304 (f) required continued operations to this extent, and viewed the huge operating losses already incurred by Penn Central as making this contention ripe for determination, saying:
“[W]e are persuaded that a significant possibility exists that a point of erosion either has been or may soon be reached so that it can be said that [the contention of plaintiffs below] of interim unconstitutional taking by continued loss operations is ripe for adjudication.” 383 F. Supp., at 525.
The District Court rejected the argument of the United States, USRA, and the Penn Central Trustees that if in fact the constitutional limit of permissible uncompensated erosion should be passed, plaintiffs would have an adequate remedy at law in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491. The District Court construed the Rail Act as precluding a Tucker Act remedy, stating:
“We are persuaded that the legislative history supports the conclusion that Congress intended that financial obligations be limited to the express terms of the Act. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 [of the Constitution] provides that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the United States except in consequence of an appropriation made by law. Section 213 (b) [of the Rail Act], and section 214 entitled ‘Authorization for Appropriations’ place an express ceiling on expenditures. Section 210 describes the maximum obligational authority of [USRA], and the authorization for appropriation is limited to ‘such amounts as are necessary to discharge the obligations of the United States arising under this section.’ (Emphasis supplied.) Judicial review is delineated with specificity in Sections 209 (a) and 303 with no mention of the Court of Claims.” 383 F. Supp., at 528-529.
The District Court therefore declared § 304 (f) governing interim abandonments
“null and void as violative of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, to the extent that it would require continued operation of rail services at a loss in violation of the constitutional rights of the owners and creditors of a railroad.”
It consequently enjoined defendants below
“from taking any action to enforce the provisions of Section 304 (f)... with respect to any abandonment, cessation, or reduction of service which has been or may hereafter be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be necessary for the preservation of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”
The District Court also declared that § 303 relating to the final conveyance of rail properties pursuant to the Final System Plan is
“null and void as contravening the Fifth Amendment... insofar as it fails to provide compensation for interim erosion pending final implementation of the Final System Plan....”
Finally, the District Court enjoined USRA “from certifying a Final System Plan to the Special Court pursuant to Section 209 (c).” 383 F. Supp., at 530.
The Rail Act was also challenged in the District Court as not “uniform” within the requirement of Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have the power to enact “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” The District Court dismissed this contention as without merit except as to one provision of § 207 (b). The section provides that if any reorganization court determines in the 180-day proceedings under § 207 (b) that the Act does not provide a fair and equitable process for the reorganization of a debtor, the debtor shall not be reorganized pursuant to the Act, and the reorganization court “shall dismiss the reorganization proceeding.” The District Court declared this part of § 207 (b) “null and void, as violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4...,” and enjoined “all parties... from enforcing, or taking any action to implement, so much of Section 207 (b)... as purports to require dismissal of pending proceedings for reorganization under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act.”
Ill
The Issues for Decision
The major issues dividing the parties are (1) whether an action at law in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491, will be available to recover any deficiency of constitutional dimension in the compensation provided under the Rail Act for either the alleged “erosion taking” or the alleged “conveyance taking,” and (2) if the Tucker Act remedy is available, whether it is an adequate remedy. The United States, USRA, and the Penn Central Trustees contend that if resort to a supplemental remedy under the Tucker Act is necessary, it is both available and adequate. The plaintiffs below contend that the Rail Act precludes resort to the Tucker Act remedy, and if it does not, that the remedy is inadequate.
The Special Court, speaking through Judge Friendly, comprehensively canvassed both issues, and in a thorough opinion, concluded that the Rail Act does not bar any necessary resort to the Tucker Act remedy and that the remedy is adequate. Our independent examination of the issues brings us to the same conclusion, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Friendly in Parts VII and VIII-A of the Special Court opinion. 384 F. Supp. 895, 938-951 (1974).
Also disputed is the District Court’s ruling on the uniformity of the Rail Act under the Bankruptcy Clause. We hold that the currently operable portions of the Act are uniform.
IV
A
The Alleged “Erosion Taking”
In its opening brief, the United States, speaking for all federal parties except USRA, argued that the case involved no “erosion taking” because, as a matter of law, eompelled-loss operations pending implementation of the Final System Plan would not constitute a taking of the property of the claimants against the bankrupt railroad estates. The argument was that the general rule that if the railroad “be taken to have, granted to the public an interest in the use of the railroad it may withdraw its grant by discontinuing the use when that use can be kept up only at a loss,” Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of Louisiana, 251 U. S. 396, 399 (1920); see also Bullock v. Florida ex rel. Railroad Comm’n, 254 U. S. 513 (1921); Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 264 U. S. 79 (1924), is qualified by the requirement that a railroad estate suffer interim losses for a reasonable period pending good-faith efforts to develop a feasible reorganization plan if the public interest in continued rail service justifies the requirement. Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 648, 677 (1935); see also RFC v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 328 U. S. 495, 535-536 (1946); New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S. 392, 493 (1970). The United States maintained that the Rail Act represented just such a good-faith effort. In its Reply Brief 3-4, however, it abandoned the position that the Final System Plan was sure to be implemented within a reasonable period:
“Difficulties now unforeseen and unanticipated could in fact delay final implementation of the final system plan. For example, Congress could, in theory, successively disapprove several proposed final system plans. Thus, whatever the probabilities, the parties and this Court have no absolute assurance that the plan will in fact be implemented within a reasonable time. For that reason, we have determined that a taking of property through interim erosion, although extremely unlikely, remains a theoretical possibility under the Rail Act.
“Accordingly, we believe that an injunction preventing [USRA] from denying applications for discontinuance of service under Section 304 (f) in those circumstances might be appropriate unless, as we contend, a remedy for any otherwise uncompensated taking will be available under the Tucker Act. We are therefore persuaded that this Court must reach and decide the 'Tucker Act question’ presented by these appeals.” (Footnote omitted.)
We conclude in any event that the availability of a Tucker Act remedy if the Rail Act effects an “erosion taking” is ripe for adjudication. It is true that there has been no definitive determination that erosion of the Penn Central estate has reached unconstitutional dimensions — that is, that the estate has suffered losses unreasonable even in light of the public interest in continued rail service pending reorganization. But the Penn Central Reorganization Court found that Penn Central is not “reorganizable on an income basis within a reasonable time under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act.” 382 F. Supp. 831, 842 (ED Pa. 1974). And it was stipulated in the District Court that Penn Central sustained ordinary net losses from mid-1970 through 1973 aggregating approximately $851 million, and that in the two months following enactment of the Rail Act on January 2, 1974, Penn Central had deficits in net railway operating income, total income, net income, and income available for fixed charges. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that compelled continued rail operations under these conditions pending implementation of the Final System Plan may accelerate erosion of the interests of plaintiffs below through accrual of post-bankruptcy claims having priority over their claims. Thus, failure to decide the availability of the Tucker Act would raise the distinct possibility that those plaintiffs would suffer an “erosion taking” without adequate assurance that compensation will ever be provided. Yet there must be at the time of taking "reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation.” Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 659 (1890); see also Joslin Mfg. Co. v. City of Providence, 262 U. S. 668, 677 (1923) ; United States v. Dow, 357 U. S. 17, 21 (1958). Therefore we must determine if the Tucker Act is available.
B
Availability of the Tucker Act Remedy for Any “Erosion Taking”
The Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491, provides in pertinent part:
"The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliqui-dated damages in cases not sounding in tort.”
A claim founded upon a taking of property for public use by operation of the Rail Act without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment plainly would fall within the literal words of “any claim against the United States founded... upon the Constitution... The District Court, however, inquired whether the Rail Act affirmatively provided the Tucker Act remedy, and held that to “read a Tucker Act remedy into the [Rail] Act” would be “judicial legislation on a grand, if not arrogant, scale.” 383 F. Supp., at 529.
The District Court made the wrong inquiry. The question is not whether the Rail Act expresses an affirmative showing of congressional intent to permit recourse to a Tucker Act remedy. Rather, it is whether Congress has in the Rail Act withdrawn the Tucker Act grant of jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to hear a suit involving the Rail Act “founded... upon the Constitution.” For we agree with the Special Court that
“the true issue is whether there is sufficient proof that Congress intended to prevent such recourse. The [Rail] Act being admittedly silent on the point, the issue becomes whether the scheme of the [Rail] Act, supplemented by the legislative history, sufficiently evidences a Congressional intention to withdraw a remedy that would otherwise exist.” 384 F. Supp., at 939.
Our decisions affirm that this is the correct inquiry. The general rule is that whether or not the United States so intended, “[i]f there is a taking, the claim is ‘founded upon the Constitution and within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear and determine." United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 267 (1946). “[I]f the authorized action... does constitute a taking of property for which there must be just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, the Government has impliedly promised to pay that compensation and has afforded a remedy for its recovery by a suit in the Court of Claims.” Yearsley v. Ross Construction Co., 309 U. S. 18, 21 (1940). See also Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U. S. 95 (1932). In Yearsley, the Court, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, went on to hold that “it cannot be doubted that the remedy to obtain compensation from the Government is as comprehensive as the requirement of the Constitution... 309 U. S., at 22. (Emphasis supplied.)
We turn then to the inquiry whether the Rail Act withdrew the Tucker Act remedy “that would otherwise exist.” 384 F. Supp., at 939. The argument that it should be so read rests on provisions of the Rail Act said plainly to evince Congress’ determination that no federal funds beyond those expressly committed by the Act were to be paid for the rail properties.
The first provision referred to is § 209 which provides for the impaneling of the Special Court and the consolidation before it of “all judicial proceedings with respect to the final system plan.” The argument attaches significance to the omission in § 303 of any authority in the Special Court to enter a judgment against the United States. Reliance is also placed on two of the Act’s funding provisions. Section 210 (b), captioned “Maximum obligational authority,” provides that the “aggregate amount of [USRA] obligations... which may be outstanding at any one time shall not exceed $1,500,000,-000 of which the aggregate amount issued to [Conrail] shall not exceed $1,000,000,000 and that “[a]ny modification to [these] limitations... shall be made by joint resolution adopted by the Congress.” Section 214 explicitly appropriates up to $12,500,000 to the Secretary of Transportation, to pay the expenses of “preparing the reports and exercising other functions to be performed by him under this chapter,” appropriates up to $5,000,000 to the Interstate Commerce Commission for its use in carrying out its functions, and appropriates up to $26,000,000 to USRA “for purposes of carrying out its administrative expenses...
But these provisions at least equally support the inference that Congress was so convinced that the huge sums provided would surely equal or exceed the required constitutional minimum that it never focused upon the possible need for a suit in the Court of Claims. That this may very well have been the ease is evident in a statement in the House Report:
“The timely implementation of the Final System Plan cannot be obstructed by controversy over the payment for the properties. The Committee is of the opinion that provisions of this title of the [Rail] Act, and especially the provision for deficiency judgment and payment of obligations of [USRA]... are more than adequate to guarantee that the creditors of the bankrupt railroad will receive all that they may Constitutionally claim. In view of these extraordinary protections, no litigation should be permitted to delay the Final System Plan.” H. Rep. 55.
That inference also finds support in the provision of § 303 (c) (3) that authorizes the Special Court to reduce payments to bankrupt estates if they “are fairer and more equitable than is required as a constitutional minimum.” That provision suggests that Congress thought the compensation made possible by the Rail Act could well exceed that required by the Constitution, and gave no consideration to withdrawal of the Tucker Act remedy because it was sure the Rail Act itself provided at least the constitutional minimum compensation.
Finally, the manner in which Congress in § 601, 45 U. S. C. § 791 (1970 ed., Supp. Ill), expressly addressed the Rail Act’s “Relationship to other laws” plainly implies that Congress gave no thought to consideration of withdrawal of the Tucker Act remedy. Section 601 (a) (2) provides that the “antitrust laws are inapplicable with respect to any action taken to formulate or implement the final system plan...”; § 601 (b) provides that “[t]he provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Bankruptcy Act are inapplicable to transactions under this chapter to the extent necessary to formulate and implement the final system plan whenever a provision of any such Act is inconsistent with this chapter”; § 601 (c) provides that, “[t]he provisions of section 4332 (2) (C) of Title 42 [National Environmental Policy Act of 1969] shall not apply with respect to any action taken under authority of this chapter before the effective date of the final system plan.” Yet despite this clear evidence that Congress was aware of the necessity to deal expressly with inconsistent laws., Congress nowhere addresses the Tucker Act question.
It is argued that any uncertainty in the scheme and text of the Rail Act is cleared up by legislative history from the House and the Senate that discloses that Congress meant the Rail Act to withdraw the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act. To the contrary, we read the legislative history as disclosing no more than a repeatedly emphasized belief that the Rail Act’s provisions for compensation for the rail properties assured payment of the constitutional minimum. This is plainly the import of the oft-stated view that the taxpayers would not be unduly burdened by the sums provided, see, e. g., 119 Cong. Rec. 36354 (1973) (remarks of Rep. Metcalfe); id., at 36359 (remarks of Rep. Conte); and also of Senator Hartke’s explanation of the Conference Report to the Senate, id., at 43094-43095, which included the statement: As the Special Court remarked, and we agree, this statement in context is “not inconsistent with the view that the Senator was so convinced that the bill, as amended in conference, contained such adequate compensation provisions that a suit in the Court of Claims could not prevail, particularly in view of what he had characterized as a ‘rather slim’ chance of the creditors getting their money through liquidation, rather than as meaning that such a claim could not be maintained.” 384 F. Supp., at 941.
“If we did nothing while continuing to mandate rail service, there is the distinct possibility in view of the prior action of Congress that a number of these people could make a claim against the Government which could be sustained in the Court of Claims.”
We do not think that the argument in support of reading the Rail Act to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy is aided by the colloquy on the House side between the House managers of the bill, 119 Cong. Rec. 42947 (1973). That colloquy does not even concern the withdrawal of Court of Claims jurisdiction. It concerns only the deficiency judgment against Conrail and the powers of the Special Court.
Finally, reliance is put upon what is referred to as "subsequent legislative history” in the form of statements, by Congressmen during Oversight Hearings of the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics on June 14, 1974, and on an amicus brief filed in this Court on behalf of 36 Congressmen. But post-passage remarks of legislators, however explicit, cannot serve to change the legislative intent of Congress expressed before the Act’s passage. See, e. g., United States v. Mine Workers of America, 330 U. S. 258, 282 (1947). Such statements “represent only the personal views of these legislators, since the statements were fmade] after passage of the Act.” National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 639 n. 34 (1967). Moreover, during oral argument before this Court, Representative Adams, spokesman for the congressional group, expressly conceded that circumstances might arise when the Tucker Act remedy would be available:
“QUESTION: So you do anticipate a situation where thé Tucker Act would be available?
“MR. ADAMS: Oh, yes. Let’s say, for example, that after this is all over — and this is the three-judge court’s problem — that if a party comes in and says, you held us beyond the constitutional limit on erosion and at that point we are of the opinion that it went just too long, it was unreasonable, but that is a specific individual case at that point.
“QUESTION: And so the Tucker Act, you think, would be available in that situation?
“MR. ADAMS: Of course. We did not repeal the Tucker Act.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In sum, we cannot find that the legislative history supports the argument that the Rail Act should be construed to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy. The most that can be said is that the Rail Act is ambiguous on the question. In that circumstance, applicable canons of statutory construction require us to conclude that the Rail Act is not to be read to withdraw the remedy under the Tucker Act.
One canon of construction is that repeals by implication are disfavored; See, e. g., Mercantile National Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 565 (1963); United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 198-199 (1939); Arnell v. United States, 384 U. S. 158, 165-166 (1966). Rather, since the Tucker Act and the Rail Act are “capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974). Moreover, the Rail Act is the later of the two statutes and we agree with the Special Court:
“A new statute will not be read as wholly or even partially amending a prior one unless there exists a ‘positive repugnancy’ between the provisions of the new and those of the old that cannot be reconciled.... This principle rests on a sound foundation. Presumably Congress had given serious thought to the earlier statute, here the broadly based jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. Before holding that the result of the earlier consideration has been repealed or qualified, it is reasonable for a court to insist on the legislature’s using language showing that it has made a considered determination to that end....” 384 F. Supp., at 943.
The other relevant canon of construction that comes into play is that when a statute is ambiguous, “construction should go in the direction of constitutional policy.” United States v. Johnson, 323 U. S. 273, 276 (1944). There are clearly grave doubts whether the Rail Act would be constitutional if a Tucker Act remedy were not available as compensation for any unconstitutional erosion not compensated under the Act itself. In such case, as the Special Court observed, “[w]hen one admissible construction will preserve a statute from unconstitutionality and another will condemn it, the former is favored even if language,... and arguably the legislative history point somewhat more strongly in another way.” 384 F. Supp., at 944. In other words our “task is not to destroy the Act if we can, but to construe it, if consistent with the will of Congress, so as to comport with constitutional limitations.” CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 571 (1973).
Lynch v. United States, 292 U. S. 571 (1934), fully supports our conclusion. Lynch presented a situation requiring this Court to determine whether a statute that effected an unconstitutional taking was also to be construed to withdraw a cause of action created by an earlier statute. The Economy Act of 1933,48 Stat. 11, provided in § 17 that “all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance are hereby repealed_” District Courts, affirmed by the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 67 F. 2d 490 (1933), and the Seventh Circuit, Wilner v. United States, 68 F. 2d 442 (1934), dismissed, on the basis of this provision, suits by beneficiaries of yearly renewable term policies brought under § 405 of the War Risk Insurance Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 410, expressly authorizing suits in the district courts respecting any “disagreement as to a claim under the contract of insurance.” The beneficiaries’ claim was that there was an actionable “disagreement” within the meaning of § 405 because the Government had violated the terms of the policies by failing to pay the premiums when the insureds became totally and permanently disabled and had refused payment of benefits after the insureds died. This Court unanimously reversed the dismissals. Section 17 of the Economy Act was held to effect an unconstitutional taking of vested property rights in the beneficiaries created by the insurance contracts. The question then became whether § 17 had repealed the remedy of a suit in the district court provided by § 405 of the Insurance Act. The Court held, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandéis, that § 17 would not be read as depriving the beneficiaries of that remedy in the absence of a clear indication from Congress that the remedy was taken away. The Court said:
“Fifth. There is a suggestion that although, in repealing all laws ‘granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance,’ Congress intended to take away the contractual right, it also intended to take away the remedy; that since it had power to take away the remedy, the statute should be given effect to that extent, even if void insofar as it purported to take away the contractual right. The suggestion is at war with settled rules of construction. It is true that a statute bad in part is not necessarily void in its entirety. A provision within the legislative power may be allowed to stand if it is separable from the bad. But no provision however unobjectionable in itself, can stand unless it appears both that, standing alone, the provision can be given legal effect and that the legislature intended the unobjectionable provision to stand in case other provisions held bad should fall. Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 288, 290. Here, both those essentials are absent. There is no separate provision in § 17 dealing with the remedy; and it does not appear that Congress wished to deny the remedy if the repeal of the contractual right was held void under the Fifth Amendment.” 292 U. S., at 586.
Similarly, “[t]here is no separate provision in [the Rail Act] dealing with the [Tucker Act] remedy; and it does not appear [from the statute or its legislative history] that Congress wished to deny the remedy” if the Rail Act should cause an “erosion taking” that would require the payment of just compensation.
We accordingly hold that the Tucker Act remedy is not barred by the Rail Act but is available to provide just compensation for any “erosion taking” effected by the Rail Act.
y
A
The Alleged “Conveyance Taking”
The District Court declined to decide whether the provisions governing the procedures for and terms of the final conveyance of rail properties to Conrail (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Medicare program, Title XVÍII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 291, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. III), certain qualified providers of health care services are reimbursed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the reasonable cost of providing covered services to Medicare beneficiaries. Each such provider submits a cost report at the end of the year to a fiscal intermediary, usually a private insurance company acting as an agent for the Secretary. The fiscal intermediary audits the cost report and issues a Notice of Program Reimbursement specifying the amount of reimbursement due to the provider and explaining any adjustments.
A provider may appeal the intermediary’s final determination to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board and, under certain circumstances, may obtain a hearing from the Board. The Board is authorized to affirm, modify, or reverse intermediary decisions. The Secretary, either on his own motion or on request of the provider, may review the matter further, and any provider that remains dissatisfied with a final decision of the Board or Secretary may seek review in a United States district court. §§ 1395oo(a), (d), (f).
This case requires us to decide whether the Board may decline to consider a provider’s challenge to one of the Secretary’s regulations on the ground that the provider failed to contest the regulation’s validity in the cost report submitted to its fiscal intermediary.
I
Petitioners Bethesda Hospital Association and Deaconess Hospital of Cincinnati are Ohio entities that operate hospitals in that State. Bethesda and Deaconess joined with some 27 other hospitals to challenge a 1979 regulation promulgated by the Secretary, which disallowed certain claims for malpractice insurance premium costs. We are not concerned here with the merits of the challenge to the 1979 regulation; rather, we must decide whether the Board had jurisdiction to consider the issue.
In their cost reports for 1980, petitioners followed the 1979 regulation in their apportionment of malpractice insurance costs and thereby effected, in the lexicon of the Medicare program, a “self-disallowance” of malpractice insurance costs in excess of those allowed by the 1979 regulation. Petitioners later filed a timely request for a hearing before the Board, challenging the validity of the malpractice regulation and seeking reimbursement for malpractice costs in accordance with the pre-1979 methodology. Because the amounts had been self-disallowed in the reports filed with the fiscal intermediary, however, the Board determined that it was without jurisdiction to hear petitioners’ claims. The Board held, in essence, that a statutory condition to its jurisdiction had not been met, stating that its authority to grant hearings is limited to cases in which the provider is “dissatisfied with a final determination of the . . . fiscal intermediary,” and reasoning that petitioners could not be dissatisfied when they had effected a self-disallowance of the claims. The District Court, in disagreement with the Board’s reasoning, held that the Board should have exercised jurisdiction over the matter. Bethesda Hospital v. Heckler, 609 F. Supp. 1360, 1368 (SD Ohio 1985).
The Secretary appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the District Court. The Court of Appeals stated that “[w]ere we considering this issue as a matter of first impression, we may well haye reached a different conclusion as to the advisability of requiring submission of statutory and/or constitutional challenges to a private insurance company as a condition precedent to further administrative as well as judicial review of the Secretary’s regulations.” Bethesda Hospital v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 810 F. 2d 558, 562 (1987). The court found itself bound, however, by the decision of a prior panel in Baptist Hospital East v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 802 F. 2d 860 (1986), where it was held that the Board had properly “refused to exercise jurisdiction over those claims by providers who had self-disallowed reimbursement and had failed to challenge the Secretary’s regulations before the fiscal intermediary.” Bethesda Hospital v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, supra, at 561. We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 813 (1987), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. We now reverse.
II
The plain meaning of the statute decides the issue presented. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 432, and n. 12 (1987); Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). The parties agree that §1395oo(a) addresses the circumstances in which a provider may invoke the Board’s jurisdiction. To the extent pertinent here, § 1395oo(a) states that a provider may obtain a hearing before the Board with respect to its cost report if
“(1) such provider—
“(A)(i) is dissatisfied with a final determination of . . . its fiscal intermediary ... as to the amount of total program reimbursement due the provider... for the period covered by such report. . .
“(2) the amount in controversy is $10,000 or more, and
“(3) such provider files a request for a hearing within 180 days . . . 42 U. S. C. §1395oo(a) (1982 ed. and Supp. III).
The Secretary contends that the requirement that a provider be “dissatisfied with a final determination of. . . its fiscal intermediary” necessarily incorporates an exhaustion requirement. In the Secretary’s view, a provider’s right to a hearing before the Board extends only to claims presented to a fiscal intermediary because the provider cannot be “dissatisfied” with the intermediary’s decision to award the amounts requested in the provider’s cost report. Petitioners counter that it would have been improper, or at least irregular, to submit a claim for cost reimbursement in a manner prohibited by the regulations, and that it was correct to raise their challenge in the first instance by presenting the matter to the Board.
The strained interpretation offered by the Secretary is inconsistent with the express language of the statute. We agree that, under subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), a provider’s dissatisfaction with the amount of its total reimbursement is a condition to the Board’s jurisdiction. It is clear, however, that the submission of a cost report in full compliance with the unambiguous dictates of the Secretary’s rules and regulations does not, by itself, bar the provider from claiming dissatisfaction with the amount of reimbursement allowed by those regulations. No statute or regulation expressly mandates that a challenge to the validity of a regulation be submitted first to the fiscal intermediary. Providers know that, under the statutory scheme, the fiscal intermediary is confined to the mere application of the Secretary’s regulations, that the intermediary is without power to award reimbursement except as the regulations provide, and that any attempt to persuade the intermediary to do otherwise would be futile. Thus, petitioners stand on different ground than do providers who bypass a clearly prescribed exhaustion requirement or who fail to request from the intermediary reimbursement for all costs to which they are entitled under applicable rules. While such defaults might well establish that a provider was satisfied with the amounts requested in its cost report and awarded by the fiscal intermediary, those circumstances are not presented here. We conclude that petitioners could claim dissatisfaction, within the meaning of the statute, without incorporating their challenge in the cost reports filed with their fiscal intermediaries.
While the express language of subsection (a) requires the result we reach in the present case, our conclusion is also supported by the language and design of the statute as a whole. Cf. Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S. 207, 220-221 (1986). Section 1395oo(d), which sets forth the powers and duties of the Board once its jurisdiction has been invoked, explicitly provides that in making its decision whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the intermediary’s decision, the Board can “make any other revisions on matters covered by such cost report . . . even though such matters were not considered by the intermediary in making such final determination.” This language allows the Board, once it obtains jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (a), to review and revise a cost report with respect to matters not contested before the fiscal intermediary. The only limitation prescribed by Congress is that the matter must have been “covered by such cost report,” that is, a cost or expense that was incurred within the period for which the cost report was filed, even if such cost or expense was not expressly claimed.
Neither the fiscal intermediary nor the Board has the authority to declare regulations invalid. It does not follow, however, that the statute treats the two entities alike or that it requires the provider to announce its regulatory challenge at each level; for the Board has a statutory function that the fiscal intermediary does not have. Subsection (f)(1) grants providers the right to obtain judicial review of an action of the fiscal intermediary, but the predicate is that the Board must first make a determination that it is without authority to decide the matter because the provider’s claim involves a question of law or regulations. It is this determination of the Board, or alternatively the Board’s failure to act, that triggers the right of judicial review.
The Secretary notes that subsection (f)(1) posits review of an “action of the fiscal intermediary,” and argues that without presenting the intermediary with the challenge to the regulation there can be no action to review. The statute provides, however, that the intermediary has no authority to deviate from the rules and regulations and that the Board, not the fiscal intermediary, is to make the determination that it lacks the requisite authority to consider the validity of the regulation. Under this statutory scheme, requiring submission of the regulatory challenge to the fiscal intermediary is quite unnecessary. The Board has a role in shaping the controversy that is subject to judicial review; the fiscal intermediary does not.
Finally, the Secretary’s proffered requirement of notice to the fiscal intermediary is internally inconsistent. The Secretary cannot maintain, on the one hand, that it is of vital importance to present challenges to the Secretary’s regulations in the first instance to the fiscal intermediary and, on the other, acknowledge that a mere cover letter would suffice because the fiscal intermediary lacks authority to rule on the challenge. By objecting to the regulation in the first instance in proceedings before the Board, the petitioners protected their right to judicial review.
We hold that the plain language of the statute demonstrates that the Provider Reimbursement Review Board had jurisdiction to entertain this action. 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.
Compare Bethesda Hospital v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 810 F. 2d 558 (CA6 1987) (case below) (finding there is no Board jurisdiction); North Broward Hospital Dist. v. Bowen, 808 F. 2d 1405 (CA11 1987) (same), cert. pending, No. 86-1986; Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley v. Health and Human Services, 770 F. 2d 1257 (CA4 1985) (same); Athens Community Hospital, Inc. v. Schweiker, 222 U. S. App. D. C. 363, 686 F. 2d 989 (1982), modified, 240 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 743 F. 2d 1 (1984) (same), with Adams House Health Care v. Heckler, 817 F. 2d 587 (CA9 1987) (finding there is mandatory Board jurisdiction), cert. pending, No. 87-443; St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center v. Department of Health and Human Services, 698 F. 2d 1337 (CA7 1983) (same), cert. denied sub nom. St. James Hospital v. Heckler, 464 U. S. 830 (1983), with St. Luke’s Hospital v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 810 F. 2d 325 (CA1 1987) (finding there is Board jurisdiction, but that it is discretionary), and with Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Bowen, 815 F. 2d 1435 (CA11 1987) (finding there is jurisdiction in the situation at issue here, but not for appeals that do not involve a challenge to a regulation), cert. pending, No. 87-380.
See 42 CFR § 421.100 (1987) (stating that the intermediary can only pay claims that are “covered under Medicare Part A or Part B.”); § 421.120 (directing that the Secretary shall periodically review an intermediary’s audit procedures to ensure it is making “[e]orrect coverage and payment determinations” and is guarding the “proper management of administrative funds”); 42 CFR § 405.460(a)(2) (1985) (“Reimbursable provider costs may not exceed the costs estimated by HCFA [Health Care Financing Administration] to be necessary for the efficient delivery of needed health services. HCFA may establish estimated cost limits for direct or indirect overall costs or for costs of specific items or services or groups of items or services”).
Subsection (d) provides:
“A decision by the Board shall be based upon the record made at such hearing, which shall include the evidence considered by the intermediary and such other evidence as may be obtained or received by the Board, and shall be supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed as a whole. The Board shall have the power to affirm, modify, or reverse a final determination of the fiscal intermediary with respect to a cost report and to make any other revisions on matters covered by such cost report (including revisions adverse to the provider of services) even though such matters were not considered by the intermediary in making such final determination.”
Section 1395oo(d) only allows the Board to “affirm, modify, or reverse a final determination of the fiscal intermediary . . . Subsection (f)(1) recognizes that this limitation does not allow Board decisions with regard to the validity of rules or regulations. The subsection provides for judicial review of a challenged regulation when the Board determines it is “without authority to decide the question.” See also n. 3, supra.
Subsection (f)(1) provides:
“A decision of the Board shall be final unless the Secretary, on his own motion, and within 60 days after the provider of services is notified of the Board’s decision, reverses, affirms, or modifies the Board’s decision. Providers shall have the right to obtain judicial review of any final decision of the Board, or of any reversal, affirmance, or modification by the Secretary, by a civil action commenced within 60 days of the date on which notice of any final decision by the Board or of any reversal, affirmance, or modification by the Secretary is received. Providers shall also have the right to obtain judicial review of any action of the fiscal intermediary which involves a question of law or regulations relevant to the matters in controversy whenever the Board determines (on its own motion or at the request of a provider of services as described in the following sentence) that it is without authority to decide the question, by a civil action commenced within sixty days of the date on which notification of such determination is received. If a provider of services may obtain a hearing under subsection (a) of this section and has filed a request for such a hearing, such provider may file a request for a determination by the Board of its authority to decide the question of law or regulations relevant to the matters in controversy (accompanied by such documents and materials as the Board shall require for purposes of rendering such determination). The Board shall render such determination in writing within thirty days after the Board receives the request and such accompanying documents and materials, and the determination shall be considered a final decision and not subject to review by the Secretary. If the Board fails to render such determination within such period, the provider may bring a civil action (within sixty days of the end of such period) with respect to the matter in controversy contained in such request for a hearing. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the provider is located (or, in an action brought jointly by several providers, the judicial district in which the greatest number of such providers are located) or in the District Court for the District of Columbia and shall be tried pursuant to the applicable provisions under chapter 7 of title 5 notwithstanding any other provisions in section 405 of this title. Any appeal to the Board or action for judicial review by providers which are under common ownership or control or which have obtained a hearing under subsection (b) of this section must be brought by such providers as a group with respect to any matter involving an issue common to such providers.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We are asked to consider whether federal bankruptcy law precludes an unsecured creditor from recovering attorney’s fees authorized by a prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, based on a rule previously adopted by that court, that such fees are categorically prohibited — even where the contractual allocation of attorney’s fees would be enforceable under applicable nonbankruptey law — to the extent the litigation involves issues of federal bankruptcy law. Because that rule finds no support in the Bankruptcy Code, we vacate and remand.
I
Respondent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in April 2001, 11 U. S. C. §1101 et seq., and continued thereafter to operate its business as a “debtor in possession,” §§ 1107(a), 1108. The bankruptcy filing caught the attention of petitioner Travelers Casualty & Surety Company (Travelers), which had previously issued a $100 million surety bond on PG&E’s behalf to the California Department of Industrial Relations, guaranteeing PG&E’s payment of state workers’ compensation benefits to injured employees. In connection with the bond, PG&E executed a series of indemnity agreements in favor of Travelers. The indemnity agreements provide that PG&E will be responsible for any loss Travelers might incur in connection with the bonds, including any attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing, protecting, or litigating Travelers’ rights in connection with those bonds.
Although no default occurred, Travelers asserted a claim in the bankruptcy action to protect itself in case PG&E defaulted on its workers’ compensation benefits at some point in the future, requiring Travelers to make payments under its bond. In response to Travelers’ claim, and with the knowledge and approval of the Bankruptcy Court, PG&E agreed to insert language into its reorganization plan and disclosure statement to protect Travelers' right to indemnity and subrogation in the event of a default by PG&E.
Travelers claimed, however, that PG&E then unilaterally altered the negotiated language in a way that substantially diminished the protection it had been seeking. According to Travelers, that development resulted in additional litigation, but Travelers and PG&E ultimately resolved the dispute by entering into a stipulation that was later approved by the Bankruptcy Court. In addition to accommodating Travelers’ substantive concerns, the stipulation stated that Travelers “‘may assert its claim for attorneys’ fees under the [ijndemnity [ajgreements’” (subject to PG&E’s right to object) as a general unsecured claim against PG&E. Brief for Petitioner 17.
Travelers subsequently filed an amended proof of claim seeking to recover the attorney’s fees it incurred in connection with PG&E’s bankruptcy proceedings. PG&E objected, arguing that Travelers could not recover attorney’s fees incurred while litigating issues of bankruptcy law.
The Bankruptcy Court agreed and rejected Travelers’ claim on that basis. App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a-25a. Travelers appealed that ruling to the District Court. The District Court affirmed, relying on In re Fobian, 951 F. 2d 1149 (CA9 1991), which held that “where the litigated issues involve not basic contract enforcement questions, but issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law, attorney’s fees will not be awarded absent bad faith or harassment by the losing party,” id., at 1153. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a, 17a.
Travelers appealed again, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 167 Fed. Appx. 593 (2006). The panel acknowledged that, in at least some circumstances, a “ ‘prevailing party in a bankruptcy proceeding may be entitled to an award of attorney fees in accordance with applicable state law ....’” Id., at 594 (quoting In re Baroff, 105 F. 3d 439,441 (CA9 1997)). The panel nevertheless rejected Travelers’ claim based on the Fobian rule, which it cited for the proposition that “attorney fees are not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594 (quoting Fobian, supra, at 1153). The panel explained that, because the fees claimed by Travelers were incurred litigating issues that were “governed entirely by federal bankruptcy law,” Travelers’ claim necessarily failed. 167 Fed. Appx., at 594.
Travelers sought review in this Court, noting a conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding the validity of the Fobian rule. Compare Fobian, supra, at 1153, with In re Shangra-La, Inc., 167 F. 3d 843, 848-849 (CA4 1999). We granted certiorari to resolve that conflict, post, p. 948.
II
Under the American Rule, “the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the loser.” Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247 (1975); see Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483, 490-491 (1880); Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306 (1796). This default rule can, of course, be overcome by statute. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 717 (1967). It can also be overcome by an “enforceable contract” allocating attorney’s fees. Ibid.
In a case governed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, we observed that “[t]he character of [a contractual] obligation to pay attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it in bankruptcy, either as a provable claim or by way of a lien upon specific property.” Security Mortgage Co. v. Powers, 278 U. S. 149, 154 (1928). Similarly, under the terms of the current Bankruptcy Code, it remains true that an otherwise enforceable contract allocating attorney’s fees (i. e., one that is enforceable under substantive, nonbankruptcy law) is allowable in bankruptcy except where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise. See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 506.04[3][a], p. 506-118 (rev. 15th ed. 2006) (hereinafter Collier).
This case requires us to consider whether the Bankruptcy Code disallows contract-based claims for attorney’s fees based solely on the fact that the fees at issue were incurred litigating issues of bankruptcy law. We conclude that it does not.
A
When a debtor declares bankruptcy, each of its creditors is entitled to file a proof of claim — i. e., a document providing proof of a “right to payment,” 11 U. S. C. § 101(5)(A) — against the debtor’s estate. Once a proof of claim has been filed, the court must determine whether the claim is “allowed” under § 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code: “A claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 ... is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest. .. objects.”
But even where a party in interest objects, the court “shall allow” the claim “except to the extent that” the claim implicates any of the nine exceptions enumerated in § 502(b). Those exceptions apply where the claim at issue is “unenforceable against the debtor . . . under any agreement or applicable law,” § 502(b)(1); “is for unmatured interest,” § 502(b)(2); “is for [property tax that] exceeds the value of the [estate’s] interest” in the property, § 502(b)(3); “is for services of an insider or attorney of the debtor” and “exceeds the reasonable value of such services,” § 502(b)(4); is for unmatured debt on certain alimony and child support obligations, § 502(b)(5); is for certain “damages resulting from the termination” of a lease or employment contract, §§ 502(b)(6) and (7); “results from a reduction, due to late payment, in the amount of. . . credit available to the debtor in connection with an employment tax on wages, salaries, or commissions earned from the debtor,” § 502(b)(8); or was brought to the court’s attention through an untimely proof of claim, § 502(b)(9).
Travelers’ claim for attorney’s fees has nothing to do with property tax, child support or alimony, services provided by an attorney of the debtor, damages resulting from the termination of a lease or employment contract, or the late payment of any employment tax. See §§ 502(b)(2) — (8). Nor does it appear that the proof of claim was untimely. See § 502(b)(9). Thus, Travelers’ claim must be allowed under § 502(b) unless it is unenforceable within the meaning of § 502(b)(1).
B
Section 502(b)(1) disallows any claim that is “unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured.” This provision is most naturally understood to provide that, with limited exceptions, any defense to a claim that is available outside of the bankruptcy context is also available in bankruptcy. See 4 Collier ¶ 502.03[2][b], at 502-22 (explaining that § 502(b)(1) is generally understood to “make available to the trustee any defense” available to the debtor “under applicable nonbankruptcy law” — i. <?., any defense that the debtor “could have interposed, absent bankruptcy, in a suit on the [same substantive] claim by the creditor”).
This reading of § 502(b)(1) is consistent not only with the plain statutory text, but also with the settled principle that “[creditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy arise in the first instance from the underlying substantive law creating the debtor’s obligation, subject to any qualifying or contrary provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U. S. 15, 20 (2000). That principle requires bankruptcy courts to consult state law in determining the validity of most claims. See ibid.
Indeed, we have long recognized that the “ ‘basic federal rule’ in bankruptcy is that state law governs the substance of claims, Congress having ‘generally left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law.’” Ibid, (quoting Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48, 57, 54 (1979); citation omitted). Accordingly, when the Bankruptcy Code uses the word “claim” — which the Code itself defines as a “right to payment,” 11 U. S. C. § 101(5)(A) — it is usually referring to a right to payment recognized under state law. As we stated in Butner, “[property interests are created and defined by state law,” and “[u]nless some federal interest requires a different result, there is no reason why such interests should be analyzed differently simply because an interested party is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.” 440 U. S., at 55; accord, Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green, 329 U. S. 156, 161 (1946) (“What claims of creditors are valid and subsisting obligations against the bankrupt at the time a petition in bankruptcy is filed is a question which, in the absence of overruling federal law, is to be determined by reference to state law”).
C
In rejecting Travelers’ claim for contractual attorney’s fees, the Court of Appeals did not conclude that the claim was “unenforceable” under § 502(b)(1) as a matter of applicable nonbankruptcy law. Nor did it conclude that Travelers’ claim was rendered unenforceable by any provision of the Bankruptcy Code. To the contrary, the court acknowledged that, in at least some circumstances, a “ ‘prevailing party in a bankruptcy proceeding may be entitled to an award of attorney fees in accordance with applicable state law . . . .’ ” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594 (quoting Baroff, 105 F. 3d, at 441).
The court nevertheless rejected Travelers’ claim based solely on a rule of that court’s own creation — the so-called Fobian rule — which dictates that “attorney fees are not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’ ” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594 (quoting Fobian, 951 F. 2d, at 1153). The court explained that, because the fees claimed by Travelers were incurred litigating issues that were “governed entirely by federal bankruptcy law,” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594, Travelers’ claim necessarily failed.
The Fobian rule finds no support in the Bankruptcy Code, either in § 502 or elsewhere. In Fobian, the court did not identify any provision of the Bankruptcy Code as providing support for the new rule. See 951 F. 2d, at 1153. Instead, the court cited three of its own prior decisions, In re Johnson, 756 F. 2d 738 (1985); In re Coast Trading Co., 744 F. 2d 686 (1984); and In re Fulwiler, 624 F. 2d 908 (1980) (per curium). Significantly, in none of those cases did the court identify any basis for disallowing a contractual claim for attorney’s fees incurred litigating issues of federal bankruptcy law. Nor did the court have occasion to do so; in each of those cases, the claim for attorney’s fees failed as a matter of state law. See Johnson, supra, at 741-742; Coast Trading, supra, at 693; Fulwiler, supra, at 910.
The absence of textual support is fatal for the Fobian rule. Consistent with our prior statements regarding creditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy, see, e. g., Raleigh, supra, at 20, we generally presume that claims enforceable under applicable state law will be allowed in bankruptcy unless they are expressly disallowed. See 11 U. S. C. § 502(b). Neither the court below nor PG&E has offered any reason why the fact that the attorney’s fees in this case were incurred litigating issues of federal bankruptcy law overcomes that presumption.
Section 502(b)(4) is instructive on this point. That provision expressly disallows claims for a particular category of attorney’s fees — those “for services of an ... attorney of the debtor,” to the extent the claimed fees “exeee[d] the reasonable value of such services.” The existence of that provision suggests that, in its absence, a claim for such fees would be allowed in bankruptcy to the extent enforceable under state law. The absence of an analogous provision excluding the category of fees covered by the Fobian rule likewise suggests that the Code does not categorically disallow them. See 4 Collier ¶ 506.04[3][a], at 506-118 (concluding that Fobian “inverts the proper analysis” by allowing attorney’s fees only where they are expressly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code, and explaining that “a claim for attorney’s fees arising in the context of litigating bankruptcy issues must be allowed if valid under applicable state law”).
Congress, of course, has the power to amend the Bankruptcy Code by adding a provision expressly disallowing claims for attorney’s fees incurred by creditors in the litigation of bankruptcy issues. But because no such provision exists, the Bankruptcy Code provides no basis for disallowing Travelers’ claim on the grounds stated by the Ninth Circuit.
As we explained in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications Inc., 537 U. S. 293 (2003), “where Congress has intended to provide . . . exceptions to provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, it has done so clearly and expressly.” Id., at 302. Here, the Bankruptcy Code does not “clearly and expressly” compel courts to follow the Fobian rule; on the contrary, the Code says nothing about unsecured claims for contractual attorney’s fees incurred while litigating issues of bankruptcy law. In light of the broad, permissive scope of § 502(b)(1), and our prior recognition that “[t]he character of [a contractual] obligation to pay attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it in bankruptcy,” it necessarily follows that the Fobian rule cannot stand. Security Mortgage, 278 U. S., at 154; see Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U. S. 213, 221 (1998) (“We . . . ‘will not read the Bankruptcy Code to erode past bankruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress intended such a departure’ ” (quoting Pennsylvania Dept, of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 563 (1990))).
III
PG&E makes no effort to defend the Fobian rule. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28 (conceding that PG&E does not defend the Fobian rule, and acknowledging that “[t]he Fobian rule is wrong... as to the distinction that it draws between State law and Federal litigation”). Instead, PG&E argues that § 506(b) categorically disallows unsecured claims for contractual attorney’s fees and — noting that Travelers’ claim is unsecured — asks us to affirm on that basis. Section 506(b) provides as follows:
“To the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which ... is greater than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim, and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for under the agreement or State statute under which such claim arose.” 11 U. S. C. § 506(b) (2000 ed., Supp. V).
According to PG&E, this provision authorizes claims for contractual attorney’s fees to the extent the creditor is over-secured, but disallows such claims to the extent the creditor is either not oversecured or (like Travelers) completely unsecured. This reading of the Code, PG&E argues, “is not a matter of negative implication, but of explicit negation.” Brief for Respondent 18. PG&E also argues that the structure and purpose of the Bankruptcy Code, examined against the backdrop of pre-Code bankruptcy law, confirm that Congress did not intend to allow unsecured creditors to recover attorney’s fees. See id,., at 25-38.
PG&E did not raise these arguments below. Consequently, none of the lower courts had occasion to address them. Nor were these arguments presented in PG&E’s brief in opposition to certiorari. PG&E nevertheless insists that we should address these arguments as though they were “fairly included” within the question presented in Travelers’ petition for certiorari. See id., at 41. That contention appears to be premised on the theory that “the Fobian rule reaches the correct conclusion in this case,” but “doesn’t go far enough in . . . preventing creditors from requiring other creditors to pay for their attorneys’ fees.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 25.
We are not persuaded. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the lower courts regarding the Fobian rule, which is analytically distinct from, and fundamentally at odds with, PG&E’s reading of § 506(b).
In any event, we ordinarily do not consider claims that were neither raised nor addressed below, Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168-169 (2004), and PG&E has failed to identify any circumstances that would warrant an exception to that rule in this case. We therefore will not consider these arguments.
Accordingly, we express no opinion with regard to whether, following the demise of the Fobian rule, other principles of bankruptcy law might provide an independent basis for disallowing Travelers’ claim for attorney’s fees. We conclude only that the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing that claim based on the fact that the fees at issue were incurred litigating issues of bankruptcy law.
* * *
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
California law required PG&E to provide workers’ compensation benefits for its employees by either (1) purchasing workers’ compensation insurance from a licensed provider of such insurance or (2) adopting a plan, with the State’s approval, to self-insure. PG&E chose the latter option, and was therefore required to post security with the State to ensure ongoing payment of mandatory workers’ compensation benefits. See Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §§ 3700,3701 (West 2003). Travelers posted the required security by issuing a bond on PG&E’s behalf. The bond makes Travelers liable, up to $100 million, for workers’ compensation benefits in the event of a default by PG&E.
The Court of Appeals incorporated by reference the reasoning employed in In re DeRoche, 434 F. 3d 1188 (CA9 2006), which was decided by the same panel that decided this case. 167 Fed. Appx., at 593. Although the DeRoche opinion is longer than its counterpart in this case, it adds very little to the panel’s explanation of the Fobian rule. See 434 F. 3d, at 1190-1192.
In Johnson, the debtor sought attorney’s fees after the creditor unsuccessfully requested relief from the automatic stay under 11 U. S. C. § 862(d)(1). The debtor acknowledged that the contract between the parties entitled only the creditor to attorney’s fees, but the debtor claimed that a California statute extended that entitlement to both parties. The court rejected that argument, noting that the statute applied only in the context of an “ ‘action on a contract,’ ” and concluding that a request for relief from an automatic stay could not be considered an action on a contract. 756 F. 2d, at 741-742. Both Coast Trading and Fulwiler involved claims for attorney’s fees based on an Oregon statute similar to the statute at issue in Johnson; the court found the statute inapplicable in both cases. Coast Trading, 744 F. 2d, at 693; Fulwiler, 624 F. 2d, at 909-910.
PG&E’s new reading of the Code would prohibit all unsecured creditors from recovering contractual, postpetition attorney’s fees in bankruptcy proceedings — even if those fees were incurred while litigating issues of state law. See Brief for Respondent 17-19. The Fobian rule, by contrast, would allow such a recovery — even by unsecured creditors — so long as the litigation resulting in the claimed fees did not involve “issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.” See In re Fobian, 951 F. 2d 1149, 1153 (GA9 1991).
For similar reasons, we will not address PG&E’s argument that Travelers’ claim should be denied based on the theory that the fees at issue were incurred in connection with activities that were not reasonably necessary to preserve Travelers’ rights and, alternatively, were not authorized by Travelers’ contract with PG&E. See Brief for Respondent 42-49. This argument was not addressed below, was not raised in PG&E’s brief in opposition to certiorari, and bears no relation to the question presented. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a) (“Only the questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits on whether a taxpayer’s reliance on an attorney to prepare and file a tax return constitutes “reasonable cause” under § 6651(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, so as to defeat a statutory penalty incurred because of a late filing.
f — (
A
Respondent, Robert W. Boyle, was appointed executor of the will of his mother, Myra Boyle, who died on September 14, 1978; respondent retained Ronald Keyser to serve as attorney for the estate. Keyser informed respondent that the estate must file a federal estate tax return, but he did not mention the deadline for filing this return. Under 26 U. S. C. § 6075(a), the return was due within nine months of the decedent’s death, i. e., not later than June 14, 1979.
Although a businessman, respondent was not experienced in the field of federal estate taxation, other than having been executor of his father’s will 20 years earlier. It is undisputed that he relied on Keyser for instruction and guidance. He cooperated fully with his attorney and provided Keyser with all relevant information and records. Respondent and his wife contacted Keyser a number of times during the spring and summer of 1979 to inquire about the progress of the proceedings and the preparation of the tax return; they were assured that they would be notified when the return was due and that the return would be filed “in plenty of time.” App. 39. When respondent called Keyser on September 6, 1979, he learned for the first time that the return was by then overdue. Apparently, Keyser had overlooked the matter because of a clerical oversight in omitting the filing date from Keyser’s master calendar. Respondent met with Keyser on September 11, and the return was filed on September 13, three months late.
B
Acting pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 6651(a)(1), the Internal Revenue Service assessed against the estate an additional tax of $17,124.45 as a penalty for the late filing, with $1,326.56 in interest. Section 6651(a)(1) reads in pertinent part:
“In case of failure ... to file any return ... on the date prescribed therefor . . . , unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount required to be shown as tax on such return 5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
A Treasury Regulation provides that, to demonstrate “reasonable cause,” a taxpayer filing a late return must show that he “exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file the return within the prescribed time.” 26 CFR §301.6651-1(c)(1) (1984).
Respondent paid the penalty and filed a claim for a refund. He conceded that the assessment for interest was proper, but contended that the penalty was unjustified because his failure to file the return on time was “due to reasonable cause,” i. e., reliance on his attorney. Respondent brought suit in the United States District Court, which concluded that the claim was controlled by the Court of Appeals’ holding in Rohrabaugh v. United States, 611 F. 2d 211 (CA7 1979). In Rohrabaugh, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that reliance upon counsel constitutes “reasonable cause” under § 6651(a)(1) when: (1) the taxpayer is unfamiliar with the tax law; (2) the taxpayer makes full disclosure of all relevant facts to the attorney that he relies upon, and maintains contact with the attorney from time to time during the administration of the estate; and (3) the taxpayer has otherwise exercised ordinary business care and prudence. 611 F. 2d, at 215, 219. The District Court held that, under Rohrabaugh, respondent had established “reasonable cause” for the late filing of his tax return; accordingly, it granted summary judgment for respondent and ordered refund of the penalty. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit, with three opinions, affirmed. 710 F. 2d 1251 (1983).
We granted certiorari, 466 U. S. 903 (1984), and we reverse.
II
A
Congress’ purpose in the prescribed civil penalty was to ensure timely filing of tax returns to the end that tax liability will be ascertained and paid promptly. The relevant statutory deadline provision is clear; it mandates that all federal estate tax returns be filed within nine months from the decedent’s death, 26 U. S. C. 6076(a). Failure to comply incurs a penalty of 5 percent of the ultimately determined tax for each month the return is late, with a maximum of 25 percent of the base tax. To escape the penalty, the taxpayer bears the heavy burden of proving both (1) that the failure did not result from “willful neglect,” and (2) that the failure was “due to reasonable cause.” 26 U. S. C. § 6651(a)(1).
The meaning of these two standards has become clear over the near-70 years of their presence in the statutes. As used here, the term “willful neglect” may be read as meaning a conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference. See Orient Investment & Finance Co. v. Commissioner, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 74, 75, 166 F. 2d 601, 602 (1948); Hatfried, Inc. v. Commissioner, 162 F. 2d 628, 634 (CA3 1947); Janice Leather Imports Ltd. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (SDNY 1974); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Riddell, 149 F. Supp. 128, 131-132 (SD Cal. 1957). Like “willful neglect,” the term “reasonable cause” is not defined in the Code, but the relevant Treasury Regulation calls on the taxpayer to demonstrate that he exercised “ordinary business care and prudence” but nevertheless was “unable to file the return within the prescribed time.” 26 CFR §301.6651(c)(l)(1984); accord, e. g., Fleming v. United States, 648 F. 2d 1122, 1124 (CA7 1981); Ferrando v. United States, 245 F. 2d 582, 587 (CA9 1957); Haywood Lumber & Mining Co. v. Commissioner, 178 F. 2d 769, 770 (CA2 1950); Southeastern Finance Co. v. Commissioner, 153 F. 2d 205 (CA5 1946); Girard Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 122 F. 2d 843, 848 (CA3 1941); see also n. 1, supra. The Commissioner does not contend that respondent’s failure to file the estate tax return on time was willful or reckless. The question to be resolved is whether, under the statute, reliance on an attorney in the instant circumstances is a “reasonable cause” for failure to meet the deadline.
B
In affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals recognized the difficulties presented by its formulation but concluded that it was bound by Rohrabaugh v. United States, 611 F. 2d 211 (CA7 1979). The Court of Appeals placed great importance on the fact that respondent engaged the services of an experienced attorney specializing in probate matters and that he duly inquired from time to time as to the progress of the proceedings. As in Rohrabaugh, see id., at 219, the Court of Appeals in this case emphasized that its holding was narrowly drawn and closely tailored to the facts before it. The court stressed that the question of “reasonable cause” was an issue to be determined on a case-by-case basis. See 710 F. 2d, at 1253-1254; id., at 1254 (Coffey, J., concurring).
Other Courts of Appeals have dealt with the issue of “reasonable cause” for a late filing and reached contrary conclusions. In Ferrando v. United States, 245 F. 2d 582 (CA9 1957), the court held that taxpayers have a personal and nondelegable duty to file a return on time, and that reliance on an attorney to fulfill this obligation does not constitute “reasonable cause” for a tardy filing. Id., at 589. The Fifth Circuit has similarly held that the responsibility for ensuring a timely filing is the taxpayer’s alone, and that the taxpayer’s reliance on his tax advisers — accountants or attorneys — is not a “reasonable cause.” Millette & Associates v. Commissioner, 594 F. 2d 121, 124-125 (per curiam), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 899 (1979); Logan Lumber Co. v. Commissioner, 365 F. 2d 846, 854 (1966). The Eighth Circuit also has concluded' that reliance on counsel does not constitute “reasonable cause.” Smith v. United States, 702 F. 2d 741, 743 (1983) (per curiam); Boeving v. United States, 650 F. 2d 493, 495 (1981); Estate of Lillehei v. Commissioner, 638 F. 2d 65, 66 (1981) (per curiam).
► — I HH h-i
We need not dwell on the similarities or differences in the facts presented by the conflicting holdings. The time has come for a rule with as “bright” a line as can be drawn consistent with the statute and implementing regulations. Deadlines are inherently arbitrary; fixed dates, however, are often essential to accomplish necessary results. The Government has millions of taxpayers to monitor, and our system of self-assessment in the initial calculation of a tax simply cannot work on any basis other than one of strict filing standards. Any less rigid standard would risk encouraging a lax attitude toward filing dates. Prompt payment of taxes is imperative to the Government, which should not have to assume the burden of unnecessary ad hoc determinations.
Congress has placed the burden of prompt filing on the executor, not on some agent or employee of the executor. The duty is fixed and clear; Congress intended to place upon the taxpayer an obligation to ascertain the statutory deadline and then to meet that deadline, except in a very narrow range of situations. Engaging an attorney to assist in the probate proceedings is plainly an exercise of the “ordinary business care and prudence” prescribed by the regulations, 26 CFR § 301.6651 — 1(c)(1) (1984), but that does not provide an answer to the question we face here. To say that it was “reasonable” for the executor to assume that the attorney would comply with the statute may resolve the matter as between them, but not with respect to the executor’s obligations under the statute. Congress has charged the executor with an unambiguous, precisely defined duty to file the return within nine months; extensions are granted fairly routinely. That the attorney, as the executor’s agent, was expected to attend to the matter does not relieve the principal of his duty to comply with the statute.
This case is not one in which a taxpayer has relied on the erroneous advice of counsel concerning a question of law. Courts have frequently held that “reasonable cause” is established when a taxpayer shows that he reasonably relied on the advice of an accountant or attorney that it was unnecessary to file a return, even when such advice turned out to have been mistaken. See, e. g., United States v. Kroll, 547 F. 2d 398, 395-396 (CA7 1977); Commissioner v. American Assn. of Engineers Employment, Inc., 204 F. 2d 19, 21 (CA7 1953); Burton Swartz Land Corp. v. Commissioner, 198 F. 2d 558, 560 (CA5 1952); Haywood Lumber & Mining Co. v. Commissioner, 178 F. 2d, at 771; Orient Investment & Finance Co. v. Commissioner, 83 U. S. App. D. C., at 75, 166 F. 2d, at 603; Hatfried, Inc. v. Commissioner, 162 F. 2d, at 633-635; Girard Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 122 F. 2d, at 848; Dayton Bronze Bearing Co. v. Gilligan, 281 F. 709, 712 (CA6 1922). This Court also has implied that, in such a situation, reliance on the opinion of a tax adviser may constitute reasonable cause for failure to file a return. See Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U. S. 219 (1944) (remanding for determination whether failure to file return was due to reasonable cause, when taxpayer was advised that filing was not required).
When an accountant or attorney advises a taxpayer on a matter of tax law, such as whether a liability exists, it is reasonable for the taxpayer to rely on that advice. Most taxpayers are not competent to discern error in the substantive advice of an accountant or attorney. To require the taxpayer to challenge the attorney, to seek a “second opinion,” or to try to monitor counsel on the provisions of the Code himself would nullify the very purpose of seeking the advice of a presumed expert in the first place. See Haywood Lumber, supra, at 771. “Ordinary business care and prudence” do not demand such actions.
By contrast, one does not have to be a tax expert to know that tax returns have fixed filing dates and that taxes must be paid when they are due. In short, tax returns imply deadlines. Reliance by a lay person on a lawyer is of course common; but that reliance cannot function as a substitute for compliance with an unambiguous statute. Among the first duties of the representative of a decedent’s estate is to identify and assemble the assets of the decedent and to ascertain tax obligations. Although it is common practice for an executor to engage a professional to prepare and file an estate tax return, a person experienced in business matters can perform that task personally. It is not unknown for an executor to prepare tax returns, take inventories, and carry out other significant steps in the probate of an estate. It is even not uncommon for an executor to conduct probate proceedings without counsel.
It requires no special training or effort to ascertain a deadline and make sure that it is met. The failure to make a timely filing of a tax return is not excused by the taxpayer’s reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not “reasonable cause” for a late filing under § 6651(a)(1). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The Internal Revenue Service has articulated eight reasons for a late filing that it considers to constitute “reasonable cause.” These reasons include unavoidable postal delays, the taxpayer’s timely filing of a return with the wrong IRS office, the taxpayer’s reliance on the erroneous advice of an IRS officer or employee, the death or serious illness of the taxpayer or a member of his immediate family, the taxpayer’s unavoidable absence, destruction by casualty of the taxpayer’s records or place of business, failure of the IRS to furnish the taxpayer with the necessary forms in a timely fashion, and the inability of an IRS representative to meet with the taxpayer when the taxpayer makes a timely visit to an IRS office in an attempt to secure information or.aid in the preparation of a return. Internal Revenue Manual (CCH) § 4350, (24) ¶ 22.2(2) (Mar. 20, 1980) (Audit Technique Manual for Estate Tax Examiners). If the cause asserted by the taxpayer does not implicate any of these eight reasons, the district director determines whether the asserted cause is reasonable. “A cause for delinquency which appears to a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence as a reasonable cause for delay in filing a return and which clearly negatives willful neglect will be accepted as reasonable.” Id., ¶ 22.2(3).
Section 6081(a) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the IRS to grant “a reasonable extension of time,” generally no longer than six months, for filing any return.
Congress added the relevant language to the tax statutes in 1916. For many years before that, § 3176 mandated a 50 percent penalty “in ease of a refusal or neglect, except in cases of sickness or absence, to make a list or return, or to verify the same . . . .” Rev. Stat. §3176 (emphasis added). The Revenue Act of 1916 amended this provision to require the 50 percent penalty for failure to file a return within the prescribed time, “except that, when a return is voluntarily and without notice from the collector filed after such time and it is shown that the failure to file it was due to a reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, no such addition shall be made to the tax.” Revenue Act of 1916, ch. 463, § 16,39 Stat. 756, 775 (emphasis added). No committee reports or congressional hearings or debates discuss the change in language. It would be logical to assume that Congress intended “willful neglect” to replace “refusal” — both expressions implying intentional failure — and “[absence of] reasonable cause” to replace “neglect” — both expressions implying carelessness.
Respondent contends that the statute must be construed to apply a standard of willfulness only, and that the Treasury Regulation is incompatible with this construction of the statute. He argues that the Regulation converts the statute into a test of “ordinary business care,” because a taxpayer who demonstrates ordinary business care can never be guilty of “willful neglect.” By construing “reasonable cause” as the equivalent of “ordinary business care,” respondent urges, the IRS has removed from consideration any question of willfulness.
We cannot accept this reasoning. Congress obviously intended to make absence of fault a prerequisite to avoidance of the late-filing penalty. See n. 3, supra. A taxpayer seeking a refund must therefore prove that his failure to file on time was the result neither of carelessness, reckless indifference, nor intentional failure. Thus, the Service’s correlation of “reasonable cause” with “ordinary business care and prudence” is consistent with Congress’ intent, and over 40 years of case law as well. That interpretation merits deference. See, e. g., Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844, and n. 14 (1984).
Although at one point the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that reliance on counsel could constitute reasonable cause, see In re Fisk’s Estate, 203 F. 2d 358, 360 (1953), the Sixth Circuit appears now to be following those courts that have held that the taxpayer has a nondelegable duty to ascertain the deadline for a return and ensure that the return is filed by that deadline. See Estate of Geraci v. Commissioner, 32 TCM 424, 425 (1973), aff’d, 502 F. 2d 1148 (CA6 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 992 (1975); Estate of Duttenhofer v. Commissioner, 49 T. C. 200, 205 (1967), aff’d, 410 F. 2d 302 (CA6 1969) (per curiam).
The administrative regulations and practices exempt late filings from the penalty when the tardiness results from postal delays, illness, and other factors largely beyond the taxpayer’s control. See supra, at 243, and n. 1. The principle underlying the IRS regulations and practices— that a taxpayer should not be penalized for circumstances beyond his control — already recognizes a range of exceptions which there is no reason for us to pass on today. This principle might well cover a filing default by a taxpayer who relied on an attorney or accountant because the taxpayer was, for some reason, incapable by objective standards of meeting the criteria of “ordinary business care and prudence.” In that situation, however, the disability alone could well be an acceptable excuse for a late filing.
But this case does not involve the effect of a taxpayer’s disability; it involves the effect of a taxpayer’s reliance on an agent employed by the taxpayer, and our holding necessarily is limited to that issue rather than the wide range of issues that might arise in future cases under the statute and regulations. Those potential future cases are purely hypothetical at the moment and simply have no bearing on the issue now before us. The concurring opinion seems to agree in part. After four pages of discussion, it concludes:
“Because the respondent here was fully capable of meeting the required standard of ordinary business care and prudence, we need not decide the issue of whether and under what circumstances a taxpayer who presents evidence that he was unable to adhere to the required standard might be entitled to relief from the penalty.” Post, at 255.
This conclusion is unquestionably correct. See also, e. g., Reed v. Ross, 468 U. S. 1, 8, n. 5 (1984); Heckler v. Day, 467 U. S. 104, 119, nn. 33 and 34 (1984); Kosak v. United States, 465 U. S. 848, 853, n. 8 (1984); Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U. S. 773, 779, n. 4 (1983).
Many systems that do not collect taxes on a self-assessment basis have experienced difficulties in administering tax collection. See J. Wagner, France’s Soak-the-Rieh Tax, Congressional Quarterly (Editorial Research Reports), Oct. 12, 1982; Dodging Taxes in the Old World, Time, Mar. 28, 1983, p. 32.
A number of courts have indicated that “reasonable cause” is a question of fact, to be determined only from the particular situation presented in each particular case. See, e. g., Estate of Mayer v. Commissioner, 351 F. 2d 617 (CA2 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 383 U. S. 935 (1966); Coates v. Commissioner, 234 F. 2d 459, 462 (CA8 1956). This view is not entirely correct. Whether the elements that constitute “reasonable cause” are present in a given situation is a question of fact, but what elements must be present to constitute “reasonable cause” is a question of law. See, e. g., Haywood Lumber & Mining Co. v. Commissioner, 178 F. 2d 769, 772 (CA2 1950); Daley v. United States, 480 F. Supp. 808, 811 (ND 1979). When faced with a recurring situation, such as that presented by the instant case, the courts of appeals should not be reluctant to formulate a clear rule of law to deal with that situation.
Courts have differed over whether a taxpayer demonstrates “reasonable cause” when, in reliance on the advice of his accountant or attorney, the taxpayer files a return after the actual due date but within the time the adviser erroneously told him was available. Compare Sanderling, Inc. v. Commissioner, 571 F. 2d 174, 178-179 (CA3 1978) (finding “reasonable cause” in such a situation); Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, 73 T. C. 82, 90, n. 9 (1979) (same); Estate of DiPalma v. Commissioner, 71 T. C. 324, 327 (1978) (same), acq., 1979-1 Cum. Bull. 1; Estate of Bradley v. Commissioner, 33 TCM 70, 72-73 (1974) (same), aff’d, 511 F. 2d 527 (CA6 1975), with Estate of Kerber v. United States, 717 F. 2d 454, 454-455, and n. 1 (CA8 1983) (per curiam) (no “reasonable cause”), cert. pending, No. 83-1038; Smith v. United States, 702 F. 2d 741, 742 (CA8 1983) (same); Sarto v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 476, 478 (ND Cal. 1983) (same). We need not and do not address ourselves to 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:
|
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.
Under Massachusetts procedure, a “two-tier” system is utilized for trial of a variety of criminal charges. The initial trial under this system is in a county district court or the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. No jury is available in these courts, but persons who are convicted in them may obtain a de novo trial, with a jury, in the appropriate superior court by lodging an “appeal” with that court. At the de novo trial, all issues of law and fact must be determined anew and are not affected by the initial disposition. In effect, the taking of the appeal vacates the district court or Municipal Court judgment, leaving the defendant in the position of defendants in other States which require the prosecution to present its proof before a jury.
In January 1974, appellant Costarelli was charged with knowing unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, an offense under Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 90, § 24 (2) (a) (Supp. 1975). The offense carries a maximum sentence of a $500 fine and two years’ imprisonment, and is subject to the two-tier system described above. Prior to trial in the Municipal Court, Costarelli moved for a jury trial. The motion was denied and the trial before the court resulted in a judgment of guilty. A one-year prison sentence was imposed. Costarelli thereupon lodged an appeal in the Superior Court for Suffolk County.
Without awaiting proceedings in Superior Court, Costarelli appealed to this Court, seeking to establish that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a jury be available in his first trial, whether it be in the Municipal Court or the Superior Court. He also raised speedy trial and double jeopardy contentions as bars to his retrial before a jury. On October 21, 1974, we postponed further consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 419 U. S. 893. We now dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1257 limits our review to the judgment of the highest state court in which a decision could be had, and we conclude that this is not such a judgment.
That a decision of a higher state court might have been had in this case is established by a recent decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Whitmarsh v. Commonwealth, -Mass. -, 316 N. E. 2d 610 (1974), in which another criminal defendant sought relief from Massachusetts’ two-tier trial system. After conviction without a jury in the first tier, Whitmarsh took his appeal to the Superior Court, but thereupon sought immediate review of his constitutional contentions in the Supreme Judicial Court. As one potential basis of that court’s jurisdiction, he asserted its power of “general superintendence of all courts of inferior jurisdiction to correct and prevent errors and abuses therein if no other remedy is expressly provided." Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 211, §3 (1958) (emphasis added). The Supreme Judicial Court rejected this basis of jurisdiction on the ground that another remedy was in fact expressly provided. It stated:
“The constitutional issue the plaintiff now asks us to decide is the same issue which he raised in the District Court, and in the Superior Court by his motion to dismiss. If his motion were denied, and if he were thereafter tried in the Superior Court and found guilty, the plaintiff would have available to him an opportunity for appellate review of the ruling on his motion as matter of right by saving and perfecting exceptions thereto.” -Mass., at-, 316 N. E. 2d, at 613 (footnote omitted).
It is thus clear that Costarelli can raise his constitutional issues in Superior Court by a motion to dismiss, and can obtain state appellate review of an adverse decision through appeal to the state high court. That the issue might be mooted by his acquittal in Superior Court is, of course, without consequence, since an important purpose of the requirement that we review only final judgments of highest available state courts is to prevent our interference with state proceedings when the underlying dispute may be otherwise resolved. Cf. Republic Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U. S. 62, 67 (1948); Gorman v. Washington University, 316 U. S. 98, 100-101 (1942).
Costarelli argues that resort to the remedy outlined in Whitmarsh should be unnecessary, because it cannot produce the relief to which he believes he is entitled. He is of the opinion that if the Superior Court denied his motion to dismiss, he would have no alternative but to proceed to trial before a jury. Once this occurred the error would, he fears, have been cured, or at least mooted.
But we think this contention confuses an argument of substantive constitutional law with an argument relating to the application of 28 U. S. C. § 1257. Whit-marsh undoubtedly contemplates that in the event the Superior Court were to deny Costarelli’s motion, he would then have to proceed to trial. But just as surely it contemplates that in the event that judgment were adverse to him, he could appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court and raise before it precisely the constitutional question which had been raised by the motion to dismiss in the Superior Court. Whether the fact that he was afforded a jury trial in the Superior Court proceeding “cured” or “mooted” his federal, constitutional claim is a matter of federal constitutional law, for determination initially in state courts and ultimately by this Court. That the state courts might conclude that the second-tier trial terminated his claim does not mean that Costarelli may draft his own rules of procedure in order to raise the claim only before those Massachusetts courts which he deems appropriate. Massachusetts affords him a method by which he may raise his constitutional claim in the Superior Court, and a method by which he may, if necessary, appropriately preserve that claim for assertion in the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, therefore, is “the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had” on his claim. Since no decision has been had in that court, we lack jurisdiction of this case.
Appellant relies on language from Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418 (1943), to support a contrary result. In that case we reviewed a judgment of the County Court of Lamar County, Tex. We did so because under Texas law the state-court system provided no appeal from that judgment of conviction. We noted that state habeas corpus was available to test the constitutionality on its face of the ordinance under which Mrs. Largent had been convicted, but that it was not available to test its constitutionality as applied in her particular case.
We then stated:
“Since there is, by Texas law or practice, no method which has been called to our attention for reviewing the conviction of appellant, on the record made in the county court, we are of the opinion the appeal is properly here under § [1257 (2)] of the Judicial Code.” Id., at 421 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that because the proceeding in Massachusetts Superior Court would not be a review on the record made in Municipal Court, the de novo proceeding in Superior Court is a collateral proceeding which need not, under Largent, be utilized to satisfy the highest-court requirement.
Appellant's reliance is misplaced. In Largent, we went on to say:
“The proceeding in the county court was a distinct suit. It disposed of the charge. The possibility that the appellant might obtain release by a subsequent and distinct proceeding, and one not in the nature of a review of the pending charge, in the same or a different court of the State does not affect the finality of the existing judgment or the fact that this judgment was obtained in the highest state court available to the appellant. Cf. Bandini Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U. S. 8, 14; Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 70.” 318 U. S., at 421-422.
The present case is plainly distinguishable. Here the Municipal Court proceeding did not finally dispose of the charge, and the proceeding in Superior Court is not a distinct suit or proceeding. It is instead based on precisely the same complaint as was the Municipal Court trial. In Largent, the available review on habeas corpus was not based on the record in county court for the reason that habeas review was sharply limited in scope. Similarly, in Bandini Co., cited in Largent, the “distinct suit” was a proceeding for a writ of prohibition in which the only litigable issue was lower court jurisdiction.
Here, on the contrary, the review is not circumscribed so as to be narrower than normal appellate-type review on the record made in an inferior court, but is instead so broad as to permit de novo relitigation of all aspects of the offense charged, whether they be factual or legal. It is because of the breadth of appellate review, not its narrowness, as in Largent, that the record is not the basis of review in Superior Court. Greater identity of proceedings in two different courts would be difficult to imagine, and it would be strange indeed to class the Superior Court trial as a form of “collateral” review of the Municipal Court judgment in the same sense as habeas corpus is traditionally thought of as a “collateral attack” on a judgment of conviction.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
So ordered.
Mb. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 218, § 27A, and c. 278, § 18 (Supp. 1975); c. 278, § 18A (1972).
Unlike the situation in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972), the initial trial cannot be avoided by a plea of guilty without also waiving the right to a jury trial in superior court.
Appellant argues that in several respects the district court or Municipal Court judgment remains in effect despite the lodging of an appeal. In particular, he points to the facts that if a defendant defaults in superior court, the first-tier judgment becomes the legal basis for imposing sentence, and that appeal does not eliminate such collateral consequences as revocation of parole or of a driver’s permit. These matters do not affect the result we announce today, and merit no further discussion.
There is some question as to whether review should have been sought by way of a petition for certiorari rather than appeal. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), we have appellate jurisdiction when the constitutional validity of a state statute is drawn in question and the decision is in favor of its validity. In the present case it is not clear that the denial of a jury in the first-tier trial resulted from the operation of a statute rather than of custom and practice. We need not resolve the issue, because it cannot affect our disposition — if not properly denominated an appeal, we would treat the papers as a petition for certiorari, 28 U. S. C. §2103, and the highest-state-court requirement of § 1257 applies to petitions for certiorari as well as to appeals.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
One afternoon, petitioner and another man robbed the post office at Louisville, Kentucky, at gunpoint. Two women were in charge of the post office, which had just closed, and petitioner warned them: “One false move out of you, I’ll blow your brains out.” They were then tied and gagged. A week later a bank in Indiana was robbed. Petitioner, found hiding in a motel closet with a pistol, and money orders stolen from the post office, was arrested for the bank robbery. After a one-day trial and 18 minutes of jury deliberation, petitioner was convicted of jeopardizing the lives of the postal custodians while robbing them. The offense carries a mandatory sentence of 25 years.
Immediately after the jury returned its verdict the jurors were polled and the judge, noting the mandatory 25-year sentence, invited petitioner and his lawyer to exercise the right of allocution. Both asked that petitioner be allowed to spend a few days with his family before commencing to serve the sentence. The judge refused, and counsel for petitioner asked that a pre-sentence investigation be made. The judge interrupted:
“A pre-sentence investigation has been made. It is before me now, and I have read it. It shows a juvenile record. It shows in 1960 this defendant stole an automobile in violation of the Dyer Act and was given an indeterminate youth commitment sentence. He was paroled in 1965. He was returned — no, he was paroled in ’62, returned as a parole violator in ’65 and was not released full time until May of last year.
“I am also informed that he was convicted of armed robbery in Yuma, Arizona, and given from seven to ten years. Several warrants are now pending against him for robbery with which he is charged.”
Petitioner seeks a reversal of his conviction, asserting as his sole substantial argument that this record reveals that the trial judge had read the presentence report before the jury returned its verdict, in violation of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rule 32 is explicit. It asserts that the “report shall not be submitted to the court . . . unless the defendant has pleaded guilty or has been found guilty.” This language clearly permits the preparation of a presentence report before guilty plea or conviction but it is equally clear that the report must not, under any circumstances, be “submitted to the court” before the defendant pleads guilty or is convicted. Submission of the report to the court before that point constitutes error of the clearest kind.
Moreover, the rule must not be taken lightly. Pre-sentence reports are documents which the rule does not make available to the defendant as a matter of right. There are no formal limitations on their contents, and they may rest on hearsay and contain information bearing no relation whatever to the crime with which the defendant is charged. To permit the ex parte introduction of this sort of material to the judge who will pronounce the defendant’s guilt or innocence or who will preside over a jury trial would seriously contravene the rule’s purpose of preventing possible prejudice from premature submission of the presentence report. No trial judge, therefore, should examine the report while the jury is deliberating since he may be called upon to give further instructions or answer inquiries from the jury, in which event there would be the possibility of prejudice which Rule 32 intended to avoid. Although the judge may have that information at his disposal in order to give a defendant a sentence suited to his particular character and potential for rehabilitation, there is no reason for him to see the document until the occasion to sentence arises, and under the rule he must not do so.
However, on the facts of this case, it does not emerge with sufficient clarity that Rule 32 was violated, and we therefore affirm the judgment below. The trial judge did not state that he read the presentence report before the jury verdict was delivered, nor is there any direct evidence in this record that he did. Only a few minutes had elapsed between the delivery of the jury verdict and his statement that he had the report before him and had read it. But only a very short time was needed to read the well-organized five-page report, which was largely in widely spaced tabular form. It is entirely possible that the practice was followed of handing the report from the probation officer to the court just as the jury’s verdict was delivered.
We also take note of the very special circumstances appearing in this case. Even if this record revealed that the judge had read the presentence report after the jury retired and before the return of the verdict, the judge could not have infected the jury with anything he learned from the report since there was no necessity or occasion for communicating with the jury once it began its deliberations, and the jury delivered its verdict immediately upon emerging from seclusion. Moreover, the judge had no discretion whatever in sentencing since the statute prescribed a 25-year sentence; and the only question before him was whether petitioner should be put on probation. Aside from the information about this particular crime which was developed at trial, the judge had had occasion to study a comprehensive psychiatric report on petitioner in determining his competence to stand trial. Every item of information to which the trial judge adverted in sentencing had been revealed to him in the psychiatric report. Moreover, the psychiatric report was three times as long as the pre-sentence report, which was in every material respect a condensation of the psychiatric report. It must have been apparent at a glance to the trial judge that the presentence report contained no new information, and his decision to refuse probation was amply supported by what he had heard at trial and read in the psychiatric report alone. Since the brief presentence report came to the same conclusion on the basis of far less detailed information than the judge already had at his disposal, there was no occasion to study it.
We are unable to conclude from this record either that the presentence report was submitted to the court before the verdict was delivered, thus violating the letter of the rule, or that the handling of the presentence report raised any possibility of prejudice to petitioner’s rights under Rule 32.
For these reasons, the judgment is
Affirmed.
“Whoever assaults any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter, money, or other property of the United States, or robs any such person of mail matter, or of any money, or other property of the United States, shall, for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery he wounds the person having custody of such mail, money, or other property of the United States, or puts his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned twenty-five years.” 18 U. S. C. § 2114.
“(a) Sentence.
“(1) Imposition of Sentence. Sentence shall be imposed without unreasonable delay. . . .
“(c) Presentence Investigation.
“(1) When Made. The probation service of the court shall make a presentence investigation and report to the court before the imposition of sentence or the granting of probation unless the court otherwise directs. The report shall not be submitted to the court or its contents disclosed to anyone unless the defendant has pleaded guilty or has been found guilty.
“(2) Report. The report of the presentence investigation shall contain any prior criminal record of the defendant and such information about his characteristics, his financial condition and the circumstances affecting his behavior as may be helpful in imposing sentence or in granting probation or in the correctional treatment of the defendant, and such other information as may be required by the court. The court before imposing sentence may disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part of the material contained in the report of the presentence investigation and afford an opportunity to the defendant or his counsel to comment thereon. Any material disclosed to the defendant or his counsel shall also be disclosed to the attorney for the government.”
The history of the rule confirms this interpretation. The first Preliminary Draft of the rule would have required the consent of the defendant or his attorney to commence the investigation before the determination of guilt. Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., Preliminary Draft 130, 133 (1943). The Second Preliminary Draft omitted this requirement and imposed no limitation on the time when the report could be made and submitted to the court. Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., Second Preliminary Draft 126-128 (1944). The third and final draft, which was adopted as Rule 32, was evidently a compromise between those who opposed any time limitation, and those who preferred that the entire investigation be conducted after determination of guilt. See 5 L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules §32.2 (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:
|
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.
The issue before the Court is the scope of the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States to examine the records of a private contractor with whom the Government has entered into fixed-price negotiated contracts. We conclude that, under the circumstances presented in this action, the Comptroller General may inspect the contractor’s records of direct costs, but not records of indirect costs.
In 1973 Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck), entered into three contracts with the Defense Supply Agency of the Department of Defense and one contract with the Veterans’ Administration for the sale of pharmaceutical products to the Government. All four contracts were negotiated, rather than awarded after formal advertising. The pharmaceutical products supplied under each contract were standard commercial products sold by Merck in substantial quantities to the general public. App. 41a. The price term proposed by Merck for each contract was based on the catalog price at which Merck sold the item to the general public or was otherwise determined by adequate competition. Before the award of each of the contracts at the fixed price proposed by Merck, there was no actual negotiation of price, and the Government contracting officers did not request Merck to submit cost data in connection with any of the four contracts.
As required by 10 U. S. C. § 2313(b) and 65 Stat. 700, 41 U. S. C. § 254(c), each contract contained a standard access-to-records clause granting the Comptroller General the right to examine any directly pertinent records involving transactions related to the contract. Relying on these clauses, in August 1974 the Comptroller General issued a formal demand to Merck for access to the following:
“all books, documents, papers, and other records directly pertinent to the contracts, which include, but are not limited to (1) records of experienced costs including costs of direct materials, direct labor, overhead, and other pertinent corporate costs, (2) support for prices charged to the Government, and (3) such other information as may be necessary for use to review the reasonableness of the contract prices and the adequacy of the protection afforded the Government’s interests.” App. 18a.
Merck refused to comply with the Comptroller General’s request and commenced this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Comptroller General’s access demand exceeded his statutory authority. The United States intervened and counterclaimed to enforce the Comptroller General’s demand.
The District Court granted partial summary judgment for each party. Rejecting Merck’s argument that cost records are not “directly pertinent” to the fixed-price contracts that were the predicate of the General Accounting Office (GAO) demand, the court permitted access to all records
“directly pertaining to the pricing and cost of producing the items furnished by... Merck under the... contracts... including manufacturing costs (including raw and packaging materials, labor and fringe benefits, quality control and supervision), manufacturing overhead (including plant administration, production planning, warehousing, utilities and security), royalty expenses, and delivery costs.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 81-1273, p. 39a.
The court barred access, however, to records “with respect to research and development, marketing and promotion, distribution, and administration (except to the extent such data may be included in the cost items listed above).” Id., at 40a. In a brief per curiam opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. Merck & Co. v. Staats, 214 U. S. App. D. C. 418, 665 F. 2d 1236 (1981).
Both parties sought certiorari. In No. 81-1273, the United States petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals’ determination that records of Merck’s indirect costs are not subject to examination by the Comptroller General. In No. 81-1472, Merck challenges the determination that records of its direct costs are “directly pertinent” to the contracts in question and are therefore subject to examination. Merck also contends that access to its cost records is barred because the Comptroller General’s access demand was not made for a congressionally authorized purpose. We granted certiorari on the petitions of both parties, 456 U. S. 925 (1982), and now affirm.
II
As with any issue of statutory construction, we “ ‘must begin with the language of the statute itself. ’ ” Bread Political Action Committee v. FEC, 455 U. S. 577, 580 (1982), quoting Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U. S. 176, 187 (1980). The focal point of controversy is the meaning of the statutory phrase “directly pertain to and involve transactions relating to the contract.” See n. 3, supra. It is plain from the face of the provisions that these are words of limitation designed to restrict the class of records to which access is permitted by requiring some close connection between the type of records sought and the particular contract.
The legislative history of the access provisions underscores what the language reflects: the intention of Congress to limit to some degree the Comptroller General’s access powers. As originally introduced, the bill now codified as 10 U. S. C. § 2313(b) and 41 U. S. C. § 254(c) provided access to “pertinent” records “involving transactions related to” the contract. See 97 Cong. Rec. 13371 (1951). Representative Hoffman opposed the original bill on the ground that it permitted “unnecessary snooping expeditions” and allowed the GAO to “go into everybody’s business and look it over if they just wanted to take a look at it.” Id., at 13373. He therefore offered a floor amendment to insert the word “directly” before the word “pertinent,” stating that the purpose of the amendment “is to limit the ‘snooping’ that may be carried on under this bill.” Id., at 13377. The sponsor of the original bill, Representative Hardy, did not oppose the amendment, and the amendment passed without debate or discussion.
The passage of the Hoffman amendment clearly reveals that Congress did not want unrestricted “snooping” by the Comptroller General into the business records of a private contractor. The Government nevertheless attempts to discount the significance of Congress’ addition of the word “directly.” Based on the lack of opposition to the limiting amendment by the bill’s sponsor and the lack of debate, the Government argues that the Hoffman modification did not significantly alter the scope of the Hardy bill. We cannot agree. The only explanation in the legislative history of the meaning and purpose of the amendment is that of Representative Hoffman. His statement, which, as the explanation of the sponsor of the language, is an “authoritative guide to the statute’s construction,” North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U. S. 512, 527 (1982), expressly indicates that the intent of the amendment was to curtail the scope of investigation authorized under the bill. Although, as the Government emphasizes, Representative Hoffman did not have the votes to defeat the bill in its entirety, he nevertheless had the votes to circumscribe the inquiry that the Comptroller General was authorized to undertake. Moreover, to accept the Government’s contention that the amendment had no substantive effect would contradict the settled principle of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every word of the statute. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 163 (1982). Therefore, in our attempt to give meaning to the words “directly pertinent,” we must be mindful of Congress’ aim to protect contractors from broad-ranging governmental intrusion into their private business affairs.
It does not follow, however, that our interpretation of the language added by the Hoffman amendment must be guided solely by that policy, for it is expressive of only one of the aims embraced by Congress in enacting the access-to-records provisions. The legislative history also reveals that Congress sought, in granting the GAO this access authority, to equip that agency with a tool to detect fraud, waste, inefficiency, and extravagance in Government contracting generally. Representative Hardy, the sponsor of the legislation, explained that the two major purposes of the bill were “to give the Comptroller General the proper tools to do the job the Congress has instructed him to do... and... to provide a deterrent to improprieties and wastefulness in the negotiation of contracts.” 97 Cong. Rec. 13198 (1951). With regard to the former purpose, it is clear that Congress envisioned use of the access authority as an adjunct to the Comptroller General’s statutory responsibility to “investigate... all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and application of public funds” and to “make recommendations looking to greater economy or efficiency in public expenditures.” 31 U. S. C. § 53(a). See also 31 U. S. C. §§ 60, 65(a). Obviously, broad access to cost records would enhance the GAO’s ability to evaluate the reasonableness of the price charged the Government and to identify areas of waste and inefficiency in procurement.
Because of the lack of debate or discussion of the Hoffman amendment, however, we do not have any indication in the legislative history, nor indeed in the language of the statute itself, of the scope of access authority left to the GAO after the restrictive words were added to the bill. In defining the degree of limitation, we thus traverse uncharted seas guided only by the two general statutory purposes reflected in the legislative history. Consequently, our task in construing the statutes as they apply in this action is to give effect to both of these congressional aims. The tension between these goals is apparent. For some industries and some types of contracts, including perhaps those at issue here, neither objective can be achieved fully without sacrificing the other. Given these dual, conflicting aims, we must balance the public interest served by full GAO investigations against the private interest in freedom from officious governmental intermeddling in the contractor’s private business affairs.
I — i HH I — (
w □> ^
The Government contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that records of Merck’s indirect costs are not “directly pertinent” to the contracts in question. In so arguing, the Government maintains that Merck’s indirect costs are directly pertinent to the fixed-price contracts because Merck uses payments made by the Government under these contracts to defray indirect expenses. Thus, the Government would have us define as “directly pertinent” the records of any costs defrayed from commingled general revenues that include Government payments under the contract.
We cannot accept this interpretation of the statute, however, for it completely eviscerates the congressional goal of protecting the privacy of the contractor’s business records. Under the Government’s proposed definition, records of expenditures to purchase raw materials for the manufacture of an entirely different product than that sold under the Government contract or to invest in the stock of another corporation would be subject to inspection by the Comptroller General. Hence, the Government’s interpretation would permit far-ranging governmental scrutiny of a contractor’s business records of nongovernmental transactions completely unrelated to either the contract underlying the access demand or the product procured under that contract. Indeed, carried to its logical extreme, the argument would dictate that few, if any, of a private contractor’s business records would be immune from GAO scrutiny. In short, the Government’s proposed definition of the statutory language admits of no doctrinal limitation, effectively reading the Hoffman limiting language and its “antisnooping” policy out of the statute.
B
Nor are we persuaded by the Government’s argument that the GAO’s consistent and longstanding interpretation of its authority under the access-to-records statutes supports the view that indirect cost records are subject to examination under the fixed-price contracts in question here. Even if that interpretation could be characterized as consistent, it would not be entitled to deference, for, as we have noted above, it is inconsistent with the statutory language. See Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397, 411 (1979).
Moreover, to characterize the GAO’s current sweeping view of its access authority as “consistent” would be generous. There is significant evidence indicating that in the past the GAO itself has acknowledged a deficiency in its statutory authority to examine indirect cost records. For example, in a ruling of particular significance for the facts of this case, the Comptroller General determined in 1967 that the access provisions do not confer upon the GAO the right to examine records relating to a contractor’s nongovernmental business, even when such review is necessary to determine whether a catalog-priced item was actually sold in substantial quantities to the general public. App. 162a-163a. Moreover, in late 1969, the GAO prepared a memorandum for Congress in connection with congressional consideration of a proposed grant of additional access authority to the GAO to pursue a study of contractor profits in the defense industry. In the memorandum, the GAO informed Congress that its authority under the 1951 access provisions did not extend to review of records of a contractor’s nongovernmental business and that additional access authority was therefore necessary to conduct a profit study. 115 Cong. Rec. 25800-25801 (1969) (reprinting GAO Memorandum on the Adequacy of the Legal Authority of the Comptroller General to Conduct a Comprehensive Study of Profitability in Defense Contracting). Finally, a 1970 internal memorandum also reveals the GAO’s belief that amendment of the 1951 access statutes would be necessary to give it the power to examine records of indirect costs. App. 160a-161a.
The only statements by the GAO directly supportive of its position here occur in testimony before a congressional Subcommittee in 1963 regarding the GAO’s litigation of the scope of its access authority in Hewlett-Packard Co. v. United States, 385 F. 2d 1013 (CA9 1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 988 (1968). In light of the GAO’s litigation posture during these hearings, as well as the contrary expressions of GAO opinion noted above, this testimony cannot provide persuasive evidence of the GAO’s consistent interpretation or practice.
> 1 — H
To summarize, the Government has failed to offer a definition of “directly pertinent” that would give any effect to the limiting purpose of that language. In our view, the appropriate accommodation of the competing goals reflected in the legislative history counsels us to draw the line precisely where both lower courts have drawn it. Thus, under the four fixed-price contracts in question, the Comptroller General should be permitted access to records of direct costs. He should be barred, however, from inspecting records of costs incurred in the areas of research and development, marketing and promotion, distribution, and administration, except to the extent the contractor has allocated these costs as attributable to the particular contract.
Direct costs certainly pertain directly to even a fixed-price contract, for direct costs are, by definition, readily identifiable as attributable to the specific product supplied under the contract. Consequently, as a rational businessman, the contractor will have some regard for these costs in setting even a catalog price in order to avoid a loss on the product. Because these costs therefore have a very direct influence on the price charged the Government, the GAO would need to examine records of these costs to determine whether the contractor is making an excessively high profit or the Government is getting a “fair deal” under the contract. Presumably, indirect costs also influence in some manner the setting of a catalog price, although to what extent is unclear, given the somewhat arbitrary accounting allocations that must be made to determine what portion of indirect costs may be attributed to a specific product. Nevertheless, the degree of intrusion into the contractor’s private business affairs occasioned by GAO scrutiny of indirect cost records is far greater, particularly where pure fixed-price contracts are involved. Such an inspection would entail exposure to the GAO of many of the contractor’s nongovernmental transactions. We therefore conclude that the appropriate balance of public and private interests in this situation weighs in favor of access to direct cost records but against access to Merck’s indirect cost records. Our decision in this regard is in accord with that of the majority of the Courts of Appeals to have considered this issue.
The Government objects strenuously that barring such access impermissibly constrains the GAO in its efforts to improve the procurement process. In an industry in which indirect costs represent such a large proportion of total costs, access to records of those costs is critical to an understanding of the industry with which the Government is dealing and to an assessment of the fairness of the contract price and the advisability of continued adherence to the negotiated procurement methods employed under those contracts.
As we have already noted, however, in adopting the Hoffman amendment, Congress was apparently willing to forgo the benefits that might be gained from permitting the GAO broad access to the contractor’s business records in order to protect those contractors from far-reaching governmental scrutiny of their nongovernmental affairs. By inclusion of that language, Congress injected into the determination of which records are accessible considerations besides the Government’s need for the information. Thus, any impediment that our holding places in the path of the GAO’s power to investigate fully Government contracts is one that Congress chose to adopt, and any arguments that this situation should be changed must be addressed to Congress, not the courts.
V
We address briefly Merck’s contention that there is yet another independent ground upon which the Comptroller General should be denied access to any of its cost records. Merck argues that the GAO is not entitled to examine these records because the access demand was not made for a congressionally authorized purpose. Specifically, Merck contends that the access-to-records statutes do not permit the Comptroller General to request records for the purpose of either conducting an economic study of the pharmaceutical industry or securing information desired by individual Members of Congress.
Much of what we have already said provides an answer to this contention. The legislative history reveals that Congress granted the GAO authority to examine directly pertinent records under individual procurement contracts in order to assess the reasonableness of the prices paid by the Government and to detect inefficiency and wastefulness. Given this authorized purpose, there is no reason to conclude that the GAO may not compile the information that it may lawfully obtain, within the statutory limits outlined above, from an investigation of individual contracts in order to arrive at a picture of the pharmaceutical industry generally. Moreover, the fact that two Senators encouraged the GAO to use its lawful authority to the fullest extent possible is irrelevant. The GAO is an independent agency within the Legislative Branch that exists in large part to serve the needs of Congress. If the records sought by the GAO are within the scope of the access-to-records provisions, the fact that the Comptroller General’s request had its origin in the requests of Congressmen or that the GAO reported the data to Congress does not vitiate its authority.
VI
Because of the GAO’s mandate to detect fraud, waste, inefficiency, and extravagance through full audits of Government contracts, we cannot accept Merck’s view that the only records directly pertinent to the four fixed-price contracts at issue are those necessary to verify that Merck actually had an established catalog price for the item procured, that it sold the items in substantial quantities to the general public at the catalog price, that it delivered the product specified, and that it received from the Government no more than the amount due under the contract. On the other hand, given the policy of protecting the privacy of contractors’ business records also expressed in the statutory language and legislative history, neither can we accept the Government’s contention that it must be permitted access to all of Merck’s cost records. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below.
It is so ordered.
A pure fixed-price contract requires the contractor to furnish the goods or services for a fixed amount of compensation regardless of the costs of performance, thereby placing the risk of incurring unforeseen costs of performance on the contractor rather than the Government. See 1R. Nash & J. Cibinic, Federal Procurement Law 413 (3d ed. 1977). Variations on the pure fixed-price contract may contain some formula or technique for adjusting the contract price to account for unforeseen cost elements. See id., at 413-415 (discussing fixed-price contract with escalation clause, fixed-price incentive contract, and fixed-price redeterminable contract).
The Government employs two methods of procurement: advertised procurement, i. e., formal solicitation of competitive bids, and procurement by negotiation. A negotiated contract is the method authorized by statute for use in situations in which the formal advertising and bidding procedure is deemed impractical or unnecessary. See 10 U. S. C. § 2804(a); 41 U. S. C. § 252(c). In procuring by negotiation, the Government agency discusses the terms of the procurement with one or more contractors and awards the contract to the party offering the terms most advantageous to the Government.
Title 10 U. S. C. § 2313(b), which applies to the Defense Supply Agency contracts, provides:
“Except as provided in subsection (c), each contract negotiated under this chapter shall provide that the Comptroller General and his representatives are entitled, until the expiration of three years after final payment, to examine any books, documents, papers, or records of the contractor, or any of his subcontractors, that directly pertain to and involve transactions relating to, the contract or subcontract.”
The Veterans’ Administration contract is governed by 41 U. S. C. § 254(c), which provides in pertinent part:
“All contracts negotiated without advertising... shall include a clause to the effect that the Comptroller General of the United States... shall until the expiration of three years after final payment have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the contractor or any of his subcontractors engaged in the performance of and involving transactions related to such contracts or subcontracts.”
Despite the slight difference in wording, there is no substantive difference between the defense and civilian procurement statutes.
The Comptroller General issued identical demands to five other pharmaceutical companies. These access-to-records demands apparently were the product of congressional interest in competition and profits in the pharmaceutical industry generally.
As early as 1971, Senator Gaylord Nelson suggested during hearings on competition in the drug industry that the Comptroller General invoke his access-to-records authority “to take a look” at the costs incurred by pharmaceutical companies. Hearings on Competitive Problems in the Drug Industry before the Subcommittee on Monopoly of the Senate Select Committee on Small Business, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 8020 (1971). Following those hearings, Senator Nelson’s staff continued to urge the General Accounting Office (GAO) to use the access provisions to obtain cost records “without any strings attached so that the high profits could be publicized by product and firm.” App. 144a; id., at 142a-148a. See also Hearings, supra, at 8537, 8581-8583.
Finally in June 1973, the GAO responded by proposing a two-phase study of the economics of the pharmaceutical industry to be accomplished through voluntary participation by drug companies. Merck and five other companies agreed to cooperate in the first phase, which contemplated gathering background data on the industry. In April 1974, the GAO issued a proposal for the second phase of the study, aimed at developing data on “salient economic and operational aspects of the industry.” App. 141a. Merck expressed its concern over participating in this phase without adequate assurance of the confidentiality of the cost data it might be requested to supply.
Initially the GAO agreed that the data regarding individual companies and individual drug products should remain confidential and anonymous. Id., at 150a. Senators Nelson and Kennedy and their staffs, however, reiterated that the Subcommittee’s objectives could be served only by publication of the data. Ibid. The Comptroller General’s formal demand letters to the six companies that had participated voluntarily in the Phase I study followed.
Four of the remaining five pharmaceutical companies that received demand letters also challenged the Comptroller General’s request. See SmithKline Corp. v. Staats, 668 F. 2d 201 (CA3 1981), cert. pending, Nos. 81-2082, 81-2268; Bristol Laboratories Division of Bristol-Myers Co. v. Staats, 620 F. 2d 17 (CA2 1980) (per curiam), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 451 U. S. 400 (1981); United States v. Abbott Laboratories, 597 F. 2d 672 (CA7 1979); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Staats, 574 F. 2d 904 (CA7), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 959 (1978).
The parties agree that the scope of the Comptroller General’s authority under the access-to-records clauses in the four contracts turns on the meaning of the statutory language, rather than on the intention of the parties to the contract. We also emphasize at the outset that Merck does not challenge the authority of Congress to impose, as a condition of doing business with the Government, a requirement that contractors disclose all of their cost records to the Comptroller General, regardless of the pertinence of these records to the particular contract. Rather, Merck bases its arguments on its interpretation of the statutory language.
In partial dissent, Justice Blackmun objects that, after a nod in the direction of the statutory language, we inexplicably wander off to explore the statutory purposes. Post, at 860. As we observe infra, at 834, however, the statutory language does not tell us exactly which records are subject to GAO examination. It is a well-settled canon of statutory construction that, where the language does not dictate an answer to the problem before the Court, “we must analyze the policies underlying the statutory provision to determine its proper scope.” Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 517 (1982). Accordingly, we examine the legislative history to assess the purposes Congress sought to serve by the language it chose. As shown infra, the statutory purposes clearly revealed by the legislative record justify allowing access to direct cost records.
This bill was modeled on, and as originally proposed was identical to, a January 1951 amendment to the First War Powers Act of 1941. See Act of Jan. 12, 1951, 64 Stat. 1257. That amendment was a piece of emergency legislation adopted in response to the crisis conditions created by the Korean War. Because of severe wartime inflation, many defense contractors holding fixed-priced contracts could not meet their obligations. To alleviate the problem, Congress gave President Truman emergency authority to renegotiate Government contracts. See H. R. Rep. No. 3227, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4 (1950). The access-to-records provisions were included in order to deter fraud and profiteering in the renegotiation process. 96 Cong. Rec. 17123 (1951) (remarks of Rep. Celler) (“The amendment will give power to the General Accounting Office to go into the books and delve into the records of these contractors who have been relieved to determine whether or not there is fraud or overreaching or whether they have done anything untoward”).
Although the initial access-to-records legislation in the January 1951 amendments was of limited duration, Congress shortly thereafter passed the permanent version at issue here. Representative Hardy, the sponsor of both the temporary and permanent access-to-records provisions, learned that Government procurement officers were negotiating contract modifications under two permanent procurement statutes that lacked access provisions, the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. “In order to plug this loophole,” Representative Hardy introduced the bill to require inclusion of access-to-records clauses in contracts negotiated under these statutes. 97 Cong. Rec. 13198 (1951) (remarks of Rep. Hardy).
Representative Hardy further explained the inspiration for the bill. Because of the absence of competitive safeguards when the Government procures by negotiation rather than by formal solicitation of bids, Representative Hardy identified a need to establish “every reasonable safeguard against waste and extravagance in the spending of” Government funds in the context of negotiated contracts. 97 Cong. Rec. 13198 (1951). By permitting the GAO “to check the transaction both from the Government records and the contractors’ books,” the bill would ensure that the Government did not “come out on the short end of the deal.” Ibid. Representative Hardy then cited a number of “typical situations in which the authority of this bill would play an effective part.” Ibid. One example dealt with detection of an inefficient market structure under which, because the Government was purchasing automotive parts from a dealer who in turn bought from a middleman, the Government was paying a price that included “profits upon profits and completely wasteful administrative and handling costs.” Ibid.
Thus, contrary to Merck’s assertion, the 1951 access statutes were designed to detect more than fraud and abuse in the negotiation of procurement contracts. Representative Hardy himself remarked that GAO review under the access provisions would disclose “a lot of other situations besides those involving fraud.” Id., at 13199.
It is possible that the 1951 Congress was aware of this tension. The addition of the Hoffman amendment was a clear compromise. Representative Hoffman had adamantly opposed the Hardy bill from the outset because of the breadth of authority it would give to the GAO. The amendment he offered emerged from a discussion between Representative Hardy and Representative Hoffman and represented the extent of the limitation upon GAO’s access authority that Representative Hardy would accept. See 97 Cong. Rec. 13377 (1951) (remarks of Rep. Hoffman).
It does not follow, as Justice White assumes, post, at 852, from the fact that the Hoffman amendment was a compromise that the restrictive language is to be given no effect at all. In dissent, Justice White refers to the Hoffman amendment as “largely a sop to the bill’s opponents.” Post, at 853. The legislative record, however, tells us that a majority voted for the Hoffman amendment, and we must give weight to the expressed will of a legislative majority. Justice White also interprets the Hoffman amendment as an “assurance that the bill would not be used as a basis for inspection of books and records having no substantial connection with Government procurement.” Ibid. Notwithstanding this recognition of the amendment’s purpose, however, Justice White adopts a construction of “directly pertinent” that completely eviscerates the limiting purpose of the Hoffman amendment, for he would allow the GAO access to any records helpful in determining the amount of profit being made by the contractor. See post, at 856. Thus, under the guise of “interpretation” of the statute, Justice White has “construed” the statute so broadly as to give it a reading indistinguishable in effect from the bills to expand the GAO’s access authority that were rejected by Congress in the 1970’s. See n. 12, infra. Such an approach therefore bespeaks legislation, rather than interpretation.
Recognizing the extreme encroachment upon the privacy of a contractor’s business records which his interpretation of the statutes would permit, Justice White attempts to bring “balance” and “reason” to bear on the situation by invoking courts’ powers under Fourth Amendment principles to limit the GAO’s right of access. Post, at 857-858. If, however, Congress had intended the GAO demands to be limited only by the Fourth Amendment, it need not have concerned itself with requiring that records be directly pertinent to the contract.
By indirect costs we mean costs incurred in the areas of research and development, marketing and promotion, distribution, and administration, which are not directly attributable to a particular product.
It is significant to note that the profit study of the defense industry, which Congress authorized as part of the Military Appropriations Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-121, § 408, 83 Stat. 204, is the only occasion on which Congress has deliberately granted the GAO the kind of broad-ranging authority it asserts here. In conferring this authority, Congress, wary of equipping the GAO to conduct a “fishing expedition,” 115 Cong. Ree. 25795 (1969) (remarks of Sen. Ribicoff), carefully limited such authority to “only a single study.” Id., at 25793 (remarks of Sen. Proxmire).
Although not conclusive with respect to interpretation of the 1951 access statutes, subsequent congressional rebuffs of GAO requests for expansion of its access authority are instructive both with regard to the GAO’s view of the limits of the 1951 legislation and Congress’ apparent reluctance to broaden that legislation. For example, a Senate bill introduced in 1973 directed that “the Comptroller General... shall... have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers and records... which in the opinion of... the Comptroller General may be related or pertinent to the... contracts... [or] subcontracts.” S. 2049, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973) (emphasis added). Another Senate bill which, like S. 2049 never emerged from committee, would have granted the Comptroller General authority to undertake a study of profits made on Government and commercial contracts by contractors having Government contracts aggregating $1 million or more. To enable the Comptroller General to make such studies, the bill gave him the authority to demand from title contractor “such information maintained in the normal course of business... as the Comptroller General determines necessary or appropriate.” S. 3014, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974). See also S. 2268, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
We observe that Justice White’s dissent makes no attempt at all to deal with this evidence of the GAO’s own view of the limits of its access authority. Given the GAO’s historic position, excepting of course its position in the Hewlett-Packard case and the current litigation, see infra, contractors like Merck who entered into fixed-price negotiated contracts with the Government had no reason to expect that consenting to inclusion of the access-to-records clause would subject their businesses to the kind of broad-ranging inquiry which Justice White’s dissent approves.
Hewlett-Packard, like this case, involved a request by the Comptroller General to review cost records of a contractor who entered into fixed-price negotiated contracts. During that litigation, a congressional Subcommittee commenced hearings to investigate “the need for, or desirability of, recommending legislative action” in light of Hewlett-Packard’s refusal to permit inspection of its cost records under the access provisions. Hearings on Relation of Cost Data to Military Procurement before the Subcommittee for Special Investigations of the House Committee on Armed Services, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1963). During the course of these hearings, Robert F. Keller, General Counsel of the GAO, testified concerning the GAO’s position with respect to the Hewlett-Packard situation.
“It is our position that the contract clause and the statute give us the right to examine the cost records of the contractor and other pertinent data that relates [sic] to the items included in the contract, in sufficient completeness and detail to permit us to determine the reasonableness of the negotiated prices.” Id., at 10.
Mr. Keller further stated that the GAO could “go beyond direct manufacturing costs” into such areas as “how research costs are allocated as between the Government contract and commercial business.” Id., at 23.
In legislative hearings in 1965, which in part addressed “the extent of the GAO’s right to examine contractor books and records,” Hearings on Comptroller General Reports to Congress on Audits of Defense Contracts before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (196
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a), makes it a crime to "knowingly procure[ ], contrary to law, the naturalization of any person." And when someone is convicted under § 1425(a) of unlawfully procuring her own naturalization, her citizenship is automatically revoked. See 8 U.S.C. § 1451(e). In this case, we consider what the Government must prove to obtain such a conviction. We hold that the Government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship. When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result.
I
Petitioner Divna Maslenjak is an ethnic Serb who resided in Bosnia during the 1990's, when a civil war between Serbs and Muslims divided the new country. In 1998, she and her family (her husband Ratko Maslenjak and their two children) met with an American immigration official to seek refugee status in the United States. Interviewed under oath, Maslenjak explained that the family feared persecution in Bosnia from both sides of the national rift. Muslims, she said, would mistreat them because of their ethnicity. And Serbs, she testified, would abuse them because her husband had evaded service in the Bosnian Serb Army by absconding to Serbia-where he remained hidden, apart from the family, for some five years. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a-60a. Persuaded of the Maslenjaks' plight, American officials granted them refugee status, and they immigrated to the United States in 2000.
Six years later, Maslenjak applied for naturalization. Question 23 on the application form asked whether she had ever given "false or misleading information" to a government official while applying for an immigration benefit; question 24 similarly asked whether she had ever "lied to a [ ] government official to gain entry or admission into the United States." Id., at 72a. Maslenjak answered "no" to both questions, while swearing under oath that her replies were true. Id., at 72a, 74a. She also swore that all her written answers were true during a subsequent interview with an immigration official. In August 2007, Maslenjak was naturalized as a U.S. citizen.
But Maslenjak's professions of honesty were false: In fact, she had made up much of the story she told to immigration officials when seeking refuge in this country. Her fiction began to unravel at around the same time she applied for citizenship. In 2006, immigration officials confronted Maslenjak's husband Ratko with records showing that he had not fled conscription during the Bosnian civil war; rather, he had served as an officer in the Bosnian Serb Army. And not only that: He had served in a brigade that participated in the Srebrenica massacre-a slaughter of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim civilians. Within a year, the Government convicted Ratko on charges of making false statements on immigration documents. The newly naturalized Maslenjak attempted to prevent Ratko's deportation. During proceedings on that matter, Maslenjak admitted she had known all along that Ratko spent the war years not secreted in Serbia but fighting in Bosnia.
As a result, the Government charged Maslenjak with knowingly "procur[ing], contrary to law, [her] naturalization," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). According to the Government's theory, Maslenjak violated § 1425(a) because, in the course of procuring her naturalization, she broke another law: 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a), which prohibits knowingly making a false statement under oath in a naturalization proceeding. The false statements the Government invoked were Maslenjak's answers to questions 23 and 24 on the citizenship application (stating that she had not lied in seeking refugee status) and her corresponding statements in the citizenship interview. Those statements, the Government argued to the District Court, need not have affected the naturalization decision to support a conviction under § 1425(a). The court agreed: Over Maslenjak's objection, it instructed the jury that a conviction was proper so long as the Government "prove[d] that one of the defendant's statements was false"-even if the statement was not "material" and "did not influence the decision to approve [her] naturalization." App. to Pet. for Cert. 86a. The jury returned a guilty verdict; and the District Court, based on that finding, stripped Maslenjak of her citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1451(e).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction. As relevant here, the Sixth Circuit upheld the District Court's instructions that Maslenjak's false statements need not have influenced the naturalization decision. If, the Court of Appeals held, Maslenjak made false statements violating § 1015(a) and she procured naturalization, then she also violated § 1425(a) -irrespective of whether the false statements played any role in her obtaining citizenship. See 821 F.3d 675, 685-686 (2016). That decision created a conflict in the Circuit Courts. We granted certiorari to resolve it, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 809, 196 L.Ed.2d 595 (2017), and we now vacate the Sixth Circuit's judgment.
II
A
Section 1425(a), the parties agree, makes it a crime to commit some other illegal act in connection with naturalization. But the parties dispute the nature of the required connection. Maslenjak argues that the relationship must be "causal" in kind: A person "procures" her naturalization "contrary to law," she contends, only if a predicate crime in some way "contribut[ed]" to her gaining citizenship. Brief for Petitioner 21. By contrast, the Government proposes a basically chronological link: Section 1425(a), it urges, "punishes the commission of other violations of law in the course of procuring naturalization"-even if the illegality could not have had any effect on the naturalization decision. Brief for United States 14 (emphasis added). We conclude that Maslenjak has the better of this argument.
We begin, as usual, with the statutory text. In ordinary usage, "to procure" something is "to get possession of" it. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1809 (2002); accord, Black's Law Dictionary 1401 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "procure" as "[t]o obtain (something), esp. by special effort or means"). So to "procure... naturalization" means to obtain naturalization (or, to use another word, citizenship). The adverbial phrase "contrary to law," wedged in between "procure" and "naturalization," then specifies how a person must procure naturalization so as to run afoul of the statute: in contravention of the law-or, in a word, illegally. Putting the pieces together, someone "procure[s], contrary to law, naturalization" when she obtains citizenship illegally.
What, then, does that whole phrase mean? The most natural understanding is that the illegal act must have somehow contributed to the obtaining of citizenship. Consider if someone said to you: "John obtained that painting illegally." You might imagine that he stole it off the walls of a museum. Or that he paid for it with a forged check. Or that he impersonated the true buyer when the auction house delivered it. But in all events, you would imagine illegal acts in some kind of means-end relation-or otherwise said, in some kind of causal relation-to the painting's acquisition. If someone said to you, "John obtained that painting illegally, but his unlawful acts did not play any role in his obtaining it," you would not have a clue what the statement meant. You would think it nonsense-or perhaps the opening of a riddle. That is because if no illegal act contributed at all to getting the painting, then the painting would not have been gotten illegally. And the same goes for naturalization. If whatever illegal conduct occurring within the naturalization process was a causal dead-end-if, so to speak, the ripples from that act could not have reached the decision to award citizenship-then the act cannot support a charge that the applicant obtained naturalization illegally. The conduct, though itself illegal, would not also make the obtaining of citizenship so. To get citizenship unlawfully, we understand, is to get it through an unlawful means-and that is just to say that an illegality played some role in its acquisition.
The Government's contrary view-that § 1425(a) requires only a "violation [ ] of law in the course of procuring naturalization"-falters on the way language naturally works. Brief for United States 14. Return for a moment to our artwork example. Imagine this time that John made an illegal turn while driving to the auction house to purchase a painting. Would you say that he had "procured the painting illegally" because he happened to violate the law in the course of obtaining it? Not likely. And again, the same is true with respect to naturalization. Suppose that an applicant for citizenship fills out the necessary paperwork in a government office with a knife tucked away in her handbag (but never mentioned or used). She has violated the law-specifically, a statute criminalizing the possession of a weapon in a federal building. See 18 U.S.C. § 930. And she has surely done so "in the course of" procuring citizenship. But would you say, using English as you ordinarily would, that she has "procure[d]" her citizenship "contrary to law" (or, as you would really speak, "illegally")? Once again, no. That is because the violation of law and the acquisition of citizenship are in that example merely coincidental: The one has no causal relation to the other.
The Government responds to such examples by seeking to define them out of the statute, but that effort falls short for multiple reasons. According to the Government, the laws to which § 1425(a) speaks are only laws "pertaining to naturalization." Brief for United States 20. But to begin with, that claim fails on its own terms. The Government's proposed limitation has no basis in § 1425(a)'s text (which refers to "law" generally); it is a deus ex machina -rationalized only by calling it "necessary," Tr. of Oral Arg. 39, and serving only to get the Government out of a tight interpretive spot. Indeed, the Government does not really buy its own argument: At another point, it asserts that an applicant for citizenship can violate § 1425(a) by bribing a government official, see Brief for United States 16-even though the law against that conduct has nothing in particular to do with naturalization. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1). And still more important, the Government's (sometime) carve-out does nothing to alter the linguistic understanding that gives force to the examples the Government would exclude-and that applies just as well to every application that would remain. Laws pertaining to naturalization, in other words, are subject to the same rules of language usage as laws concerning other subjects. And under those rules, as we have shown, § 1425(a) demands a means-end connection between a legal violation and naturalization. See supra, at 1924 - 1926. Take § 1015(a)'s bar on making false statements in connection with naturalization-the prototypical § 1425(a) predicate, and the one at issue here. If such a statement (in an interview, say) has no bearing at all on the decision to award citizenship, then it cannot render that award-as § 1425(a) requires-illegally gained.
The broader statutory context reinforces that point, because the Government's reading would create a profound mismatch between the requirements for naturalization on the one hand and those for denaturalization on the other. See West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 101, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991) ("[I]t is our role to make sense rather than nonsense out of the corpus juris "). The immigration statute requires all applicants for citizenship to have "good moral character," and largely defines that term through a list of unlawful or unethical behaviors. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a)(3), 1101(f). On the Government's theory, some legal violations that do not justify denying citizenship under that definition would nonetheless justify revoking it later. Again, false statements under § 1015(a) offer an apt illustration. The statute's description of "good moral character" singles out a specific class of lies-"false testimony for the purpose of obtaining [immigration] benefits"-as a reason to deny naturalization. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). By contrast, "[w]illful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character"-and so are not generally disqualifying. Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) (quoting Supplemental Brief for United States 12). But under the Government's reading of § 1425(a), a lie told in the naturalization process-even out of embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy-would always provide a basis for rescinding citizenship. The Government could thus take away on one day what it was required to give the day before.
And by so wholly unmooring the revocation of citizenship from its award, the Government opens the door to a world of disquieting consequences-which we would need far stronger textual support to believe Congress intended. Consider the kinds of questions a person seeking citizenship confronts on the standard application form. Says one: "Have you EVER been... in any way associated with[ ] any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group[?]" Form N-400, Application for Naturalization 12 (2016), online at http://www.uscis.gov/n-400 (as last visited June 20, 2017) (bold in original). Asks another: "Have you EVER committed... a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?" Id., at 14. Suppose, for reasons of embarrassment or what-have-you, a person concealed her membership in an online support group or failed to disclose a prior speeding violation. Under the Government's view, a prosecutor could scour her paperwork and bring a § 1425(a) charge on that meager basis, even many years after she became a citizen. That would give prosecutors nearly limitless leverage-and afford newly naturalized Americans precious little security. Small wonder that Congress, in enacting § 1425(a), did not go so far as the Government claims. The statute it passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization.
B
That conclusion leaves us with a more operational question: How should § 1425(a)'s requirement of causal influence apply in practice, when charges are brought under that law? Because the proper analysis may vary with the nature of the predicate crime, we confine our discussion of that issue to the kind of underlying illegality alleged here: a false statement made to government officials. Such conduct can affect a naturalization decision in a single, significant way-by distorting the Government's understanding of the facts when it investigates, and then adjudicates, an application. So the issue a jury must decide in a case like this one is whether a false statement sufficiently altered those processes as to have influenced an award of citizenship.
The answer to that question, like the naturalization decision itself, turns on objective legal criteria. Congress has prescribed specific eligibility standards for new citizens, respecting such matters as length of residency and "physical[ ] presen[ce]," understanding of English and American government, and (as previously mentioned) "good moral character," with all its many specific components. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1423(a), 1427(a) ; supra, at 1926 - 1927. Government officials are obligated to apply that body of law faithfully-granting naturalization when the applicable criteria are satisfied, and denying it when they are not. See Kungys, 485 U.S., at 774, n. 9, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (opinion of Scalia, J.); id., at 787, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). And to ensure right results are reached, a court can reverse such a determination, at an applicant's request, based on its "own findings of fact and conclusions of law." 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The entire system, in other words, is set up to provide little or no room for subjective preferences or personal whims. Because that is so, the question of what any individual decisionmaker might have done with accurate information is beside the point: The defendant in a § 1425(a) case should neither benefit nor suffer from a wayward official's deviations from legal requirements. Accordingly, the proper causal inquiry under § 1425(a) is framed in objective terms: To decide whether a defendant acquired citizenship by means of a lie, a jury must evaluate how knowledge of the real facts would have affected a reasonable government official properly applying naturalization law.
If the facts the defendant misrepresented are themselves disqualifying, the jury can make quick work of that inquiry. In such a case, there is an obvious causal link between the defendant's lie and her procurement of citizenship. To take an example: An applicant for citizenship must be physically present in the United States for more than half of the five-year period preceding her application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(1). Suppose a defendant misrepresented her travel history to convey she had met that requirement, when in fact she had not. The Government need only expose that lie to establish that she obtained naturalization illegally-for had she told the truth instead, the official would have promptly denied her application. Or consider another, perhaps more common case stemming from the "good moral character" criterion. See § 1427(a)(3) ; supra, at 1926 - 1927. That phrase is defined to exclude any person who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. See § 1101(f)(8). If a defendant falsely denied such a conviction, she too would have gotten her citizenship by means of a lie-for otherwise the outcome would have been different. In short, when the defendant misrepresents facts that the law deems incompatible with citizenship, her lie must have played a role in her naturalization.
But that is not the only time a jury can find that a defendant's lie had the requisite bearing on a naturalization decision. For even if the true facts lying behind a false statement would not "in and of themselves justify denial of citizenship," they could have "led to the discovery of other facts which would" do so. Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 352-353, 81 S.Ct. 147, 5 L.Ed.2d 120 (1960). We previously addressed that possibility when considering the civil statute that authorizes the Government to revoke naturalization. See Kungys, 485 U.S., at 774-777, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (opinion of Scalia, J.) (interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) ). As we explained in that context, a person whose lies throw investigators off a trail leading to disqualifying facts gets her citizenship by means of those lies-no less than if she had denied the damning facts at the very end of the trail. See ibid.
When relying on such an investigation-based theory, the Government must make a two-part showing to meet its burden. As an initial matter, the Government has to prove that the misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to one or another naturalization criterion that it would have prompted reasonable officials, "seeking only evidence concerning citizenship qualifications," to undertake further investigation. Id., at 774, n. 9, 108 S.Ct. 1537. If that much is true, the inquiry turns to the prospect that such an investigation would have borne disqualifying fruit. As to that second link in the causal chain, the Government need not show definitively that its investigation would have unearthed a disqualifying fact (though, of course, it may). Rather, the Government need only establish that the investigation "would predictably have disclosed" some legal disqualification. Id., at 774, 108 S.Ct. 1537 ; see id., at 783, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (Brennan, J., concurring). If that is so, the defendant's misrepresentation contributed to the citizenship award in the way we think § 1425(a) requires.
That standard reflects two real-world attributes of cases premised on what an unhindered investigation would have found. First is the difficulty of proving that a hypothetical inquiry would have led to some disqualifying discovery, often several years after the defendant told her lies. As witnesses and other evidence disappear, the Government's effort to reconstruct the course of a "could have been" investigation confronts ever-mounting obstacles. See id., at 779, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Second, and critical to our analysis, is that the defendant-not the Government-bears the blame for that evidentiary predicament. After all, the inquiry cannot get this far unless the defendant made an unlawful false statement and, by so doing, obstructed the normal course of an investigation. See id., at 783, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasizing that "the citizen's misrepresentation [in a naturalization proceeding] necessarily frustrated the Government's investigative efforts"); see also Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251, 265, 66 S.Ct. 574, 90 L.Ed. 652 (1946) ("The most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created").
Section 1425(a) is best read to take those exigencies and equities into account, by enabling the Government (as just described) to rest on disqualifications that a thwarted investigation predictably would have uncovered. A yet-stricter causal requirement, demanding proof positive that a disqualifying fact would have been found, sets the bar so high that "we cannot conceive that Congress intended" that result. Kungys, 485 U.S., at 777, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (opinion of Scalia, J.). And nothing in the statutory text requires that approach. While § 1425(a) clearly imports some kind of causal or means-end relation, see supra, at 1924 - 1927, Congress left that relation's precise character unspecified. Cf. Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 881, 890, 187 L.Ed.2d 715 (2014) (noting that courts have not always construed criminal statutes to "require[ ] strict but-for causality," and have greater reason to reject such a reading when the laws do not use language like "results from" or "because of"). The open-endedness of the statutory language allows, indeed supports, our adoption of a demanding but still practicable causal standard.
Even when the Government can make its two-part showing, however, the defendant may be able to overcome it. Section 1425(a) is not a tool for denaturalizing people who, the available evidence indicates, were actually qualified for the citizenship they obtained. When addressing the civil denaturalization statute, this Court insisted on a similar point: We provided the defendant with an opportunity to rebut the Government's case "by showing, through a preponderance of the evidence, that the statutory requirement as to which [a lie] had a natural tendency to produce a favorable decision was in fact met." Kungys, 485 U.S., at 777, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (opinion of Scalia, J.) (emphasis deleted); accord, id., at 783-784, 108 S.Ct. 1537 (Brennan, J., concurring). Or said otherwise, we gave the defendant a chance to establish that she was qualified for citizenship, and held that she could not be denaturalized if she did so-even though she concealed or misrepresented facts that suggested the opposite. And indeed, all our denaturalization decisions share this crucial feature: We have never read a statute to strip citizenship from someone who met the legal criteria for acquiring it. See, e.g., Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 505-507, 101 S.Ct. 737, 66 L.Ed.2d 686 (1981) ; Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 269-272, 81 S.Ct. 534, 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961) ; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 122-123, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796 (1943). We will not start now. Whatever the Government shows with respect to a thwarted investigation, qualification for citizenship is a complete defense to a prosecution brought under § 1425(a).
III
Measured against all we have said, the jury instructions in this case were in error. As earlier noted, the District Court told the jury that it could convict based on any false statement in the naturalization process (i.e., any violation of § 1015(a) ), no matter how inconsequential to the ultimate decision. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 86a; supra, at 1923 - 1924. But as we have shown, the jury needed to find more than an unlawful false statement. Recall that Maslenjak's lie in the naturalization process concerned her prior statements to immigration officials: She swore that she had been honest when applying for admission as a refugee, but in fact she had not. See supra, at 1923 - 1924. The jury could have convicted if that earlier dishonesty (i.e., the thing she misrepresented when seeking citizenship) were itself a reason to deny naturalization-say, because it counted as "false testimony for the purpose of obtaining [immigration] benefits" and thus demonstrated bad moral character. See supra, at 1928 - 1929. Or else, the jury could have convicted if (1) knowledge of that prior dishonesty would have led a reasonable official to make some further investigation (say, into the circumstances of her admission), (2) that inquiry would predictably have yielded a legal basis for rejecting her citizenship application, and (3) Maslenjak failed to show that (notwithstanding such an objective likelihood) she was in fact qualified to become a U.S. citizen. See supra, at 1928 - 1931. This jury, however, was not asked to-and so did not-make any of those determinations. Accordingly, Maslenjak was not convicted by a properly instructed jury of "procur[ing], contrary to law, [her] naturalization."
The Government asserts that any instructional error in this case was harmless. "Had officials known the truth," the Government asserts, "it would have affected their decision to grant [Maslenjak] citizenship." Brief for United States 12. Unsurprisingly, Maslenjak disagrees. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-8; Reply to Brief in Opposition 9-10. In keeping with our usual practice, we leave that dispute for resolution on remand. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 414, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010).
For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The Court holds that the plain text and structure of the statute before us require the Government to prove causation as an element of conviction: The defendant's illegal conduct must, in some manner, cause her naturalization. I agree with this much and concur in Part II-A of the Court's opinion to the extent it so holds. And because the jury wasn't instructed at all about causation, I agree too that reversal is required.
But, respectfully, there I would stop. In an effort to "operational[ize]" the statute's causation requirement, the Court says a great deal more, offering, for example, two newly announced tests, the second with two more subparts, and a new affirmative defense-all while indicating that some of these new tests and defenses may apply only in some but not all cases. See, e.g., ante, at 1927 - 1931. The work here is surely thoughtful and may prove entirely sound. But the question presented and the briefing before us focused primarily on whether the statute contains a materiality element, not on the contours of a causation requirement. So the parties have not had the chance to join issue fully on the matters now decided. Compare ante, at 1927 - 1928, n. 4, with Brief for Petitioner, pp. i, 18-38; Brief for United States, pp. i, 12-51. And, of course, the lower courts have not had a chance to pass on any of these questions in the first instance. Most cited by the Court have (again) focused only on the materiality (not causation) question; none has tested the elaborate operational details advanced today; and at least one has found our prior unilateral and fractured foray into a related statute in Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988), "maddening [ ]." See ante, at 1927, n. 4 (collecting cases).
Respectfully, it seems to me at least reasonably possible that the crucible of adversarial testing on which we usually depend, along with the experience of our thoughtful colleagues on the district and circuit benches, could yield insights (or reveal pitfalls) we cannot muster guided only by our own lights. So while I agree with the Court that the parties will need guidance about the details of the statute's causation requirement, see ibid., I have no doubt that the Court of Appeals, with aid of briefing from the parties, can supply that on remand. Other circuits may improve that guidance over time too. And eventually we can bless the best of it. For my part, I believe it is work enough for the day to recognize that the statute requires some proof of causation, that the jury instructions here did not, and to allow the parties and courts of appeals to take it from there as they usually do. This Court often speaks most wisely when it speaks last.
Justice ALITO, concurring in the judgment.
We granted review in this case to decide whether "a naturalized American citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement." Pet. for Cert. i. The answer to that question is "no." Although the relevant criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a), does not expressly refer to the concept of materiality, the critical statutory language effectively requires proof of materiality in a case involving false statements. The statute makes it a crime for a person to "procure" naturalization "contrary to law." In false statement cases, then, the statute essentially imposes the familiar materiality requirement that applies in other contexts. That is, a person violates the statute by procuring naturalization through an illegal false statement which has a "natural tendency to influence" the outcome-that is, the obtaining of naturalization. Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 772, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988).
Understood in this way, Section 1425(a) does not require proof that a false statement actually had some effect on the naturalization decision. The operative statutory language-"procure" naturalization "contrary to law"-imposes no such requirement.
Here is an example. Eight co-workers jointly buy two season tickets to see their favorite football team play. They all write their names on a piece of paper and place the slips in a hat to see who will get the tickets for the big game with their team's traditional rival. One of the friends puts his name in twice, and his name is drawn. I would say that he "procured" the tickets "contrary to" the rules of the drawing even though he might have won if he had put his name in only once.
Here is another example. A runner who holds the world's record in an event wants to make sure she wins the gold medal at the Olympics, so she takes a performance enhancing drug. She wins the race but fails a drug test and is disqualified. The second-place time is slow, and sportswriters speculate that she would have won without taking the drug. But it would be entirely consistent with standard English usage for the race officials to say that she "procured" her first-place finish "contrary to" the governing rules.
As these examples illustrate-and others could be added-the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) does not require that an illegal false statement have a demonstrable effect on the naturalization decision. Instead, the statute applies when a person makes an illegal false statement to obtain naturalization, and that false statement is material to the outcome. I see no indication that Congress meant to require more.
One additional point is worth mentioning. Section 1425(a) not only makes it a crime to procure naturalization contrary to law; it applies equally to any person who "attempts to procure, contrary to law.... naturalization." Therefore, if a defendant knowingly performs a substantial act that he or she thinks will procure naturalization, that is sufficient for conviction. See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 106-108, 127 S.Ct. 782, 166 L.Ed.2d 591 (2007).
Compare 821 F.3d 675, 685-686 (C.A.6 2016) (case below), with United States v. Munyenyezi, 781 F.3d 532, 536 (C.A.1 2015) (requiring the Government to make some showing that a misrepresentation mattered to the naturalization decision); United States v. Latchin, 554 F.3d 709, 712-715 (C.A.7 2009) (same); United States v. Alferahin, 433 F.3d 1148, 1154-1156 (C.A.9 2006) (same); United States v. Aladekoba, 61 Fed.Appx. 27, 28 (C.A.4 2003) (same).
To be fair, the idea of "obtaining
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases involve the interaction of three federal statutes with respect to the proposed sale of the rail line of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Co. (P&LE). The statutes are the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.; the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U. S. C. §10101 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V); and the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA), 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 101 et seq.
I
Petitioner, P&LE, is a small rail carrier owning and operating 182 miles of rail line serving points in Ohio and western Pennsylvania and possessing trackage rights over other lines extending into New York. P&LE has experienced financial problems of increasing severity, having lost $60 million during the five years preceding the onset of these cases. After other efforts to improve its condition failed, notably work force reductions, concessions from its employees, and market expansion, P&LE decided that in order to recoup for its owners any part of their investments it must sell its assets. On July 8, 1987, P&LE agreed to sell its assets for approximately $70 million to a newly formed subsidiary, P&LE Rail Co., Inc. (Railco), of Chicago West Pullman Transportation Corporation (CWP). Railco intended to operate the railroad as P&LE had except that Railco would not assume P&LE’s collective-bargaining contracts with its various unions and would need only about 250 employees rather than the 750 then working for P&LE. When the unions representing P&LE’s employees were notified of the proposed sale, they asserted that the sale would have an effect on the working conditions of the carrier’s employees and therefore was subject to the requirements of the RLA, 45 U. S. C. §§ 152 Seventh and 156, which provide:
Ҥ 152... Seventh. Change in pay, rules, or working conditions contrary to agreement or to section 156 forbidden
“No carrier, its officers, or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title.”
Ҥ 156. Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions
“Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.”
The unions advised that they stood ready to negotiate all aspects of the matter, including the decision to sell the railroad assets. P&LE responded that it was willing to discuss the matter but that § 156 notice and bargaining were not required since the transaction was subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) under the ICA and since the requirements of §§ 155 and 156 would intrude on that regime as well as upon management’s prerogatives to conduct the affairs of the company with respect to the sales transaction.
Most of the unions then responded by themselves filing § 156 notices proposing changes in existing agreements to ameliorate the adverse impacts of the proposed sale upon P&LE’s employees. The unions sought guarantees that the sale would not cause any employee to be deprived of employment or to be placed in any worse position with respect to pay or working conditions and that P&LE would require that the purchaser of its rail line assume P&LE’s collective-bargaining agreements. P&LE again declined to bargain, asserting that the transaction was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ICC. On August 19, respondent, Railway Labor Executives’ Association (RLEA), on behalf of P&LE’s unions, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to P&LE’s obligations under the RLA and an injunction against the sale pending completion of RLA bargaining obligations. On September 15, 1987, the unions went on strike. P&LE’s request for a restraining order against the strike was denied by the District Court on the ground that the NLGA forbade such an order.
The proposed sale of assets could not be carried out without compliance with the terms of the ICA, 49 U. S. C. § 10901, which requires that noncarriers seeking to acquire a rail line first obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the ICC. Section 10901(e) specifies the procedures for this purpose and provides that the ICC “may” require the acquiring company “to provide a fair and equitable arrangement for the protection of railroad employees who may be affected thereby no less protective of and beneficial to the interests of such employees than those established pursuant to section 11347 of this title.” Section 10505, however, authorizes the Commission to grant exemptions from the requirements of the Act when not necessary to carry out the national transportation policy. Based on its experience with acquisitions under § 10901, the ICC had issued what is known as the Ex Parte No. 392 Class Exemption, see Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub. No. 1), Class Exemption for the Acquisition and Operation of Rail Lines Under 4-9 U. S. C. 10901, 1 I. C. C. 2d 810 (1985) (Ex Parte 392), review denied sub nom. Illinois Commerce Comm’n v. ICC, 260 U. S. App. D. C. 38, 817 F. 2d 145 (1987)/' which provides abbreviated procedures for seeking approval for acquisitions by non-carriers such as Railco of an operating railroad or its assets. The regulatory procedure, see 49 CFR § 1150.32(b) (1987), involved the filing of an application for exemption which would become effective seven days after filing absent contrary notice from the Commission. An interested party could oppose the exemption by filing a petition to revoke at any time, after consideration of which the ICC could revoke the exemption in whole or in part or impose labor protective provisions. The ICC had indicated, however, that only in exceptional situations would such protective provisions be imposed.
Accordingly, Railco on September 19, 1987, filed a notice of exemption pursuant to Ex Parte 392. After denying various requests by the unions to reject the notice of exemption and stay the sale, the Commission allowed the exemption to become effective on September 26. A petition to revoke filed by RLEA on October 2 is still pending before the Commission. At no time did RLEA request imposition of labor protective provisions pursuant to the Commission’s authority under § 10901.
On October 5, 1987, P&LE reapplied to the District Court for an order restraining the strike. The District Court granted the request on October 8, ruling that the authorization of the sale by the ICC negated any duty that P&LE had to bargain over the effects of the sale on its employees, and that the NLGA did not forbid issuance of an injunction under such circumstances. On October 26, however, the Court of Appeals summarily reversed, holding that the ICA did not require accommodation of the NLGA’s restrictions on the District Court’s powers. 831 F. 2d 1231 (CA3 1987). A remand was ordered to determine whether the sale or strike violated the RLA. The unions did not resume their strike when the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s injunction, but threatened to do so if P&LE attempted to consummate the sale to Railco.
The case in the District Court then went forward. Addressing the unions’ request for an injunction, the District Court held that although P&LE did not have a duty to bargain over its decision to sell, P&LE was required by the RLA to bargain over the effects of the sale on employees, and that the status quo provision of § 156 required that its bargaining obligations under the RLA must be satisfied before the sale could be consummated despite approval of the transaction by the ICC acting pursuant to the ICA. 677 F. Supp. 830 (WD Pa. 1987). A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 845 F. 2d 420 (CA3 1988).
We granted P&LE’s petition in No. 87-1888, challenging the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the injunction against the sale issued by the District Court, as well as P&LE’s petition in No. 87-1589, asking for reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals setting aside the strike injunction issued by the District Court. 488 U. S. 965 (1988).
II
In No. 87-1888, the issue is whether the RLA, properly construed, required or authorized an injunction against closing the sale of P&LE’s assets to Railco because of an unsatisfied duty to bargain about the effects of the sale on P&LE’s employees. We first address whether the RLA required P&LE to give notice of its decision to sell and to bargain about the effects of the sale. We then consider whether the unions’ own notices and the status quo provision of § 156 justified the injunction.
A
P&LE submits that neither its decision to sell nor the impact that sale of the company might have had on its employees was a “change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions” (emphasis added) within the meaning of the RLA, 45 U. S. C. § 156, and that P&LE therefore had no duty to give notice or to bargain with respect to these matters. The Court of Appeals rejected this submission, focusing on the effects the sale would have on employees and concluding that the “loss of jobs by possibly two-thirds of the employees clearly would require a ‘change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.’” 845 F. 2d, at 428. The court did not point out how the proposed sale would require changing any specific provision of any of P&LE’s collective-bargaining agreements. It did not suggest that any of those agreements dealt with the possibility of the sale of the company, sought to confer any rights on P&LE’s employees in the event of the sale, or guaranteed that jobs would continue to be available indefinitely. What P&LE proposed to do would remove it from the railroad business and terminate its position as a railroad employer; and like the Court of Appeals, RLEA does not explain how such action would violate or require changing any of the provisions of the unions’ written contracts with P&LE.
Of course, not all working conditions to which parties may have agreed are to be found in written contracts. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 396 U. S. 142, 154-155 (1969) (Shore Line). It may be that “in the context of the relationship between the principals, taken as a whole, there is a basis for implying an understanding on the particular practice involved.” Id., at 160 (Harlan, J., dissenting). But the Court of Appeals did not purport to find an implied agreement that P&LE would not go out of business, would not sell its assets, or if it did, would protect its employees from the adverse consequences of such action. Neither does RLEA. We therefore see no basis for holding that P&LE should have given a § 156 notice of a proposed “change” in its express or implied agreements with the unions when it contracted to sell its assets to Railco. Nor was it, based on its own decision to sell, obligated to bargain about the impending sale or to delay its implementation. We find RLEA’s arguments to the contrary quite unconvincing.
B
There is more substance to the Court of Appeals’ holding, and to RLEA’s submission, that the unions’ § 156 notices proposed far-reaching changes in the existing agreements over which P&LE was required to bargain and that the status quo provision of § 156 prohibited P&LE from going forward with the sale pending completion of the “purposely long and drawn out” procedures which the Act requires to be followed in order to settle a “major” dispute. Railway Clerks v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 384 U. S. 238, 246 (1966). Section 156 provides that when a notice of change in agreements has been given, “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155.” Relying on Shore Line, RLEA argues, and the Court of Appeals held, that when a rail labor union files a § 156 notice to change the terms of an agreement, the “working conditions” that the carrier may not change pending conclusion of the bargaining process are not limited to those contained in express or implied agreements but include, as Shore Line held, “those actual, objective working conditions and practices, broadly conceived, which were in effect prior to the time the pending dispute arose and which are involved in or related to that dispute.” 396 U. S., at 153. RLE A submits that the relationship of employer-employee and the state of being employed are among those working conditions that may not be changed until the RLA procedures are satisfied. We are unconvinced, for several reasons, that this is the case.
The facts of Shore Line, briefly stated, were these: Shore Line operated 50 miles of rail line between Lang Yard in Toledo, Ohio, and Dearoad Yard near Detroit, Michigan. For many years, all train and engine crews reported for duty and finished the day at Lang Yard. When it was necessary to perform switching and other operations at other points, crews were transported at railroad expense to those outlying points. The company proposed to establish outlying work assignments at Trenton, Michigan, some 35 miles north of Lang Yard. Crews assigned there would have to report there. The proposed change was not forbidden by, and would not have violated, the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. The union filed a § 156 notice seeking to amend the agreement to forbid the railroad to make outlying assignments. The issue was not settled by the parties and the union called for mediation. While the Mediation Board proceedings were pending, the railroad posted a bulletin creating the disputed assignment at Trenton. The union threatened a strike, the company sued to restrain the strike, and the union counterclaimed for an injunction relying on the status quo provision of § 156. The District Court and the Court of Appeals held for the union, and we affirmed over a dissent by Justice Harlan, joined by Chief Justice Burger. We held that even though Shore Line did not propose to change any of its agreements, the status quo provision of §156 — “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered” pending exhaustion of the required procedure — forbade any change by Shore Line in the “objective working conditions” then existing. 396 U. S., at 153. We noted that had it been the practice to make outlying work assignments, the company would have been within its rights to make the Trenton assignment; but the prior practice, the objective working condition, was to have crews report for work and come back to Lang Yard. That working condition could not be changed pending resolution of the dispute without violating the status quo provision of § 156 even though there was nothing in the agreement between the parties to prevent outlying assignments. Id., at 153-154.
Shore Line, in our view, does not control these cases. In the first place, our conclusion in that case that the status quo provision required adherence not only to working conditions contained in express or implied agreements between the railroad and its union but also to conditions “objectively” in existence when the union’s notice was served, and that otherwise could be changed without violating any agreement, extended the relevant language of § 156 to its outer limits, and we should proceed with care before applying that decision to the facts of these cases. Second, reporting at Lang Yard, we thought, had been the unquestioned practice for many years, and we considered it reasonable for employees to deem it sufficiently established that it would not be changed without bargaining and compliance with the status quo provisions of the RLA. Third, and more fundamentally, the decision did not involve a proposal by the railroad to terminate its business. Here, it may be said that the working condition existing prior to the § 156 notice was that P&LE was operating a railroad through the agency of its employees, but there was no reason to expect, simply from the railroad’s long existence, that it would stay in business, especially in view of its losses, or that rail labor would have a substantial role in the decision to sell or in negotiating the terms of the sale. Whatever else Shore Line might reach, it did not involve the decision of a carrier to quit the railroad business, sell its assets, and cease to be a railroad employer at all, a decision that we think should have been accorded more legal significance than it received in the courts below. Our cases indicate as much.
In Textile Workers v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U. S. 263 (1965), an employer closed its textile mill when a union won a representation election. The National Labor Relations Board concluded that this action was an unfair labor practice under §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the complete or partial liquidation of an employer’s business even though motivated by antiunion animus was not an unfair practice. We affirmed in part, ruling that insofar as the NLRA is concerned, an employer “has an absolute right to terminate his entire business for any reason he pleases....” 380 U. S., at 268. Whatever may be the limits of § 8(a)(1), we said, an employer’s decision to terminate its business is one of those decisions “so peculiarly matters of management prerogative that they would never constitute violations” of that section. Id., at 269. Neither would ceasing business and refusing to bargain about it violate § 8(a)(3) or § 8(a)(5) even if done with antiunion animus. Id., at 267, n. 5, 269-274. “A proposition that a single businessman cannot choose to go out of business if he wants to would represent such a startling innovation that it should not be entertained without the clearest manifestation of legislative intent or unequivocal judicial precedent so construing the Labor Relations Act.” Id., at 270. We found neither.
Although Darlington arose under the NLRA, we are convinced that we should be guided by the admonition in that case that the decision to close down a business entirely is so much a management prerogative that only an unmistakable expression of congressional intent will suffice to require the employer to postpone a sale of its assets pending the fulfillment of any duty it may have to bargain over the subject matter of union notices such as were served in this litigation. Absent statutory direction to the contrary, the decision of a railroad employer to go out of business and consequently to reduce to zero the number of available jobs is not a change in the conditions of employment forbidden by the status quo provision of § 156. In these cases, P&LE concluded that it must sell its assets, and its agreement to sell to Railco, if implemented, would have removed it from the railroad business; no longer would it be a railroad employer. No longer would it need the services of members of the rail unions. The RLEA concedes that had the collective-bargaining agreements expressly waived bargaining concerning sale of P&LE’s assets, the unions’ § 156 notices to change the agreements could not trump the terms of the agreements and could not delay the sale. Brief for Respondent RLEA 44. We think the same result follows where the agreement is silent on the matter and the railroad employer has proceeded in accordance with the ICA. In these circumstances, there is little or no basis for the unions to expect that a § 156 notice would be effective to delay the company’s departure from the railroad business. Congress clearly requires that sales transactions like P&LE’s proposal must satisfy the requirements of the ICA, but we find nothing in the RLA to prevent the immediate consummation of P&LE’s contract to sell. When the ICC approved the sale by permitting the Ex Parte 392 exemption to become effective, P&LE was free to close the transaction and should not have been enjoined from doing so.
This construction of the RLA also responds to our obligation to avoid conflicts between two statutory regimes, namely, the RLA and ICA, that in some respects overlap. As the Court has said, we “are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974). We should read federal statutes “to give effect to each if we can do so while preserving their sense and purpose.” Watt v. Alaska, 451 U. S. 259, 267 (1981); see also United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439, 453 (1988). We act accordingly in this litigation.
Congress has exercised its Commerce Clause authority to regulate rail transportation for over a century. See Act to regulate commerce of 1887 (the ICA), ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379. In doing so, Congress has assigned to the ICC plenary authority over rail transactions, ranging from line extensions, consolidations, and abandonments, to acquisitions. In particular, the ICA in 49 U. S. C. § 10901(a) permits non-carriers to acquire a rail line only if the ICC determines that “the present or future public convenience and necessity require or permit” the rail acquisition and operation. The ICC may approve certification on satisfaction of various conditions. Specifically, it has authority to impose labor protection provisions though it is not obligated to do so. § 10901(e). Acting pursuant to § 10505, the ICC, in its Ex Parte 392 exemption proceedings, declared all noncarrier acquisitions presumptively exempt from § 10901 regulation. Such transactions would be deemed approved seven days after a notice filed by the acquiring entities. 49 CFR § 1150.32(b) (1987). And absent a showing of exceptional circumstances, which rail labor was entitled to demonstrate, labor protection provisions would not be imposed. The Ex Parte 392 procedures, and the ICA, § 10505 exemption authority generally, like amendments to ICA in the last two decades, see, e. g., the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31; the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895, aimed at reversing the rail industry’s decline through de-regulatory efforts, above all by streamlining procedures to effectuate economically efficient transactions.
Here P&LE agreed to sell its assets to Railco. The transaction was presented to the ICC and an Ex Parte 392 exemption was requested. The ICC rejected the unions’ applications to stay or reject the exemption, which became effective seven days after it was requested. The unions then successfully sought an injunction delaying the closing of the transaction based on their § 156 notices. The Court of Appeals several times noted the tension between the two regimes, but concluded that the provisions of the RLA left no room for a construction easing those tensions. This was the case even though the injunction that was affirmed would likely result in cancellation of P&LE’s sale and the frustration of Congress’ intent through ICA amendments to deregulate the rail and air industries generally and more specifically to assist small rail lines with financial problems. We disagree with that conclusion, for as we have said, we are confident that the RLA is reasonably subject to a construction that would, at least to a degree, harmonize the two statutes. The injunction, which effectively prevented the sale from going forward, should not have been granted.
c
Our holding in these cases, which rests on our construction of the RLA and not on the pre-emptive force of the ICA, is that petitioner was not obligated to serve its own § 156 notice on the unions in connection with the proposed sale. We also conclude that the unions’ notices did not obligate P&LE to maintain the status quo and postpone the sale beyond the time the sale was approved by the Commission and was scheduled to be consummated. We do not hold, however, that P&LE had no duty at all to bargain in response to the unions’ § 156 motions. The courts below held, and RLEA agrees, that P&LE’s decision to sell, as such, was not a bargainable subject. The disputed issue is whether P&LE was required to bargain about the effects that the sale would or might have upon its employees. P&LE, in our view, was not entirely free to disregard the unions’ demand that it bargain about such effects. When the unions’ notices were served, however, the terms of P&LE’s agreement with Railco were more or less settled, and P&LE’s decision to sell on those terms had been made. To the extent that the unions’ demands could be satisfied only by the assent of the buyers, they sought to change or dictate the terms of the sale, and in effect challenged the decision to sell itself. At that time, P&LE was under no obligation to bargain about the terms it had already negotiated. To the extent that the unions’ proposals could be satisfied by P&LE itself, those matters were bargainable but only until the date for closing the sale arrived, which, of course, could not occur until the Ex Parte 392 exemption became effective. We are therefore constrained to reverse the Court of Appeals in No. 87-1888.
III
In No. 87-1589, the issue is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in setting aside the injunction against the strike issued on October 8, 1987. At that time, the Ex Parte 392 exemption had become effective, and the District Court held that because the ICC had in effect authorized the sale and had ruled that delay would be prejudicial to the parties and the public interests, the NLGA prohibition against issuing injunctions in labor dispute cases must be accommodated to the ICC’s decision that the sale of assets should go forward. It was this decision, based on the legal significance of the ICA and its impact on the NLGA, that the Court of Appeals summarily reversed. We agree with that decision.
We have held that the NLGA § 4 general limitation on district courts’ power to issue injunctions in labor disputes must be accommodated to the more specific provisions of the RLA: “[T]he District Court has jurisdiction and power to issue necessary injunctive orders” to enforce compliance with the requirements of the RLA “notwithstanding the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.” Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U. S. 768, 774 (1952). Thus, a union may be enjoined from striking when the dispute concerns the interpretation or application of its contract and is therefore subject to compulsory arbitration. Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana R. Co., 353 U. S. 30 (1957). “[T]he specific provisions of the Railway Labor Act take precedence over the more general provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.” Id., at 41-42. The same accommodation of the NLGA to the specific provisions of the NLRA must be made. A union that has agreed to arbitrate contractual disputes and is subject to a no-strike clause may be enjoined from striking despite the NLGA. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U. S. 235 (1970).
Petitioner contends that the NLGA must likewise be accommodated to the procedures mandated by Congress in 49 U. S. C. § 10901 specifically the authority of the ICC to impose labor protective provisions, the right of rail labor to seek such provisions from the ICC, and its right to judicial review if dissatisfied. It is urged that the ICA provides a comprehensive scheme for the resolution of labor protection issues arising out of ICC-regulated transactions and that rail labor must take advantage of those procedures rather than strike. We are unpersuaded that this is the case.
The prohibition of the NLGA must give way when necessary to enforce a duty specifically imposed by another statute. But no applicable provision has been called to our attention that imposes any duty on rail unions to participate in ICC proceedings and to seek ICC protections with which they must be satisfied. Furthermore, labor protection provisions run against the acquiring railroad rather than the seller. Yet here it is with the seller, P&LE, that the unions wanted to bargain, seeking to ease the adverse consequences of the sale. To that end, the unions served § 156 notices, which at least to some extent obligated P&LE to bargain until its transaction was closed. We find nothing in the ICA that relieved P&LE of that duty, nor anything in that Act that empowers the ICC to intrude into the relationship between the selling carrier and its railroad unions. We are thus quite sure that the NLGA forbade an injunction against that strike unless the strike was contrary to the unions’ duties under the RLA.
As to that issue, the Court of Appeals stated: “We intimate no view as to whether the provisions of the Railway Labor Act are applicable to this dispute so that the district court would be entitled to enjoin the strike while that Act’s dispute resolution mechanisms are underway. RLEA’s complaint seeking a declaration that the Railway Labor Act is applicable to this dispute is the merits issue before the district court.” 831 F. 2d, at 1237. On remand, the District Court held that the RLA was indeed applicable to the dispute and on that basis issued an injunction against P&LE. It did not, however, ever address the question whether the unions’ strike, which occurred after their suit was filed, was enjoin-able under the RLA. Neither did the Court of Appeals deal with that issue in affirming the District Court. P&LE perfunctorily asserts in its briefs in this Court that the strike injunction was proper because the unions were obligated to bargain rather than strike after their § 156 notices were served. RLEA did not respond to this assertion. With the case in this position, we shall not pursue the issue. Instead, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and leave the matter, if it is a live issue, to be dealt with on remand.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 87-1888 is reversed and the judgment in No. 87-1589 is vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Attempts to interest major rail lines in the property were unavailing because of the high cost of labor protection that would have been mandatory under the section of the ICA applicable to purchases by an existing carrier. 49 U. S. C. § 11347 (1982 ed., Supp. V), which is set forth in n. 7, infra.
P&LE would keep certain real estate and some 6,000 railcars.
CWP anticipated inviting all P&LE employees to submit applications and intended to give preference to them in hiring. CWP also expected to bargain for new contracts with the existing unions.
Disputes about proposals to change rates of pay, rules, or working conditions are known as major disputes. Minor disputes are those involving the interpretation or application of existing contracts. The latter are subject to compulsory arbitration. The former are subject to the procedures set out in §§ 156 and 155, which specify the functions of the Mediation Board. In Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369, 378 (1969), we described the procedures applicable to major disputes:
“The Act provides a detailed framework to facilitate the voluntary settlement of major disputes. A party desiring to effect a change of rates, pay, rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice. § 6. The parties must confer, § 2 Second, and if conference fails to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the National Mediation Board, which may also proffer its services sua sponte if it finds a labor emergency to exist. § 5 First. If mediation fails, the Board must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent. §§ 5 First, 7. If arbitration is rejected and the dispute threatens ‘substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the Mediation Board shall notify the President,’ who may create an emergency board to investigate and report on the dispute. § 10. While the dispute is working its way through these stages, neither party may unilaterally alter the status quo. §§2 Seventh, 5 First, 6, 10.”
The unions’ proposals were essentially these:
“1. No employee of the P&LE Railroad Company who [was actively employed or on authorized leave of absencel between August 1, 1986 and August 1,1987... shall be deprived of employment or placed in a worse position with respect to compensation or working conditions for any reason except resignation, retirement, death or dismissal for justifiable cause.... The formulae for the protective allowances, with a separation option, shall be comparable to those established in the Neiv York Dock conditions.
“2. If an employee is placed in a worse position with respect to compensation or working conditions, that employee shall receive, in addition to a make-whole-remedy, penalty pay equal to three times the lost pay, fringe benefits and consequential damages suffered by such employee.
“3. P&LE agrees to obtain binding commitments from any purchaser of its rail line operating properties and assets to assume all [of P&LE’s] collective bargaining agreements... to hire P&LE employees in seniority order without physicals, and to negotiate with the P&LE and this Organization an agreement to apply this Agreement to the sale transaction and to select the forces to perform the work over the lines being acquired.” App. 38, 42, 46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 122, 126.
Section 4 of the NLGA, as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 104, provides in part: “§ 104. Enumeration of specific acts not subject to restraining orders or injunctions
“No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:
“(a) Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether utility patents may be issued for plants under 35 U. S. C. § 101 (1994 ed.), or whether the Plant Variety Protection Act, 84 Stat. 1542, as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 2321 et seq., and the Plant Patent Act of 1930, 35 U. S. C. §§ 161-164 (1994 ed. and Supp. V), are the exclusive means of obtaining a federal statutory right to exclude others from reproducing, selling, or using plants or plant varieties. We hold that utility patents may be issued for plants.
I
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has issued some 1,800 utility patents for plants, plant parts, and seeds pursuant to 35 U. S. C. § 101. Seventeen of these patents are held by respondent Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Pioneer). Pioneer’s patents cover the manufacture, use, sale, and offer for sale of the company’s inbred and hybrid corn seed products. A patent for an inbred corn line protects both the seeds and plants of the inbred line and the hybrids produced by crossing the protected inbred line with another corn line. See, e. g., U. S. Patent No. 5,506,367, col. 3, App. 42. A hybrid plant patent protects the plant, its seeds, variants, mutants, and trivial modifications of the hybrid. See U. S. Patent No. 5,491,295, cols. 2-3, id., at 29-30.
Pedigree inbred corn plants are developed by crossing corn plants with desirable characteristics and then inbreeding the resulting plants for several generations until the resulting plant line is homogenous. Inbreds are often weak and have a low yield; their value lies primarily in their use for making hybrids. See, e. g., U. S. Patent No. 5,506,367, col. 6, id., at 43 (describing the traits and applications of the inbred corn line PHP38 by reference to the qualities exhibited in hybrid plants created with PHP38).
Hybrid seeds are produced by crossing two inbred corn plants and are especially valuable because they produce strong and vibrant hybrid plants with selected highly desirable characteristics. For instance, Pioneer’s hybrid corn plant 3394 is “characterized by superior yield for maturity, excellent seedling vigor, very good roots and stalks, and exceptional stay green.” U. S. Patent No. 5,491,295, cols. 2-3, id., at 29-30. Hybrid plants, however, generally do not reproduce true-to-type, i. e., seeds produced by a hybrid plant do not reliably yield plants with the same hybrid characteristics. Thus, a farmer who wishes to continue growing hybrid plants generally needs to buy more hybrid seed.
Pioneer sells its patented hybrid seeds under a limited label license that provides: “License is granted solely to produce grain and/or forage.” Id., at 51. The license “does not extend to the use of seed from such crop or the progeny thereof for propagation or seed multiplication.” Ibid. It strictly prohibits “the use of such seed or the progeny thereof for propagation or seed multiplication or for production or development of a hybrid or different variety of seed.” Ibid.
Petitioner J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc., doing business as Farm Advantage, Inc., purchased patented hybrid seeds from Pioneer in bags bearing this license agreement. Although not a licensed sales representative of Pioneer, Farm Advantage resold these bags. Pioneer subsequently brought a complaint for patent infringement against Farm Advantage and several other corporations and residents of the State of Iowa who are distributors and customers for Farm Advantage (referred to collectively as Farm Advantage or petitioners). Pioneer alleged that Farm Advantage has “for a long-time past been and still [is] infringing one or more [Pioneer patents] by making, using, selling, or offering for sale corn seed of the... hybrids in infringement of these patents-in-suit.” Id., at 10.
Farm Advantage answered with a general denial of patent infringement and entered a counterclaim of patent invalidity, arguing that patents that purport to confer protection for corn plants are invalid because sexually reproducing plants are not patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U. S. C. § 101 (1994 ed.). App. 12-13,17. Farm Advantage maintained that the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) set forth the exclusive statutory means for the protection of plant life because these statutes are more specific than § 101, and thus each carves out subject matter from § 101 for special treatment.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Pioneer. Relying on this Court’s broad construction of § 101 in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303 (1980), the District Court held that the subject matter covered by § 101 clearly includes plant life. 49 USPQ 2d 1813, 1817 (ND Iowa 1998). It further concluded that in enacting the PPA and the PVPA Congress neither expressly nor implicitly removed plaints from § 101’s subject matter. Id., at 1819. In particular, the District Court noted that Congress did not implicitly repeal § 101 by passing the more specific PVPA because there was no irreconcilable conflict between the PVPA and § 101. Id., at 1821.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and reasoning of the District Court. 200 F. 3d 1374 (2000). We granted certiorari, 531 U. S. 1143 (2001), and now affirm.
II
The question before us is whether utility patents may be issued for plants pursuant to 35 U. S. C. § 101 (1994 ed.). The text of § 101 provides:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
As this Court recognized over 20 years ago in Chakrabarty, 447 U. S., at 308, the language of § 101 is extremely broad. “In choosing such expansive terms as ‘manufacture’ and ‘composition of matter,’ modified by the comprehensive ‘any,’ Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope.” Ibid. This Court thus concluded in Chakrabarty that living things were patentable under § 101, and held that a manmade micro-organism fell within the scope of the statute. As Congress recognized, “the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions.” Id., at 313.
In Chakrabarty, the Court also rejected the argument that Congress must expressly authorize protection for new patentable subject matter:
“It is, of course, correct that Congress, not the courts, must define the limits of patentability; but it is equally true that once Congress has spoken it is ‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Congress has performed its constitutional role in defining patentable subject matter in §101; we perform ours in construing the language Congress has employed.... The subject-matter provisions of the patent law have been cast in broad terms to fulfill the constitutional and statutory goal of promoting ‘the Progress of Science and the useful Arts’ with all that means for the social and economic benefits envisioned by Jefferson.” Id., at 315.
Thus, in approaching the question presented by this case, we are mindful that this Court has already spoken clearly concerning the broad scope and applicability of § 101.
Several years after Chakrabarty, the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences held that plants were within the understood meaning of “manufacture” or “composition of matter” and therefore were within the subject matter of § 101. In re Hibberd, 227 USPQ 443, 444 (1985). It has been the unbroken practice of the PTO since that time to confer utility patents for plants. To obtain utility patent protection, a plant breeder must show that the plant he has developed is new, useful, and nonobvious. 35 U. S. C. §§ 101-103 (1994 ed. and Supp. V). In addition, the plant must meet the specifications of § 112, which require a written description of the plant and a deposit of seed that is publicly accessible. See 37 CFR §§ 1.801-1.809 (2001).
Petitioners do not allege that Pioneer’s patents are invalid for failure to meet the requirements for a utility patent. Nor do they dispute that plants otherwise fall within the terms of § 101’s broad language that includes “manufacture” or “composition of matter.” Rather, petitioners argue that the PPA and the PVPA provide the exclusive means of protecting new varieties of plants, and so awarding utility patents for plants upsets the scheme contemplated by Congress. Brief for Petitioners 11. We disagree. Considering the two plant specific statutes in turn, we find that neither forecloses utility patent coverage for plants.
A
The 1930 PPA conferred patent protection to asexually reproduced plants. Significantly, nothing within either the original 1930 text of the statute or its recodified version in 1952 indicates that the PPA’s protection for asexually reproduced plants was intended to be exclusive.
Plants were first explicitly brought within the scope of patent protection in 1930 when the PPA included “plants” among the useful things subject to patents. Thus the 1930 PPA amended the general utility patent provision, Rev. Stat. § 4886, to provide:
“Any person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, or who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced any distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber-propagated plant, not known or used by others in this country, before his invention or discovery thereof,... may... obtain a patent therefor.” Act of May 23,1930, § 1, 46 Stat. 376.
This provision limited protection to the asexual reproduction of the plant. Asexual reproduction occurs by grafting, budding, or the like, and produces an offspring with a genetic combination identical to that of the single parent — essentially a clone. The PPA also amended Revised Statutes § 4888 by adding: “No plant patent shall be declared invalid on the ground of noncompliance with this section if the description is made as complete as is reasonably possible.” Id., §2, 46 Stat. 376.
In 1952, Congress revised the patent statute and placed the plant patents into a separate chapter 15 of Title 35 entitled, “Patents for plants.” 35 U. S. C. §§ 161-164. This was merely a housekeeping measure that did nothing to change the substantive rights or requirements for a plant patent. A “plant patent” continued to provide only the exclusive right to asexually reproduce a protected plant, §163, and the description requirement remained relaxed, § 162. Plant patents under the PPA thus have very limited coverage and less stringent requirements than § 101 utility patents.
Importantly, chapter 15 nowhere states that plant patents are the exclusive means of granting intellectual property protection to plants. Although unable to point to any language that requires, or even suggests, that Congress intended the PPA’s protections to be exclusive, petitioners advance three reasons why the PPA should preclude assigning utility patents for plants. We find none of these arguments to be persuasive.
First, petitioners argue that plants were not covered by the general utility patent statute prior to 1930. Brief for Petitioners 19 (“If the patent laws before 1930 allowed patents on ‘plants’ then there would have been no reason for Congress to have passed the 1930 PPA..In advancing this argument, petitioners overlook the state of patent law and plant breeding at the time of the PPA’s enactment. The Court in Chakrabarty explained the realities of patent law and plant breeding at the time the PPA was enacted: “Prior to 1930, two factors were thought to remove plants from patent protection. The first was the belief that plants, even those artificially bred, were products of nature for purposes of the patent law.... The second obstacle to patent protection for plants was the fact that plants were thought not amenable to the ‘written description’ requirement of the patent law.” 447 U. S., at 311-312. Congress addressed these concerns with the 1930 PPA, which recognized that the work of a plant breeder was a patentable invention and relaxed the written description requirement. See §§ 1-2,46 Stat. 376. The PPA thus gave patent protection to breeders who were previously unable to overcome the obstacles described in Chakrabarty.
This does not mean, however, that prior to 1930 plants could not have fallen within the subject matter of §101. Rather, it illustrates only that in 1930 Congress believed that plants were not patentable under §101, both because they were living things and because in practice they could not meet the stringent description requirement. Yet these premises were disproved over time. As this Court held in Chakrabarty, “the relevant distinction” for purposes of §101 is not “between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions.” 447 U. S., at 313. In addition, advances in biological knowledge and breeding expertise have allowed plant breeders to satisfy § 101’s demanding description requirement.
Whatever Congress may have believed about the state of patent law and the science of plant breeding in 1930, plants have always had the potential to fall within the general subject matter of § 101, which is a dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions. “A rule that unanticipated inventions are without protection would conflict with the core concept of the patent law that anticipation undermines patentability.” Id., at 316.
Petitioners essentially ask us to deny utility patent protection for sexually reproduced plants because it was unforeseen in 1930 that such plants could receive protection under § 101. Denying patent protection under § 101 simply because such coverage was thought technologically infeasible in 1930, however, would be inconsistent with the forward-looking perspective of the utility patent statute. As we noted in Chakrabarty, “Congress employed broad general language in drafting § 101 precisely because [new types of] inventions are often unforeseeable.” Ibid.
Second, petitioners maintain that the PPA’s limitation to asexually reproduced plants would make no sense if Congress intended § 101 to authorize patents on plant varieties that were sexually reproduced. But this limitation once again merely reflects the reality of plant breeding in 1930. At that time, the primary means of reproducing bred plants true-to-type was through asexual reproduction. Congress thought that sexual reproduction through seeds was not a stable way to maintain desirable bred characteristics. Thus, it is hardly surprising that plant patents would protect only asexual reproduction, since this was the most reliable type of reproduction for preserving the desirable characteristics of breeding. See generally E. Sinnott, Botany Principles and Problems 266-267- (1935); J. Priestley & L. Scott, Introduction to Botany 530 (1938).
Furthermore, like other laws protecting intellectual property, the plant patent provision must be understood in its proper context. Until 1924, farmers received seed from the Government’s extensive free seed program that distributed millions of packages of seed annually. See Fowler, The Plant Patent Act of 1930: A Sociological History of its Creation, 82 J. Pat. & Tm. Off. Soc. 621, 623, 632 (2000). In 1930, seed companies were not primarily concerned with varietal protection, but were still trying to successfully com-modify seeds. There was no need to protect seed breeding because there were few markets for seeds. See Kloppen-burg 71 (“Seed companies’ first priority was simply to establish a market, and they continued to view the congressional distribution as a principal constraint”).
By contrast, nurseries at the time had successfully commercialized asexually reproduced fruit trees and flowers. These plants were regularly copied, draining profits from those who discovered or bred new varieties. Nurseries were the primary subjects of agricultural marketing and so it is not surprising that they were the specific focus of the PPA. See Fowler, supra, at 634-635; Kneen, Patent Plants Enrich Our World, National Geographic 357, 363 (1948).
Moreover, seed companies at the time could not point to genuinely new varieties and lacked the scientific knowledge to engage in formal breeding that would increase agricultural productivity. See Kloppenburg 77; Fowler, supra, at 633 (“Absent Significant numbers of distinct new varieties being produced by seed companies, variety protection through something like a patent law would hardly have been considered a business necessity”). In short, there is simply no evidence, let alone the overwhelming evidence needed to establish repeal by implication, see Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein, 516 U. S. 367, 381 (1996), that Congress, by specifically protecting asexually reproduced plants through the PPA, intended to preclude utility patent protection for sexually reproduced plants.
Third, petitioners argue that in 1952 Congress would not have moved plants out of the utility patent provision and into § 161 if it had intended § 101 to allow for protection of plants. Brief for Petitioners 20. Petitioners again rely on negative inference because they cannot point to any express indication that Congress intended § 161 to be the exclusive means of patenting plants. But this negative inference simply does not support carving out subject matter that otherwise fits comfortably within the expansive language of § 101, especially when § 101 can protect different attributes and has more stringent requirements than does § 161.
This is especially true given that Congress in 1952 did nothing to change the substantive rights or requirements for obtaining a plant patent. Absent a clear intent to the contrary, we are loath to interpret what was essentially a housekeeping measure as an affirmative decision by Congress to deny sexually reproduced plants patent protection under § 101.
B
By passing the PVPA in 1970, Congress specifically authorized limited patent-like protection for certain sexually reproduced plants. Petitioners therefore argue that this legislation evidences Congress’ intent to deny broader § 101 utility patent protection for such plants. Petitioners’ argument, however, is unavailing for two reasons. First, nowhere does the PVPA purport to provide the exclusive statutory means of protecting sexually reproduced plants. Second, the PVPA and § 101 can easily be reconciled. Because it is harder to qualify for a utility patent than for a Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificate, it only makes sense that utility patents would confer a greater scope of protection.
1
The PVPA provides plant variety protection for:
“The breeder of any sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant variety (other than fungi or bacteria) who has so reproduced the variety....” 7 U. S. C. § 2402(a).
Infringement of plant variety protection occurs, inter alia, if someone sells or markets the protected variety, sexually multiplies the variety as a step in marketing, uses the variety in producing a hybrid, or dispenses the variety without notice that the variety is protected.
Since the 1994 amendments, the PVPA also protects “any variety that is essentially derived from a protected variety,” § 2541(c)(1), and “any variety whose production requires the repeated use of a protected variety,” § 2541(c)(3). See Plant Variety Protection Act Amendments of 1994, § 9, 108 Stat. 3142. Practically, this means that hybrids created from protected plant varieties are also protected; however, it is not infringement to use a protected variety for the development of a hybrid. See 7 U. S. C. § 2541(a)(4).
The PVPA also contains exemptions for saving seed and for research. A farmer who legally purchases and plants a protected variety can save the seed from these plants for replanting on his own farm. See §2543 (“[I]t shall not infringe any right hereunder for a person to save seed produced by the person from seed obtained, or descended from seed obtained, by authority of the owner of the variety for seeding purposes and use such saved seed in the production of a crop for use on the farm of the person...”); see also Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U. S. 179 (1995). In addition, a protected variety may be used for research. See 7 U. S. C. § 2544 (“The use and reproduction of a protected variety for plant breeding or other bona fide research shall not constitute an infringement of the protection provided under this chapter”). The utility patent statute does not contain similar exemptions.
Thus, while the PVPA creates a statutory scheme that is comprehensive with respect to its particular protections and subject matter, giving limited protection to plant varieties that are new, distinct, uniform, and stable, § 2402(a), nowhere does it restrict the scope of patentable subject matter under § 101. With nothing in the statute to bolster their view that the PVPA provides the exclusive means for protecting sexually reproducing plants, petitioners rely on the legislative history of the PVPA. They argue that this history shows the PVPA was enacted because sexually reproducing plant varieties and their seeds were not and had never been intended by Congress to be included within the classes of things patentable under Title 35.
The PVPA itself, however, contains no statement that PVP certificates were to be the exclusive means of protecting sexually reproducing plants. The relevant statements in the legislative history reveal nothing more than the limited view of plant breeding taken by some Members of Congress who believed that patent protection was unavailable for sexually reproduced plants. This view stems from a lack of awareness concerning scientific possibilities.
Furthermore, at the time the PVPA was enacted, the PTO had already issued numerous utility patents for hybrid plant processes. Many of these patents, especially since the 1950’s, included claims on the products of the patented process, i. e., the hybrid plant itself. See Kloppenburg 264. Such plants were protected as part of a hybrid process and not.on their own. Nonetheless, these hybrids still enjoyed protection under §101, which reaffirms that such material was within the scope of § 101.
2
Petitioners next argue that the PVPA altered the subject-matter coverage of § 101 by implication. Brief for Petitioners 33-36. Yet “the only permissible justification for a repeal by implication is when the earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable.” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 550 (1974). “The rarity with which [the Court has] discovered implied repeals is due to the relatively stringent standard for such findings, namely, that there be an irreconcilable conflict between the two federal statutes at issue.” Matsushita, 516 U. S., at 381 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To be sure, there are differences in the requirements for, and coverage of, utility patents and PVP certificates issued pursuant to the PVPA. These differences, however, do not present irreconcilable conflicts because the requirements for obtaining a utility patent under §101 are more stringent than those for obtaining a PVP certificate, and the protections afforded by a utility patent are greater than those afforded by a PVP certificate. Thus, there is a parallel relationship between the obligations and the level of protection under each statute.
It is much more difficult to obtain a utility patent for a plant than to obtain a PVP certificate because a utility patentable plant must be new, useful, and nonobvious, 35 U. S. C. §§ 101-103. In addition, to obtain a utility patent, a breeder must describe the plant with sufficient specificity to enable others to “make and use” the invention after the patent term expires. §112. The disclosure required by the Patent Act is “the quid pro quo of the right to exclude.” Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U. S. 470, 484 (1974). The description requirement for plants includes a deposit of biological material, for example, seeds, and mandates that such material be accessible to the public. See 37 CPR §§ 1.801-1.809 (2001); see also App. 39 (seed deposits for U. S. Patent No. 5,491,295).
By contrast, a plant variety may receive a PVP certificate without a showing of usefulness or nonobviousness. See 7 U. S. C. § 2402(a) (requiring that the variety be only new, distinct, uniform, and stable). Nor does the PVPA require a description and disclosure as extensive as those required under § 101. The PVPA requires a “description of the variety setting forth its distinctiveness, uniformity and stability and a description of the genealogy and breeding procedure, when known.” 7 U. S. C. §2422(2). It also requires a deposit of seed in a public depository, §2422(4), but neither the statute nor the applicable regulation mandates that such material be accessible to the general public during the term of the PVP certificate. See 7 CFR § 97.6 (2001).
Because of the more stringent requirements, utility patent holders receive greater rights of exclusion than holders of a PVP certificate. Most notably, there are no exemptions for research or saving seed under a utility patent. Additionally, although Congress increased the level of protection under the PVPA in 1994, a PVP certificate still does not grant the full range of protections afforded by a utility patent. For instance, a utility patent on an inbred plant line protects that line as well as all hybrids produced by crossing that inbred with another plant line. Similarly, the PVPA now protects “any variety whose production requires the repeated use of a protected variety.” 7 U. S. C. §2541(c)(3). Thus, one cannot use a protected plant variety to produce a hybrid for commercial sale. PVPA protection still falls short of a utility patent, however, because a breeder can use a plant that is protected by a PVP certificate to “develop” a new inbred line while he cannot use a plant patented under § 101 for such a purpose. See 7 U. S. C. § 2541(a)(4) (infringement includes “use [of] the variety in producing (as distinguished from developing) a hybrid or different variety therefrom”). See also H. R. Rep. No. 91-1605, p. 11 (1970); 1 D. Chisum, Patents § 1.05[2][d][i], p. 549 (2001).
For all of these reasons, it is clear that there is no “positive repugnancy” between the issuance of utility patents for plants and PVP coverage for plants. Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 155 (1976). Nor can it be said that the two statutes “cannot mutually coexist.” Ibid. Indeed, “when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Morton, supra, at 551. Here we can plainly regard each statute as effective because of its different requirements and protections. The plain meaning of § 101, as interpreted by this Court in Chakrabarty, clearly includes plants within its subject matter. The PPA and the PVPA are not to the contrary and can be read alongside § 101 in protecting plants.
3
Petitioners also suggest that even when statutes overlap and purport to protect the same commercially valuable attribute of a thing, such “dual protection” cannot exist. Brief for Petitioners 44-45. Yet this Court has not hesitated to give effect to two statutes that overlap, so long as each reaches some distinct cases. See Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253 (1992) (statutes that overlap “do not pose an either-or proposition” where each confers jurisdiction over cases that the other does not reach). Here, while utility patents and PVP certificates do contain some similar protections, as discussed above, the overlap is only partial.
Moreover, this Court has allowed dual protection in other intellectual property cases. “Certainly the patent policy of encouraging invention is not disturbed by the existence of another form of incentive to invention. In this respect the two systems [trade secret protection and patents] are not and never would be in conflict.” Kewanee Oil, supra, at 484; see also Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 217 (1954) (the patentability of an object does not preclude the copyright of that object as a work of art). In this case, many plant varieties that are -unable to satisfy the stringent requirements of § 101 might still qualify for the lesser protections afforded by the PVPA.
Ill
We also note that the PTO has assigned utility patents for plants for at least 16 years and there has been no indication from either Congress or agencies with expertise that such coverage is inconsistent with the PVPA or the PPA. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which has specific expertise in issues of patent law, relied heavily on this Court’s decision in Chakrabarty when it interpreted the subject matter of § 101 to include plants. In re Hibberd, 227 USPQ 443 (1985). This highly visible decision has led to the issuance of some 1,800 utility patents for plants. Moreover, the PTO, which administers § 101 as well as the PPA, recognizes and regularly issues utility patents for plants. In addition, the Department of Agriculture’s Plant Variety Protection Office acknowledges the existence of utility patents for plants.
In the face of these developments, Congress has not only failed to pass legislation indicating that it disagrees with the PTO’s interpretation of §101; it has even recognized the availability of utility patents for plants. In a 1999 amendment to 35 U. S. C. § 119, which concerns the right of priority for patent rights, Congress provided: “Applications for plant breeder’s rights filed in a WTO [World Trade Organization] member country... shall have the same effect for the purpose of the right of priority... as applications for patents, subject to the same conditions and requirements of this section as apply to applications for patents.” 35 U. S. C. § 119(f) (1994 ed., Supp. V). Crucially, § 119(f) is part of the general provisions of Title 35, not the specific chapter of the PPA, which suggests a recognition on the part of Congress that plants are patentable under § 101.
> HH
For these reasons, we hold that newly developed plant breeds fall within the terms of § 101, and that neither the PPA nor the PVPA limits the seope of § 101’s coverage. As in Chakrabarty, we decline to narrow the reach of §101 where Congress has given us no indication that it intends this result. 447 U. S., at 315-316. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioners favor a holding that the PVPA is the only means of protecting these corn plants primarily because the PVPA’s coverage is generally less extensive and the hybrid seeds at issue do not have PVPA protection. App. 14. Most notably, the PVPA provides exemptions for research and for farmers to save seed from their crops for replanting. See infra, at 140. Utility patents issued for plants do not contain such exemptions.
Justice Breyer argues that Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 315 (1980), cannot determine the outcome of this case because it did not answer the precise question presented. See post, at 147-149 (dissenting opinion). But this simply misses the mark. Chakrabarty broadly interpreted the reach of § 101. This interpretation is surely germane to the question whether sexually reproduced plants fall within the subject matter of § 101. In addition, Chakrabarty’s discussion of the PPA and the PVPA is relevant to petitioners’ primary arguments against utility patent protection for sexually reproduced plants. See 447 U. S., at 310-314; see also infra, at 134-135.
By contrast, sexual reproduction occurs by seed and sometimes involves two different plants.
The PPA, as amended, provides: “Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U. S. C. § 161 (1994 ed.).
Patents issued under § 161 are referred to as “plant patents,” which are distinguished from § 101 utility patents and § 171 design patents.
To obtain a plant patent under §161 a breeder must meet all of the requirements for § 101, except for the description requirement. See § 162 (“No plant patent shall be declared invalid for noncompliance with section 112 [providing for written description] of this title if the description is as complete as is reasonably possible”).
The Senate Report accompanying the bill notes: “All such plants must be asexually reproduced in order to have their identity preserved. This is necessary since seedlings either of chance or self-pollenization from any of these would not preserve the character of the individual.” S. Rep. No. 315, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1930).
This Report, like the text, indicates Congress’ intent to limit plant patent coverage to asexual reproduction, but explains that this limitation “recognizes a practical situation” — i. e., that propagation by seeds does not preserve the character of the original. See id., at 4 (“[T]he patent right granted is a right to propagate the new variety by asexual reproduction. It does not include the right to propagate by seeds. This limitation in the right granted recognizes a practical situation and greatly narrows the scope of the bill”). The limitation to asexual reproduction was a recognition of the “practical situation” that seedlings did not reproduce true-to-type. An exclusive right to asexual reproduction was the only type of coverage needed and thought possible given the state of plant breeding at the time.
At its high point in 1897, over 20 million packages of seed were distributed to farmers. See N. Klose, America’s Crop Heritage 98 (1950). Even at the time the program was eliminated in 1924, it was the third largest line item in the Department of Agriculture’s budget. See J. Klop-penburg, First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-2000, p. 71 (1988) (hereinafter Kloppenburg).
The dissent relies on United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U. S. 517 (1998), for the proposition that “
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Hopkins v. Cohen, ante, p. 530.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White in Hopkins v. Cohen, ante, p. 535.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
F
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion
in which The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Burton concurred.
This is a claim for just compensation, based on the Fifth Amendment, by a slaughterer whose meat products the Government requisitioned for war purposes. The Court of Claims awarded damages above the maximum prices fixed by the Office of Price Administration for such products and measured by what that court deemed the replacement cost of the requisitioned property. 107 Ct. Cl. 155, 67 F. Supp. 1017. The implications of this ruling reach far, and so we brought the case here. 330 U. S. 814.
While the immediate facts of this controversy are few and undisputed, they can be understood only in connection with the recognized facts in the meat industry. Of these we must take judicial notice inasmuch as we must translate the idiom of the industry into vernacular English. Also, of course, we must consider the facts in the context of the rather intricate system of meat price regulation by O. P. A.
The respondent was engaged in the business of packing pork products in Philadelphia. It bought hogs in Chicago, St. Louis, and Indianapolis and transported them to Philadelphia where they were slaughtered and converted into various pork cuts and products. It sold these products to retail dealers in Philadelphia, and it had also supplied pork products to Government agencies.
On January 30, 1942, the President approved the Emergency Price Control Act. 56 Stat. 23, 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. V, 1946) § 901. Accordingly, the Price Administrator, by a series of regulations, established maximum prices for dressed hogs and wholesale pork cuts. Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 148, issued on October 22, 1942, governed the pork cuts here involved. 7 Fed. Reg. 8609,8948,9005; 8 Fed. Reg. 544.
To meet the food needs entailed by the war, the President under the authority of the Second War Powers Act, 56 Stat. 176, 50 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1946) § 633, created the Food Distribution Administration, with the Secretary of Agriculture as its head. E. O. 9280, 7 Fed. Reg. 10179. This Administration was given authority to assign food priorities, to “allocate” food to governmental agencies and for private account, and to assist in carrying out the program of the Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, 55 Stat. 31. To carry out the task thus delegated by the President, the Food Distribution Administration issued to each packer operating under federal inspection a priority order calling for delivery of a proportionate part of the total quantity needed at the particular time. A packer’s quota was based on the ratio of meat produced in his plant to the total production in all federally inspected plants.
In conformity with this system, the respondent, on February 2, 1943, was requested to deliver 225,000 pounds of lard and pork products to the Federal Surplus Commodity Corporation for delivery under the Lend-Lease program. The respondent was advised that this order was to be filled in preference to any other order or contract of lower priority, and at the applicable O. P. A. ceiling prices. Insisting that it could no longer afford to sell to the Government at ceiling prices, respondent refused to make delivery.
On March 1, 1943, the Food Distribution Administration, exercising powers not questioned, issued an order requisitioning the lard and pork products in controversy. On March 3, 1943, the property was duly seized in respondent’s Philadelphia packing house. On March 24, 1943, respondent filed its claim with the Administration for “just compensation” for taking this property. Its total claim was $55,525, of which $16,250 was for lard and $39,275 for pork cuts. On May 7, 1943, the Administration, by way of preliminary determination of the just compensation for the requisitioned property, fixed the value of the lard at $15,543.78 and the pork cuts at $25,112.50. These amounts were based on the O. P. A. ceiling prices applicable to these products. On May 22, 1943, the preliminary award was made final. Respondent accepted in full payment the award as to the lard; it refused to accept the determination as to the pork cuts and, in accordance with the statutory procedure in the case of rejection of such an award, was paid half of it. On June 24, 1943, respondent instituted this action in the Court of Claims to recover the additional amount which when added to the $12,556.25, the half of the Government's valuation for those cuts, would constitute “just compensation” for what the Government had taken.
The Court of Claims referred the proceeding to a commissioner, who took evidence and reported to the court. Upon the basis of his report and the underlying evidence, the Court of Claims found as a fact that the replacement cost of the requisitioned pork cuts at the time and place of the taking was $30,293, and concluded, as a matter of law, that such replacement cost and not the maximum ceiling price was the proper measure of damages for the taking. We heard argument at the last Term, and after due consideration deemed it appropriate to order reargument at this Term.
At the outset it is important to make clear what it is we are called upon to decide. The conventional criterion for determining what is “just compensation” for private property taken for public use is what it would bring in the free, open market. E. g., Olson v. United States, 292 U. S. 246, 255; Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U. S. 106, 123; L. Vogelstein & Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 337, 340. But there must be a market to make the criterion available. Here there was a market in which the respondent could have sold the pork cuts, but it was not a free and open market; it was controlled in its vital feature, selling price, by the O. P. A. It is this fact that creates the problem of the case, assuming that the case is not dogmatically disposed of by holding that inasmuch as the maximum price is the only price which respondent could legally have got for its goods it is just compensation. We are not passing on the abstract question whether a lawfully established maximum price is the proper measure of “just compensation” whenever property is taken for public use. We are adjudicating only the precise issues that emerge from this case.
The Second War Powers Act, 1942, under which respondent’s property was authorized to be taken, restricted compensation for the taking to that which the Fifth Amendment enjoins. 56 Stat. 176, 181. In enforcing this constitutional requirement “the question is what has the owner lost, not what has the taker gained.” Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U. S. 189, 195; McGovern v. New York, 229 U. S. 363. Respondent’s sole claim is for the pecuniary equivalent of the property taken. This is not a situation where consequential damages, in any appropriate sense of the term, are urged as a necessary part of just compensation. Respondent does not claim such damages on the theory that, in order to protect its good will, it had to supply its regular customers and that this compelled replacement of the requisitioned pork products by the purchase, slaughter, and processing of live hogs. Cf. United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373, 382; United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S. 372, 377-78; United States ex rel. T. V. A. v. Powelson, 319 U. S. 266, 281-82. Respondent claims that replacement cost is the proper measure of the value of the property when requisitioned. This action was brought to recover damages which the respondent would suffer, so it maintains, if it accepted the Government’s offer of the applicable ceiling prices in satisfaction of “just compensation.”' The burden therefore rests on the respondent to prove the damages it would suffer by not receiving more than the ceiling prices. Marion & Rye Valley R. Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 280, 285.
The Court of Claims found that the principal item in the cost of processing respondent’s products was what it had to pay for live hogs; that, inasmuch as live hogs were not then covered by price regulation, the Chicago market quotations governed price in the packing industry; that the Chicago average live hog price was $15.59 during March 1943; and that, on the basis of this price, the replacement cost for the requisitioned property was $30,293. We are of opinion that in reaching this conclusion the court below failed to take into account decisive factors for the proper disposition of the action brought by the respondent.
We are dealing with a claim for damages arising out of a transaction pertaining to a particular industry, and the transaction cannot be torn from the context of that industry. It is practically a postulate of the slaughtering industry that replacement cost does not afford a relevant basis for determining the true value of the industry’s products. “Manufacturing operations in the meat packing industry do not consist of assembling raw materials for the purpose of obtaining one finished product, but rather of separating or breaking down raw materials (cattle, etc.) into many parts, one of which (dressed carcass) is the major product, and the other parts of which are further processed into numerous byproducts.” Kingan & Co. v. Bowles, 144 F. 2d 253, 254. In consequence, cost in the industry generally is like a fagot that cannot be broken up into simple, isolated pieces. See Greer, Packinghouse Accounting (Prepared by the Committee on Accounting of the Institute of American Meat Packers), passim. “The accounting procedure in the hog business is even more complicated than that of the cattle, calf, or sheep business, because the operations involve a greater breaking up of the dressed carcass and more numerous processes extending over considerable periods of time.” Id. at 33-34. The problem is one of “joint cost” in a business which “produces no single major product,” id. at 213, with the result that no accountant has thus far “been able to devise a method yielding by-product or joint-cost figures which does not embody a dominance of arbitrariness and guesswork.” Hamilton, Cost as a Standard for Price, 4 Law and Contemp. Prob. 321, 328; cf. Greenbaum, The Basis of Property Shall Be the Cost of Such Property: How is Cost Defined?, 3 Tax L. Rev. 351, 356-59.
If, as suggested in argument, a hog were nothing but an articulated pork chop, and the processing of edible and inedible by-products were not characteristic of the industry, the price of a live hog might well represent the collective cost of the derivative pork cuts. The pork chop, however, is but one of the many edible hog products. According to an estimate about the time of the requisitioning of these pork cuts, there were more than 200 pork items (exclusive of sausage products) in the market. See Supplementary Statement of Considerations for Revised Regulation No. 148, Pike and Fischer, 3 OPA Food Desk Book 46,151. “Most pork products,” the Administrator found, “are consumed in a cured or processed state. Fresh pork products, such as pork chops and fresh ham, represent not over 20 per cent of the vast quantity of pork which moves by rail. The remaining 80 per cent reaches the consumer in a wide variety of processed forms, including dried, dry cured, sweet pickled, smoked, cooked, baked, and canned.” Id. at 46,141. It deserves noting that the requisitioned products in controversy included cured regular hams, cured clear bellies, cured picnics, and salted fatbacks.
The petitioner was also engaged in by-product processing, for the Government took from him 100,000 pounds of refined pure lard. For the value of the lard the respondent accepted the administrative award. Admittedly, part of the cost of the live hog must be charged to by-products. However, any method of apportioning the total cost to the by-products is highly speculative.
Since so much speculative approximation and guesswork entered into the determination of cost, selling price, and profit, the industry, naturally enough, was in almost continuous controversy with the Price Administrator about them. The respondent was party to these controversies. On July 17,1942, it filed a protest against Maximum Price Regulation No. 148 which was consolidated with the protest of 115 other pork slaughterers against this regulation. On the basis of calculations as to the cut-out value or replacement cost of various pork cuts, the slaughterers contended that the regulation did not allow them sufficient operating margin over the cost of live hogs. In rejecting the protest, on April 23, 1943, the Administrator made this ruling: “The interdependence of all phases of the operations of packing establishments makes precise evaluation of the relationship between prices on dressed and processed meats and live hog prices impossible except in terms of the over-all financial position of the industry.’'' In the Matter of Rapides Packing Co., Pike and Fischer, 1 OPA Opinions and Decisions 243. The respondent, on March 8, 1943, had also protested, again on the basis of the cost of live hogs, against the revision of the regulation. This protest was consolidated with those of 15 other pork slaughterers and, substantially on the ground taken in the Rapides Packing Co. case, this second protest was likewise rejected by the Administrator. In the Matter of Greenwood Packing Plant, Pike and Fischer, 1 OPA Opinions and Decisions 296,299.
Review by the Emergency Court of Appeals was not sought, although the first denial of respondent’s claim for the replacement cost of pork cuts, based on live hog prices, came shortly after the Government’s requisitioning of the products as to which he now makes the same contention. It is noteworthy that the pork price margins were almost the only meat price margins which were not challenged before the Emergency Court of Appeals in what has been called "the battle of the meat regulations.” See Hyman and Nathanson, Judicial Review of Price Control: The Battle of the Meat Regulations, 42 Ill. L. Rev. 584.
The considerations which underlay the Administrator’s meat price determinations are most pertinent to the solution of our immediate problem. The result of his analysis was that the profit-and-loss data on a slaughterer’s entire operations were the only dependable figures from which the fairness of meat prices could be deduced. The Administrator pointed out that the industry, on the basis of its accounting figures, had historically lost money on its meat sales. Since, however, by taking the by-product sales into full account its operations as a whole were highly profitable, these meat sale losses were “more in the nature of bookkeeping losses which failed to take fully into account the integrated nature of the industry.” These views were approvingly quoted by the Emergency Court of Appeals in Armour & Co. v. Bowles, 148 F. 2d 529, 535.
In both of the consolidated proceedings to which the respondent was a party, the Administrator explicitly requested to be furnished with the industry’s profit-and-loss data. In the earlier proceeding, no proof of loss was filed by any of the protestants. In the Matter of Rapides Packing Co., supra. In the second proceeding the Administrator made this finding:
“The three Protestants who submitted further evidence did not even thus sustain their claims of individual hardship. One of them showed a net profit of $60,492.44 for the five months period ending March 27, 1942; another a net profit of $6,838.00 for the three months period ending April 1, 1943, and the third failed to submit a profit and loss statement and balance sheet although specifically requested to do so.” In the Matter of Greenwood Packing Plant, supra, at 297.
Not merely does the industry generally seem to have prospered under price control, but so did the respondent despite the fact that throughout the period in controversy it continued to buy live hogs at prevailing prices and to sell pork products derived from them at the authorized ceiling prices, even when this meant selling its pork products below the price that the Court of Claims found to be their replacement cost value.
Most pertinent, therefore, are the pronouncements of the packing industry made before these matters became embroiled in price-fixing litigation. “The cost of a dressed hog carcass, or of a lot of dressed hog carcasses, may be determined quite satisfactorily; but when a carcass is cut up into its various merchantable parts, all record of cost is lost, as it is impossible to determine the cost of any of these cuts.” Greer, Packinghouse Accounting (Prepared by the Committee on Accounting of the Institute of American Meat Packers), p. 246, and also pp. 43, 58, 61-62. Since the “results for the hog business as a whole can be found only by adding the profits or losses for all merchandising departments,” id. at 218, the only accurate formula for costs in hog slaughtering is a profit-and-loss statement for the entire operations. Id. at 43-44.
It is as old as the common law that an allegation purporting to be one of fact but contradicted by common knowledge is not confessed by a demurrer. Of course, findings of fact are binding on this Court, but if this Court had to treat as the starting point for the determination of constitutional issues a spurious finding of “fact” contradicted by an adjudicated finding between the very parties to the instant controversy, constitutional adjudication would become a verbal game.
There are facts and facts, even in Court of Claims’ litigation. It is the function of the Court of Claims to make findings. But when a judgment based on such findings is here brought in question it is the function of this Court to ascertain the meaning of the findings in order to determine their legal significance. The judgment of the court below that “replacement cost” is the proper measure of just compensation and the mode by which it reached the amount of that cost are inescapably enmeshed in considerations that are clearly familiar issues of law and particularly of constitutional law. Where the conclusion is a “composite of fact and law,” Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 223 U. S. 655, 668, this Court may certainly hold that as a matter of law the findings are erroneous. See, e. g., Washington ex rel. Oregon R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510, 528. Even when this Court reviews State court judgments involving constitutional issues it “must review independently both the legal issues and those factual matters with which they are commingled.” See Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 636 (and the authorities therein cited). Similarly, findings concurred in by two courts do not control the decision here where “facts and their constitutional significance are too closely connected” and “the standards and the ultimate conclusion involve questions of law inseparable from the particular facts to which they are applied.” United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 404. Even where the parties to the litigation have stipulated as to the “facts,” this Court will disregard the stipulation, accepted and applied by the courts below, if the stipulation obviously forecloses real questions of law. See, e. g., Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R. Co., 243 U. S. 281.
The prior proceedings between the same parties, as to which we would be blind not to take judicial notice, as well as the unquestioned facts pertaining to the meat industry are relevant to interpret the findings of the Court of Claims. We have concluded that here “replacement cost” is a spurious, i. e. non-legal, basis for determining just compensation. It is as though the Court of Claims had based its opinion on a balance sheet and we had to interpret the balance sheet into actualities. And so we hold that, as a matter of law, the court below erred in utilizing replacement cost as the basis for determining what constituted just compensation.
When due regard is given to the findings of the Court of Claims, they fail to establish that the compensation proffered by the Government for the requisitioned pork cuts, based on the maximum ceiling prices, falls short of “just compensation.” We are therefore not called upon to consider whether as a matter of constitutional law prices fixed by the Government for the sale of commodities are the measure of “just compensation” for commodities seized by the Government. As the conflict of opinion here indicates, that is a debatable issue which, since we can, we must avoid adjudicating. See Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105.
The burden of proving its case was upon the respondent. The nature of this burden was to prove, in light of the governing facts of the industry, that the administrative award for the taking of respondent’s property was less than just compensation, based as it was on prices which the Administrator had established for those products and which had been left undisturbed by the process devised by Congress for assuring the fairness of these prices. By evidence merely of bookkeeping losses, respondent did not carry its burden of proving actual damage. Just compensation is a practical conception, a matter of fact and not of fiction. Respondent introduced no evidence, and the Court of Claims made no findings, to establish a loss based on its total operations during the period relevant to the slaughtering of the hogs from which the requisitioned products were processed. On the basis of such figures it would be necessary to determine by reasonable allocations the portion of the loss properly attributable to the goods seized by the Government. In the proceedings below the respondent neither alleged such a loss nor submitted proof in support of it. Since it has not maintained its burden of proving that the ceiling price award entails damages, the judgment of the Court of Claims cannot stand.
The judgment is reversed with directions to the Court of Claims to enter a judgment for the respondent in an amount not exceeding $12,556.25, with interest on the amount of $25,112.50 from March 3,1943, the date of the requisition, to May 22, 1943, the date of the final award made hy the Director of the Food Distribution Administration.
In 1943 there were 308 hog slaughterers whose establishments operated under federal inspection. Livestock, Meats, and Wool Market Statistics and Related Data 1945, compiled by the Livestock Branch,.Production and Marketing Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 31. In 1942 there had been only 218 hog slaughtering establishments under federal inspection, and in 1944 there were 322. Ibid.
The requisitioned property consisted of the following:
40,000 pounds Cured Regular Hams, 14 to 18 lb. range
40,000 pounds Cured Clear Bellies, 10 to 14 lb. range
15,000 pounds Cured Picnics, 6 to 10 lb. range
30,000 pounds Salted Fatbacks, 8 to 12 lb. range
100,000 pounds Refined Pure Lard, 1 lb. prints (30 lbs. to carton)
After the case was taken under advisement, following reargument, a matter was brought to our attention which calls for consideration, however summary. We were advised that on March 23, 1943, the respondent filed with the O. P. A. an “Application for Adjustment of Maximum Prices for Commodities or Services under Government Contracts or Subcontracts,” pursuant to Procedural Regulation No. 6, 7 Fed. Reg. 5087, and Supplementary Order No. 9, 7 Fed. Reg. 5444. (See 7 Fed. Reg. 5088 for the form of the application.) The purpose of these regulations was to afford opportunity for relief to sellers who had made, or proposed to make, “contracts or subcontracts” with the Government. This application had lain dormant from the date of its filing until December 13, 1947, when we were advised by counsel for the Government that it was now in the files of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which is third in the chain of title from the O. P. A., through the Office of Temporary Controls, charged with the administration of these two regulations. On December 15, 1947, counsel for the respondent advised the R. F. C. that it withdrew the application insofar as it pertained to the requisitioned commodities in controversy here.
While the Government does not suggest that the dormancy of this application renders present proceedings, if not moot, premature, such apparently is the intimation. If the regulations in fact authorized one who is not a “contractor or subcontractor” in the ordinary meaning of those terms to obtain special administrative relief apart from the statutory scheme relating to requisitioned property, technical issues would have to be faced which we need not particularize. Counsel for the Government advise us that a counsel for the R. F. C. has now interpreted the regulations not only (1) as applicable to requisitioned commodities, but (2) as authorizing retroactive price adjustments for requisition transactions completed before readjustment is sought. Not unnaturally, the Government states that the applicability of this procedure for readjustment “to requisitioned commodities may not be readily apparent from its terms.” While normally we accept the construction placed upon a regulation by those charged with its administration, we must reject a construction that is not only as unnatural as what is now proposed but comes to us post litem motam five years after the application. It should also be pointed out that the construction now placed upon the regulations is not made by the administration that promulgated it but by the second successor agency for liquidating what is left of this administration. With due regard for the respect we owe to administrative rulings in their normal setting, it would require such a remaking of the regulations as reason and fair dealing here reject. The provisions for readjustment of contracts relate to a transaction in which the seller and the purchasing agency of the Government were in agreement as to the contract price. The price was paid, subject to the approval of the application for adjustment. If so approved, the seller retained the purchase price; if disapproved, the seller had to make a refund. See Armour & Co. v. Brown, 137 F. 2d 233, 240. In the case of a requisitioned commodity, certainly prior to the filing of an application, no amount is agreed upon, and no provision for refund has been made. In short, we reject this belated and novel construction and are of the opinion that the pendency of this moribund application before the R. F. C., now withdrawn by the respondent, was no bar to this suit.
If the respondent had sold the pork products in controversy here to its regular customers, it would have done so at the applicable ceiling prices. If the Government had then requisitioned the property from these customers, there would have been no question that the ceiling prices would have been the measure of just compensation.
This was obviously not the cost of the hogs from which the pork products requisitioned by the order of March 1, 1943, were processed. The relevant hogs were purchased in some previous month and at a lower cost. The Chicago average was $15.35 in February and $14.78 in January, 1943, and $14.01 in December and $13.96 in November, 1942. Livestock, Meats, and Wool Market Statistics and Related Data 1945, compiled by the Livestock Branch, Production and Marketing Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 54. Moreover, these were the average prices for average weights of hogs. Ibid. The Government took specific pork products which were processed from hogs of a definite weight for which the respondent paid specific prices in the Chicago, St. Louis, or Indianapolis markets.
There are “numerous by-products,” and the computation of the values for “such by-products as casings, grease, fertilizer, and hog hair, is rather complex.” Greer, Packinghouse Accounting (Prepared by the Committee on Accounting of the Institute of American Meat Packers) (1929) at 213 and 219, respectively; see, generally, Clemen, By-Products in the Packing Industry (1929); Moulton and Lewis, Meat through the Microscope (rev. ed. 1940); Readings on By-Products of the Meat Packing Industry, collected by the Institute of Meat Packing, University of Chicago (1941); Rhoades, Merchandising Packinghouse Products, Institute of Meat Packing, University of Chicago (1929); Tolman, Packing-House Industries (1922).
Since, as we hold, the value of the individual products can only be determined by proportionate allocation from the over-all operations, it seems to us that respondent’s acceptance of the award as to the lard was hardly consistent with its rejection of the award as to the other pork products.
“On much of the material transferred [from one of the slaughterer’s departmental accounts to another], such as blood, bones, tankage, glue stock, etc., there is no ascertainable outside market, and the packers must perforce place quite arbitrary valuations on this material having no probable relation to either cost or market. Again certain products are in the green stage when transferred, and an outside market only obtains for the finished stage, with the result that arbitrary deductions must be made from the finished market, estimated to establish a nonexistent ‘green’ market. The certification of internal transfer prices presents, accordingly, an almost interminable problem to any outside reviewing body.” Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Meat-Packing Industry (1920), Part V, 56. The industry’s position as to the utilization of such cost allocations and the Price Administrator’s objections thereto are quoted fully and discussed in Armour & Co. v. Bowles. 148 F. 2d 529, 535-39.
It is also significant that none of the other 130 protestants sought review in the Emergency Court of Appeals. Cf., e. g., Kingan & Co. v. Bowles, 144 F. 2d 253, and Armour & Co. v. Bowles, 148 F. 2d 529, for that court’s views on replacement cost as a basis for the determination of value.
“It is a notable fact, that according to the present method of departmental accounting, the packers are in the habit of showing low profits or even positive losses in the carcass-meat departments, while at the same time exhibiting large profits in the by-products or ‘specialty’ departments, the chief reason for this somewhat extraordinary state of affairs being found in the valuations placed upon transfers.” Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the MeatPacking Industry (1920), Part V, 56. While a great deal of time has passed since this 1920 report, the Price Administrator reached the same conclusions in 1943, and the Emergency Court of Appeals quoted the report more fully in 1945. See Armour & Co. v. Bowles, 148 F. 2d at 537.
See War Profits Study No. 14, Office of Research, Financial Analysis Branch, Office of Price Administration, Office of Temporary Controls (1947) pp. 17, 45-47, 73-75. This is a study of the profits of 520 food processors, but the foregoing references were to the separate tabulations concerning the 79 meat packers included in the study. The financial data was compiled from Moody’s Industrials, Standard & Poor’s Corporation Records, and the OPA Financial Reports submitted by the packers. Id. at 19. Of the total 79 meat packers, 54 are processing slaughterers, 10 non-processing slaughterers, and 15 non-slaughterers. The comparison between the 1943 operations and the base period (1936-39 average) operations shows for the 54 processing slaughterers: Net sales: 1943 — $4,575,528,000 (after renegotiation refunds)/base period — $2,382,211,000; Profits before income taxes: 1943 — $125,463,000 (after renegotiation refunds)/base period — $24,415,000; Profits after taxes: 1943 — $50,402,000 (after renegotiation refunds)/base period — $19,255,000; Return on sales: 1943 — 2.7%/base period — 1.0%; Return onnet worth: 1943 — 19.5%/ base period — 4.1%; Return on invested capital: 1943 — 16.5%/base period — 4.1%. Id. at 45, 47. For the 10 non-processing slaughterers, the comparison shows: Net sales: 1943 — $62,098,000/base period— $29,927,000; Profits before income taxes: 1943 — $1,027,000/base period — $184,000; Profits after taxes: 1943 — $390,000/base period— $147,000; Return on sales: 1943 — 1.7%/base period —.6%; Return on net worth: 1943 — 28.0%/base period — 6.3%; Return on invested capital: 1943 — 25.5%/base period — 5.9%. Ibid.
Respondent’s income account for the year ending December 31, 1943, shows:
“Net sales. $14,225,056
Cost of sales.... 12,950,785
Selling, etc., exp. 869,770
Operating profit. 404,500
Other income.... 18,717
Total income.... 423,217
Mise, deductions. 13,229
Income taxes.... 176, 619
Net income. 233,369
Earn., pfd. share $40.21
Earn., com. share 17.97”
See Moody’s Manual of Investments, American and Foreign, Industrial Securities, 1944, p. 647. The 1943 net income figure of $233,369 compared favorábly with preceding years: 1942 — $73,292; 1941— $150,069; 1940 — $148,164; and 1939 — d$76,986.
The court below found that in order to protect its good will and keep its organization intact, “Throughout the period mentioned [prior to and after the March 1943 requisition], plaintiff [respondent] continued to buy live hogs at prevailing prices and to sell pork products derived from them at the ceiling prices authorized by regulations of the Office of Price Administration, even when the cost of live hogs was greater than the wholesale prices of the products obtained from them.” 67 F. Supp. at 1022.
“If one enters my close, and with an iron sledge and bar breaks and displaces the stones on the land, being my chattels, and I request him to desist, and he refuses, and threatens me if I shall approach him; and upon this I, to prevent him from doing more damage to the stones, not daring to approach him, throw some stones at him molliter et molli manu, and they fall upon him molliter, still this is not a good justification, for the judges say that one cannot throw stones moll
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Per Curiam.
The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed. Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148 (1956).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This ease asks us to consider whether 21 U. S. C. § 846, the drug conspiracy statute, requires the Government to prove that a conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. We conclude that it does not.
I
According to the grand jury indictment, Reshat Shabani participated in a narcotics distribution scheme in Anchorage, Alaska, with his girlfriend, her family, and other associates. Shabani was allegedly the supplier of drugs, which he arranged to be smuggled from California. In an undercover operation, federal agents purchased cocaine from distributors involved in the conspiracy.
Shabani was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. He moved to dismiss the indictment because it did not allege the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, which act, he argued, was an essential element of the offense. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Hon.. H. Russel Holland, denied the motion, and the case proceeded to trial. At the close of evidence, Shabani again raised the issue and asked the court to instruct the jury that proof of an overt act was required for conviction. The District Court noted that Circuit precedent did not require the allegation of an overt act in the indictment but did require proof of such an act at trial in order to state a violation of § 846. Recognizing that such a result was “totally illogical,” App. 29, and contrary to the language of the statute, Judge Holland rejected Shabani’s proposed jury instruction, id., at 36. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the court sentenced Shabani to 160 months’ imprisonment.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 993 F. 2d 1419 (1993). The court acknowledged an inconsistency between its cases holding that an indictment under § 846 need not allege an overt act and those requiring proof of such an act at trial, and it noted that the latter cases “stand on weak ground.” Id., at 1420. Nevertheless, the court felt bound by precedent and attempted to reconcile the two lines of cases. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, although the Government must prove at trial that the defendant has committed an overt act in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy, the act need not be alleged in the indictment because “‘[cjourts do not require as detailed a statement of an offense’s elements under a conspiracy count as under a substantive count.’ ” Id., at 1422, quoting United States v. Tavelman, 650 F. 2d 1133, 1137 (CA9 1981).
Chief Judge Wallace wrote separately to point out that in no other circumstance could the Government refrain from alleging in the indictment an element it had to prove at trial. He followed the Circuit precedent but invited the Court of Appeals to consider the question en banc because the Ninth Circuit, “contrary to every other circuit, clings to a problematic gloss on 21 U. S. C. § 846, insisting, despite a complete lack of textual support in the statute, that in order to convict under this section the government must prove the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” 993 F. 2d, at 1422 (concurring opinion). For reasons unknown, the Court of Appeals did not grant en banc review. We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1108 (1994), to resolve the conflict between the Ninth Circuit and the 11 other Circuits that have addressed the question, all of which have held that § 846 does not require proof of an overt act.
II
Congress passed the drug conspiracy statute as §406 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236. It provided: “Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this title is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.” Id., at 1265. As amended by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, § 6470(a), 102 Stat. 4377, the statute currently provides: “Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.” 21 U. S. C. § 846. The language of neither version requires that an overt act be committed to farther the conspiracy, and we have not inferred such a requirement from congressional silence in other conspiracy statutes. In Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373 (1913), Justice Holmes wrote, “[W]e can see no reason for reading into the Sherman Act more than we find there,” id., at 378, and the Court held that an overt act is not required for antitrust conspiracy liability. The same reasoning prompted our conclusion in Singer v. United States, 323 U. S. 338 (1945), that the Selective Service Act “does not require an overt act for the offense of conspiracy.” Id., at 340.
Nash and Singer follow the settled principle of statutory construction that, absent contrary indications, Congress intends to adopt the common law definition of statutory terms. See Molzof v. United States, 502 U. S. 301, 307-308 (1992). We have consistently held that the common law understanding of conspiracy “does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability.” Nash, supra, at 378; see also Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S. 651, 659 (1951); Bannon v. United States, 156 U. S. 464, 468 (1895) (“At common law it was neither necessary to aver nor prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy...”). Respondent contends that these decisions were rendered in a period of unfettered expansion in the law of conspiracy, a period which allegedly ended when the Court declared that “we will view with disfavor attempts to broaden the already pervasive and wide-sweeping nets of conspiracy prosecutions.” Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 404 (1957) (citations omitted). Grünewald, however, was a statute of limitations case, and whatever exasperation with conspiracy prosecutions the opinion may have expressed in dictum says little about the views of Congress when it enacted § 846.
As to those views, we find it instructive that the general conspiracy statute, 18 U. S. C. § 371, contains an explicit requirement that a conspirator “do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.” In light of this additional element in the general conspiracy statute, Congress’ silence in § 846 speaks volumes. After all, the general conspiracy statute preceded and presumably provided the framework for the more specific drug conspiracy statute. “Nash and Singer give Congress a formulary: by choosing a text modeled on §371, it gets an overt-act requirement; by choosing a text modeled on the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, it dispenses with such a requirement.” United States v. Sassi, 966 F. 2d 283, 284 (CA7 1992). Congress appears to have made the choice quite deliberately with respect to § 846; the same Congress that passed this provision also enacted the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, § 802(a) of which contains an explicit requirement that “one or more of [the conspirators] does any act to effect the object of such a conspiracy,” id., at 936, codified at 18 U. S. C. § 1511(a).
Early opinions in the Ninth Circuit dealing with the drug conspiracy statute simply relied on our precedents interpreting the general conspiracy statute and ignored the textual variations between the two provisions. See United States v. Monroe, 552 F. 2d 860, 862 (CA9), cert. denied, 431 U. S. 972 (1977), citing United States v. Feola, 420 U. S. 671 (1975); United States v. Thompson, 493 F. 2d 305, 310 (CA9), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 834 (1974), citing United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 86-88 (1915). Two other Courts of Appeals were led down the same path, see United States v. King, 521 F. 2d 61, 63 (CA10 1975); United States v. Hutchinson, 488 F. 2d 484, 490 (CA8 1973), but both subsequently recognized the misstep and rejected their early interpretations, see United States v. Covos, 872 F. 2d 805, 810 (CA8 1989); United States v. Savaiano, 843 F. 2d 1280, 1294 (CA10 1988).
What the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize we now make explicit: In order to establish a violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Felix, 503 U. S. 378 (1992), is not to the contrary. In that case, an indictment under § 846 alleged two overt acts which had formed the basis of the defendant’s prior conviction for attempting to manufacture drugs. The defendant argued that the Government had violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and Grady v. Corbin, 495 U. S. 508 (1990), overruled, United States v. Dixon, 509 U. S. 688 (1993), by using evidence underlying the prior conviction “to prove an essential element of an offense” charged in the second prosecution. We held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the conspiracy charge. Justice Stevens, writing separately, thought that our double jeopardy discussion was unnecessary partly because “there is no overt act requirement in the federal drug conspiracy statute,” Felix, supra, at 392 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Shabani argues that, by not responding to this point, the Court implicitly held that § 846 requires proof of overt acts; otherwise, the double jeopardy discussion would have been merely advisory. The procedural history of Felix, however, belies this contention. The disputed evidence was offered not to prove overt acts qua overt acts, but to prove the existence of a conspiracy. The lower court in Felix noted that it was “mindful that 21 U. S. C. § 846 does not require proof of an overt act..." United States v. Felix, 926 F. 2d 1522, 1529, n. 7 (CA10 1991). Nevertheless, evidence of such acts raised double jeopardy concerns because it “tended to show the criminal agreement for the conspiracy,” an indisputably essential element of the offense. Ibid. Indeed, Justice Stevens also argued that “the overt acts did not establish an agreement between Felix and his co-conspirators.” Felix, 503 U. S., at 392. In light of the lower court opinion, it is apparent that we rejected this point — rather than Justice Stevens’ construction of §846 — before reaching the double jeopardy issue. In any event, Shabani’s strained reading of Felix is of little consequence for precedential purposes, since “[questions which ‘merely lurk in the record’ are not resolved, and no resolution of them may be inferred.” Illinois Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U. S. 173, 183 (1979), quoting Webster v. Fall, 266 U. S. 507, 511 (1925).
Shabani reminds us that the law does not punish criminal thoughts and contends that conspiracy without an overt act requirement violates this principle because the offense is predominantly mental in composition. The prohibition against criminal conspiracy, however, does not punish mere thought; the criminal agreement itself is the actus reus and has been so viewed since Regina v. Bass, 11 Mod. 55, 88 Eng. Rep. 881, 882 (K. B. 1705) (“[T]he very assembling together was an overt act”); see also Iannelli v. United States, 420 U. S. 770, 777 (1975) (“Conspiracy is an inchoate offense, the essence of which is an agreement to commit an unlawful act”) (citations omitted).
Finally, Shabani invokes the rule of lenity, arguing that the statute is unclear because it neither requires an overt act nor specifies that one is not necessary. The rule of lenity, however, applies only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute. See, e. g., Beecham v. United States, 511 U. S. 368, 374 (1994); Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 239-241 (1993). That is not the case here. To require that Congress explicitly state its intention not to adopt petitioner’s reading would make the rule applicable with the “mere possibility of articulating a narrower construction,” id., at 239, a result supported by neither lenity nor logic.
As the District Court correctly noted in this case, the plain language of the statute and settled interpretive principles reveal that proof of an overt act is not required to establish a violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
See United States v. Sassi, 966 F. 2d 283, 285 (CA7), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 991 (1992); United States v. Clark, 928 F. 2d 639, 641 (CA4 1991); United States v. Figueroa, 900 F. 2d 1211, 1218 (CA8), cert. denied, 496 U. S. 942 (1990); United States v. Paiva, 892 F. 2d 148, 155 (CA1 1989); United States v. Onick, 889 F. 2d 1425, 1432 (CA5 1989); United States v. Cochran, 883 F. 2d 1012, 1017-1018 (CA11 1989); United States v. Savaiano, 843 F. 2d 1280, 1294 (CA10 1988); United States v. Pumphrey, 831 F. 2d 307, 308-309 (CADC 1987); United States v. Bey, 736 F. 2d 891, 894 (CA3 1984); United States v. Dempsey, 733 F. 2d 392, 396 (CA6), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 983 (1984); United States v. Knuckles, 581 F. 2d 305, 311 (CA2), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 986 (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.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted in the South Carolina trial court of the possession of marihuana in violation of state law. He was sentenced to 18 months’ confinement, and on appeal his conviction was affirmed by a divided South Carolina Supreme Court. 256 S. C. 1, 180 S. E. 2d 628 (1971). We granted certiorari limited to the question of whether the trial judge’s refusal to examine jurors on voir dire as to possible prejudice against petitioner violated the latter’s federal constitutional rights. 404 U. S. 1057 (1972).
Petitioner is a young, bearded Negro who has lived most of his life in Florence County, South Carolina. He appears to have been well known locally for his work in such civil rights activities as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Bi-Racial Committee of the City of Florence. He has never previously been convicted of a crime. His basic defense at the trial was that law enforcement officers were “out to get him” because of his civil rights activities, and that he had been framed on the drug charge.
Prior to the trial judge’s voir dire examination of prospective jurors, petitioner’s counsel requested the judge to ask jurors four questions relating to possible prejudice against petitioner. The first two questions sought to elicit any possible racial prejudice against Negroes; the third question related to possible prejudice against beards; and the fourth dealt with pretrial publicity relating to the drug problem. The trial judge, while putting to the prospective jurors three general questions as to bias, prejudice, or partiality that are specified in the South Carolina statutes, declined to ask any of the four questions posed by petitioner.
The dissenting justices in the Supreme Court of South Carolina thought that this Court's decision in Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308 (1931), was binding on the State. There a Negro who was being tried for the murder of a white policeman requested that prospective jurors be asked whether they entertained any racial prejudice. This Court reversed the judgment of conviction because of the trial judge's refusal to make such an inquiry. Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, writing for the Court, stated that the “essential demands of fairness” required the trial judge under the circumstances of that case to interrogate the veniremen with respect to racial prejudice upon the request of counsel for a Negro criminal defendant. Id., at 310.
The Court's opinion relied upon a number of state court holdings throughout the country to the same effect, but it was not expressly grounded upon any constitutional requirement. Since one of the purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to insure these “essential demands of fairness,” e. g., Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 236 (1941), and since a principal purpose of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prohibit the States from invidiously discriminating on the basis of race, Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 81 (1873), we think that the Fourteenth Amendment required the judge in this case to interrogate the jurors upon the subject of racial prejudice. South Carolina law permits challenges for cause, and authorizes the trial judge to conduct voir dire examination of potential jurors. The State having created this statutory framework for the selection of juries, the essential fairness required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that under the facts shown by this record the petitioner be permitted to have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias. Cf. Groppi v. Wisconsin, 400 U. S. 505, 508 (1971); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 541 (1971).
We agree with the dissenting justices of the Supreme Court of South Carolina that the trial judge was not required to put the question in any particular form, or to ask any particular number of questions on the subject, simply because requested to do so by petitioner. The Court in Aldridge was at pains to point out, in a context where its authority within the federal system of courts allows a good deal closer supervision than does the Fourteenth Amendment, that the trial court “had a broad discretion as to the questions to be asked,” 283 U. S., at 310. The discretion as to form and number of questions permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is at least as broad. In this context, either of the brief, general questions urged by the petitioner would appear sufficient to focus the attention of prospective jurors on any racial prejudice they might entertain.
The third of petitioner’s proposed questions was addressed to the fact that he wore a beard. While we cannot say that prejudice against people with beards might not have been harbored by one or more of the potential jurors in this case, this is the beginning and not the end of the inquiry as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment required the trial judge to interrogate the prospective jurors about such possible prejudice. Given the traditionally broad discretion accorded to the trial judge in conducting voir dire, Aldridge v. United States, supra, and our inability to constitutionally distinguish possible prejudice against beards from a host of other possible similar prejudices, we do not believe the petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated when the trial judge refused to put this question. The inquiry as to racial prejudice derives its constitutional stature from the firmly established precedent of Aldridge and the numerous state cases upon which it relied, and from a principal purpose as well as from the language of those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial judge’s refusal to inquire as to particular bias against beards, after his inquiries as to bias in general, does not reach the level of a constitutional violation.
Petitioner’s final question related to allegedly prejudicial pretrial publicity. But the record before us contains neither the newspaper articles nor any description of the television program in question. Because of this lack of material in the record substantiating any pretrial publicity prejudical to this petitioner, we have no occasion to determine the merits of his request to have this question posed on voir dire.
Because of the trial court’s refusal to make any inquiry as to racial bias of the prospective jurors after petitioner’s timely request therefor, the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is
Reversed.
S. C. Code §32-1506 (1962).
The four questions sought to be asked are the following:
“1. Would you fairly try this case on the basis of the evidence and disregarding the defendant’s race?
“2. You have no prejudice against negroes? Against black people? You would not be influenced by the use of the term ‘black’?
“3. Would you disregard the fact that this defendant wears a beard in deciding this case?
“4. Did you watch the television show about the local drug problem a few days ago when a local policeman appeared for a long time? Have you heard about that show? Have you read or heard about recent newspaper articles to the effect that the local drug problem is bad? Would you try this case solely on the basis of the evidence presented in this courtroom? Would you be influenced by the circumstances that the prosecution’s witness, a police officer, has publicly spoken on TV about drugs?”
S. C. Code §38-202 (1962). The three questions asked of all prospective jurors in this case were, in substance, the following:
“1. Have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, Gene Ham?
“2. Are you conscious of any bias or prejudice for or against him?
“3. Can you give the State and the defendant a fair and impartial trial?”
The record indicates that there was a brief colloquy between petitioner’s counsel and the trial judge, in which the former apparently offered newspaper accounts and an editorial in support of his request that the question be propounded; the judge responded that he did not consider the items submitted prejudicial. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, discussing prejudicial publicity in the context of petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to a change of venue, stated that “[t]he two newspaper clippings and one editorial concerning drug abuse did not name the defendant or refer in any way to his trial.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1201 (a), provides:
“Whoever knowingly transports in interstate... commerce, any person who has been unlawfully... kidnaped... and held for ransom... or otherwise... shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnaped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if the death penalty is not imposed.”
This statute thus creates an offense punishable by death “if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend.” The statute sets forth no procedure for imposing the death penalty upon a defendant who waives the right to jury trial or upon one who pleads guilty.
On October 10, 1966, a federal grand jury in Connecticut returned an indictment charging in count one that three named defendants, the appellees in this case, had transported from Connecticut to New Jersey a person who had been kidnaped and held for ransom, and who had been harmed when liberated. The District Court dismissed this count of the indictment, holding the Federal Kidnaping Act unconstitutional because it makes “the risk of death” the price for asserting the right to jury trial, and thereby “impairs... free exercise” of that constitutional right. The Government appealed directly to this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. We reverse.
We agree with the District Court that the death penalty provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act imposes an impermissible burden upon the exercise of a constitutional right, but we think that provision is severable from the remainder of the statute. There is no reason to invalidate the law in its entirety simply because its capital punishment clause violates the Constitution. The District Court therefore erred in dismissing the kidnaping count of the indictment.
I.
One fact at least is obvious from the face of the statute itself: In an interstate kidnaping case where the victim has not been liberated unharmed, the defendant’s assertion of the right to jury trial may cost him his life, for the federal statute authorizes the jury — and only the jury — to return a verdict of death. The Government does not dispute this proposition. What it disputes is the conclusion that the statute thereby subjects the defendant who seeks a jury trial to an increased hazard of capital punishment. As the Government construes the statute, a defendant who elects to be tried by a jury cannot be put to death even if the jury so recommends— unless the trial judge agrees that capital punishment should be imposed. Moreover, the argument goes, a defendant cannot avoid the risk of death by attempting to plead guilty or waive jury trial. For even if the trial judge accepts a guilty plea or approves a jury waiver, the judge remains free, in the Government’s view of the statute, to convene a special jury for the limited purpose of deciding whether to recommend the death penalty. The Government thus contends that, whether or not the defendant chooses to submit to a jury the question of his guilt, the death penalty may be imposed if and only if both judge and jury concur in its imposition. On this understanding of the statute, the Government concludes that the death penalty provision of the Kidnaping Act does not operate to penalize the defendant who chooses to contest his guilt before a jury. It is unnecessary to decide here whether this conclusion would follow from the statutory scheme the Government envisions, for it is not in fact the scheme that Congress enacted.
At the outset, we reject the Government’s argument that the Federal Kidnaping Act gives the trial judge discretion to set aside a jury recommendation of death. So far as we are aware, not once in the entire 34-year history of the Act has a jury’s recommendation of death been discarded by a trial judge. The Government would apparently have us assume either that trial judges have always agreed with jury recommendations of capital punishment under the statute — an unrealistic assumption at best — or that they have abdicated their statutory duty to exercise independent judgment on the issue of penalty. In fact, the explanation is a far simpler one. The statute unequivocally states that, “if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend,” the defendant “shall be punished... by death....” The word is “shall,” not “may.” In acceding without exception to jury recommendations of death, trial judges have simply carried out the mandate of the statute.
The Government nonetheless urges that we overlook Congress’ choice of the imperative. Whatever might have been assumed in the past, we are now asked to construe the statute so as to eliminate the jury’s' power to fix the death penalty without the approval of the presiding judge. “[T]his reading,” it is said, would conform “to the long tradition that makes the trial judge in the federal courts the arbiter of the sentence.” And so it would. The difficulty is that Congress intentionally discarded that tradition when it passed the Federal Kid-naping Act. Over the forcefully articulated objection that jury sentencing would represent an unwarranted departure from settled federal practice, Congress rejected a version of the Kidnaping Act that would have left punishment to the court’s discretion and instead chose an alternative that shifted from a single judge to a jury of 12 the onus of inflicting the penalty of death. To accept the Government’s suggestion that the jury’s sentencing role be treated as merely advisory would return to the judge the ultimate duty that Congress deliberately placed in other hands.
The thrust of the clause in question was clearly expressed by the House Judiciary Committee that drafted it: Its purpose was, quite simply, “to permit the jury to designate a death penalty for the kidnaper.” The fact that Congress chose the word “recommend” to describe what the jury would do in designating punishment cannot obscure the basic congressional objective of making the jury rather than the judge the arbiter of the death sentence. The Government’s contrary contention cannot stand.
Equally untenable is the Government’s argument that the Kidnaping Act authorizes a procedure unique in the federal system — that of convening a special jury, without the defendant’s consent, for the sole purpose of deciding whether he should be put to death. We are told initially that the Federal Kidnaping Act authorizes this procedure by implication. The Government’s reasoning runs as follows: The Kidnaping Act permits the infliction of capital punishment whenever a jury so recommends. The Act does not state in so many words that the jury recommending capital punishment must be a jury impaneled to determine guilt as well. Therefore the Act authorizes infliction of the death penalty on the recommendation of a jury specially convened to determine punishment. The Government finds support for this analysis in a Seventh Circuit decision construing the Federal Kidnaping Act to mean that the death penalty may be imposed whenever “an affirmative recommendation [is] made by a jury,” including a jury convened solely for that purpose after the court has accepted a guilty plea. Seadlund v. United States, 97 F. 2d 742, 748. Accord, Robinson v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 146, 153. But the statute does not say “a jury.” It says “the jury.” At least when the defendant demands trial by jury on the issue of guilt, the Government concedes that “the verdict of the jury” means what those words naturally suggest: the general verdict of conviction or acquittal returned by the jury that passes upon guilt or innocence. Thus, when such a jury has been convened, the statutory reference is to that jury alone, not to a jury impaneled after conviction for the limited purpose of determining punishment. Yet the Government argues that, when the issue of guilt has been tried to a judge or has been eliminated altogether by a plea of guilty, “the verdict of the jury” at once assumes a completely new meaning. In such a case, it is said, “the verdict of the jury” means the recommendation of a jury convened for the sole purpose of deciding whether the accused should live or die.
The Government would have us give the statute this strangely bifurcated meaning without the slightest indication that Congress contemplated any such scheme. Not a word in the legislative history so much as hints that a conviction on a plea of guilty or a conviction by a court sitting without a jury might be followed by a separate sentencing proceeding before a penalty jury. If the power to impanel such a jury had been recognized elsewhere in the federal system when Congress enacted the Federal Kidnaping Act, perhaps Congress’ total silence on the subject could be viewed as a tacit incorporation of this sentencing practice into the new law. But the background against which Congress legislated was barren of any precedent for the sort of sentencing procedure we are told Congress impliedly authorized.
The Government nonetheless maintains that Congress’ failure to provide for the infliction of the death penalty upon those who plead guilty or waive jury trial was no more than an oversight that the courts can and should correct. At least twice, Congress has expressly authorized the infliction of capital punishment upon defendants convicted without a jury, but even on the assumption that the failure of Congress to do so here was wholly inadvertent, it would hardly be the province of the courts to fashion a remedy. Any attempt to do so would be fraught with the gravest difficulties: If a special jury were convened to recommend a sentence, how would the penalty hearing proceed? What would each side be required to show? What standard of proof would govern? To what extent would conventional rules of evidence be abrogated? What privileges would the accused enjoy? Congress, unlike the state legislatures that have authorized jury proceedings to determine the penalty in capital cases, has addressed itself to none of these questions.
It is one thing to fill a minor gap in a statute — to extrapolate from its general design details that were inadvertently omitted. It is quite another thing to create from whole cloth a complex and completely novel procedure and to thrust it upon unwilling defendants for the sole purpose of rescuing a statute from a charge of unconstitutionality. We recognize that trial judges sitting in federal kidnaping cases have on occasion chosen the latter course, attempting to fashion on an ad hoc basis the ground rules for penalty proceedings before a jury. We do not know what kinds of rules particular federal judges have adopted, how widely such rules have varied, or how fairly they have been applied. But one thing at least is clear: Individuals forced to defend their lives in proceedings tailor-made for the occasion must do so without the guidance that defendants ordinarily find in a body of procedural and evidentiary rules spelled out in advance of trial. The Government notes with approval “the decisional trend which has sought... to place the most humane construction on capital legislation.” Yet it asks us to extend the capital punishment provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act in a new and uncharted direction, without the compulsion of a legislative mandate and without the benefit of legislative guidance. That we decline to do.
II.
Under the Federal Kidnaping Act, therefore, the defendant who abandons the right to contest his guilt before a jury is assured that he cannot be executed; the defendant ingenuous enough to seek a jury acquittal stands forewarned that, if the jury finds him guilty and does not wish to spare his life, he will die. Our problem is to decide whether the Constitution permits the establishment of such a death penalty, applicable only to those defendants who assert the right to contest their guilt before a jury. The inevitable effect of any such provision is, of course, to discourage assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial. If the provision had no other purpose or effect than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it would be patently unconstitutional. But, as the Government notes, limiting the death penalty to cases where the jury recommends its imposition does have another objective:.It avoids the more drastic alternative of mandatory capital punishment in every case. In this sense, the selective death penalty procedure established by the Federal Kidnaping Act may be viewed as ameliorating the severity of the more extreme punishment that Congress might have wished to provide.
The Government suggests that, because the Act thus operates “to mitigate the severity of punishment,” it is irrelevant that it “may have the incidental effect of inducing defendants not to contest in full measure.” We cannot agree. Whatever might be said of Congress’ objectives, they cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488-489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive. In this case the answer to that question is clear. The Congress can of course mitigate the severity of capital punishment. The goal of limiting the death penalty to cases in which a jury recommends it is an entirely legitimate one. But that goal can be achieved without penalizing those defendants who plead not guilty and demand jury trial. In some States, for example, the choice between life imprisonment and capital punishment is left to a jury in every case— regardless of how the defendant’s -guilt has been determined. Given the availability of this and other alternatives, it is clear that the selective death penalty provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act canno.t be justi-fled by its ostensible purpose. Whatever the power of Congress to impose a death penalty for violation of the Federal Kidnaping Act, Congress cannot impose such a penalty in a manner that needlessly penalizes the assertion of a constitutional right. See Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609.
It is no answer to urge, as does the Government, that federal trial judges may be relied upon to reject coerced pleas of guilty and involuntary waivers of jury trial. For the evil in the federal statute is not that it necessarily coerces guilty pleas and jury waivers but simply that it needlessly encourages them. A procedure need not be inherently coercive in order that it be held to impose an impermissible burden upon the assertion of a constitutional right. Thus the fact that the Federal Kidnaping Act tends to discourage defendants from insisting upon their innocence and demanding trial by jury hardly implies that every defendant who enters a guilty plea to a charge under the Act does so involuntarily. The power to reject coerced guilty pleas and involuntary jury waivers might alleviate, but it cannot totally eliminate, the constitutional infirmity in the capital punishment provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act.
The Government alternatively proposes that this Court, in the exercise of its supervisory powers, should simply instruct federal judges sitting in kidnaping cases to reject all attempts to waive jury trial and all efforts to plead guilty, however voluntary and well-informed such attempted waivers and pleas might be. In that way, we could assure that every defendant charged in a federal court with aggravated kidnaping would face a possible death penalty, and that no defendant tried under the federal statute would be induced to forgo a constitutional right. But of course the inevitable consequence of this “solution” would be to force all defendants to submit to trial, however clear their guilt and however strong their desire to acknowledge it in order to spare themselves and their families the spectacle and expense of protracted courtroom proceedings. It is true that a defendant has no constitutional right to insist that he be tried by a judge rather than a jury, Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24, and it is also true “that a criminal defendant has [no] absolute right to have his guilty plea accepted by the court.” Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U. S. 705, 719. But the fact that jury waivers and guilty pleas may occasionally be rejected hardly implies that all defendants may be required to submit to a full-dress jury trial as a matter of course. Quite apart from the cruel impact of such a requirement upon those defendants who would greatly prefer not to contest their guilt, it is clear — as even the Government recognizes — that the automatic rejection of all guilty pleas “would rob the criminal process of much of its flexibility.” As one federal court has observed:
“The power of a court to accept a plea of guilty is traditional and fundamental. Its existence is necessary for the... practical... administration of the criminal law. Consequently, it should require an unambiguous expression on the part of the Congress to withhold this authority in specified cases.”
If any such approach should be inaugurated in the administration of a federal criminal statute, we conclude that the impetus must come from Congress, not from this Court. The capital punishment provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act cannot be saved by judicial reconstruction.
III.
The remaining question is whether the statute as a whole must fall simply because its death penalty clause is constitutionally deficient. The District Court evidently assumed that it must, for that court dismissed the kidnaping indictment. We disagree. As we said in Champlin Rfg. Co. v. Commission, 286 U. S. 210, 234:
“The unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat... the validity of its remaining provisions. Unless it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.”
Under this test, it is clear that the clause authorizing capital punishment is severable from the remainder of the kidnaping statute and that the unconstitutionally of that clause does not require the defeat of the law as a whole. See McDowell v. United States, 274 F. Supp. 426, 429. Cf. Spillers v. State, - Nev. -, -, 436 P. 2d 18, 23-24.
The.clause in question is a functionally independent part of the Federal Kidnaping Act. Its elimination in no way alters the substantive reach of the statute and leaves completely unchanged its basic operation. Under such circumstances, it is quite inconceivable that the Congress which decided to authorize capital punishment in aggravated kidnaping cases would have chosen to discard the entire statute if informed that it could not include the death penalty clause now before us.
In this case it happens that history confirms what common sense alone would suggest: The law as originally enacted in 1932 contained no capital punishment provision. A majority of the House had favored the death penalty but had yielded to opposition in the Senate as a matter of expediency. Only one Congressman had expressed the view that the law would not be worth enacting without capital punishment. The majority obviously felt otherwise. When the death penalty was added in 1934, the statute was left substantially unchanged in every other respect. The basic problem that had prompted enactment of the law in 1932 — the difficulty of relying upon state and local authorities to investigate and prosecute interstate kidnaping — had not vanished during the intervening two years. It is therefore clear that Congress would have made interstate kidnaping a federal crime even if the death penalty provision had been ruled out from the beginning. It would be difficult to imagine a more compelling case for severability.
In an effort to suggest the contrary, the appellees insist •that the 1934 amendment “did not merely increase the penalties for kidnaping; it changed the whole thrust of the Act.” They note that Congress deliberately limited capital punishment to those kidnapers whose victims are not liberated unharmed. Such a differential penalty-provision, the appellees argue, is needed to discourage kidnapers from injuring those whom they abduct. The appellees contend that, without its capital punishment clause, the Federal Kidnaping Act would not distinguish “the penalties applicable to those who do and those who do not harm or kill their victims.” Stressing the obvious congressional concern for the victim’s safety, they conclude that “it is doubtful that Congress would intend for the statute to stand absent such a feature.” This argument is wrong as a matter of history, for Congress enacted the statute “absent such a feature.” It is wrong as a matter of fact, for the length of imprisonment imposed under the Act can obviously be made to reflect the kidnaper’s treatment of his victim. And it is wrong as a matter of logic, for nothing could more completely obliterate the distinction between “the penalties applicable to those who do and those who do not harm or kill their victims” than the total invalidation of all the penalties provided by the Federal Kidnaping Act — the precise result sought by the appellees.
Thus the infirmity of the death penalty clause does not require the total frustration of Congress’ basic purpose — that of making interstate kidnaping a federal crime. By holding the death penalty clause of the Federal Kidnaping Act unenforceable, we leave the statute an operative whole, free of any constitutional objection. The appellees may be prosecuted for violating the Act, but they cannot be put to death under its authority.
The judgment is reversed and the case 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.
Count one:
“On or about September 2, 1966, CHARLES JACKSON, also known as ‘Batman,’ also known as' ‘Butch’; and GLENN WALTER ALEXANDER DE LA MOTTE; and JOHN ALBERT WALSH, JR., the defendants herein, did knowingly transport in interstate commerce from Milford in the District of Connecticut to Alpine, New Jersey, one John Joseph Grant, III, a person who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, kidnapped, carried away and held by the defendants herein, for ransom and reward and for the purpose of aiding the said defendants to escape arrest, and the said John Joseph Grant, III, was harmed when liberated, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201 (a).”
Count two, charging transportation of a stolen motor vehicle from Connecticut to New York in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2312, has not been challenged and is not now before us.
262 F. Supp. 716, 718.
18 U. S. C. § 3731.
387 U. S. 929.
Even if the Government's interpretation were sound, the validity of its conclusion would still be far from clear. As the District Court observed, “even if the trial court has the power to submit the issue of punishment to a jury, that power is discretionary, its exercise uncertain.” 262 F. Supp. 716, 717-718. The Government assumes that a judge who would accept the death penalty recommendation appended to a jury verdict of guilt is a judge who would exercise his discretionary power to convene a penalty jury if the defendant were to plead guilty or submit to a bench trial. But the mere.fact that a judge would defer to the jury’s recommendation hardly implies that he would take the extraordinary step of convening a penalty jury after accepting a plea of guilty or approving a waiver of jury trial. Even if the Government’s statutory position were correct, the fact would remain that the defendant convicted on a guilty plea or by a judge completely escapes the threat of capital punishment unless the trial judge makes an affirmative decision to commence a penalty hearing and to impanel a special jury for that purpose, whereas the defendant convicted by a jury automatically incurs a risk that the same jury will recommend the death penalty and that the judge will accept its recommendation.
One district judge has indicated that he would not feel bound by a jury recommendation of death in a kidnaping case, see Robinson v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 146, 151-153, but the question was not directly before him since the case involved a petition for post-conviction relief. Although federal juries have recommended capital punishment in a number of kidnaping cases, counsel for the Government stated at oral argument in this Court that he was aware of no case in which such a recommendation had been set aside.
See H. Kalven & H. Zeisel, The American Jury 436-444 (1966).
The Government notes that the word “shall” precedes both alternative punishments: The offender “shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnaped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment....” But the notion that judicial discretion is thereby authorized is dispelled by the qualification attached to the second alternative: “by imprisonment... if the death penalty is not imposed.” Although it is true that the judge rather than the jury is formally responsible for imposing sentence in a federal criminal case, those qualifying words would state a pointless truism unless they were meant to refer to the jury’s recommendation: The offender “shall be punished (1) by death... if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment” if the jury’s verdict does not so recommend. To accept the Government’s reading of the statute would make its final phrase a complete redundancy, anomalous indeed in a statute that Congress has twice pruned of excess verbiage. See Reviser’s Note following 18 U. S. C. § 1201.
Nothing in the language or history of the Federal Kidnaping Act points to any such result. On the contrary, an examination of the death penalty provision in its original form demonstrates that Congress could not have intended the meaning the Government now seeks to attribute to it. For the statute as it stood in 1934 provided that the offender “shall, upon conviction, be punished (1) by death if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, provided that the sentence of death shall not be imposed by the court if, prior to its imposition, the kidnaped person has been liberated unharmed, or (2) if the death penalty shall not apply nor be imposed the convicted person shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for such term of years as the court in its discretion shall determine....” 48 Stat. 781. In this form, the statutory language simply will not support the interpretation that the offender “shall be punished by death or by imprisonment” if the jury recommends the death penalty. For the statute in this form makes unmistakably clear that, if the death penalty applies— i. e., if the jury has recommended death — then the punishment shall be death unless, before the judge has imposed sentence, the victim has been liberated unharmed. There is absolutely no reason to think that the purely formal transformations through which the statute has passed since 1934 were intended to alter this basic penalty structure.
See 75 Cong. Rec. 13288, 13295-13297 (1932).
As originally drafted, the Kidnaping Act had provided for punishment “by death or imprisonment... for such term of years as the court in its discretion shall determine....” 75 Cong. Rec. 13288 (1932).
A number of Congressmen feared that empowering judges to impose capital punishment might make some jurors unduly reluctant to convict. See 75 Cong. Rec. 13289, 13294 (1932). To the extent that this concern was responsible for the decision to require a jury recommendation of death as a prerequisite to the imposition of capital punishment, it is of course immaterial whether or not the jury’s recommendation is binding on the trial judge. But, as the Government concedes, many of the Congressmen who favored jury determination of the death penalty did so largely because such a scheme would take from the judge the onus of inflicting capital punishment. See, e. g., 75 Cong. Rec. 13297.
H. R. Rep. No. 1457, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1934) (emphasis added).
If the jury’s verdict of guilt includes no death penalty recommendation, the judge can impose no penalty beyond imprisonment. He cannot convene another jury to recommend capital punishment. See United States v. Dressler, 112 F. 2d 972, 980.
In a statute forbidding the wrecking of trains, Congress provided that “[wjhoever is convicted of any such crime, which has resulted in the death of any person, shall be subject..'. to the death penalty... if the jury shall in its discretion so direct, or, in the case of a plea of guilty, if the court in its discretion shall so order.” 62 Stat. 794 (1948), 18 U. S. C. §1992 (emphasis added). And in a statute prohibiting the destruction of aircraft, Congress provided that violators whose conduct causes death “shall be subject... to the death penalty... if the jury shall in its discretion so direct, or, in the case of a plea of guilty, or a plea of not. guilty where the defendant has waived a trial by jury, if the court in its discretion shall so order.” 70 Stat. 540 (1956), 18 U. S. C. § 34 (emphasis added).
The language of the aircraft-wrecking statute, 18 U. S. C. § 34, is of particular interest here because it reflects a congressional awareness of the precise problem the Government suggests Congress overlooked in the kidnaping area: In a letter addressed to the Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, William P. Rogers, then Deputy Attorney General, suggested on behalf of the Justice Department that the bill then under consideration should be amended by the addition of the phrase “or in the case of a plea of not guilty where the defendant has waived trial by jury.” The letter stated:
“Under the present phraseology it is doubtful whether the court could invoke the death penalty in a situation where the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty, waived his right to a trial by jury, and asked to be tried by the court.” 2 U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 3149-3150- (1956). Congress inserted the suggested language in the aircraft statute as enacted on July 14, 1956. Less than a month later, Congress reconsidered the Kidnaping Act and added a technical amendment, 70 Stat. 1043 (1956), but included no provision to authorize the imposition of the death penalty upon defendants who plead guilty or waive the right to jury trial.
See Cal. Penal Code § 190.1 (Supp. 1966); Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. §53-10 (Supp. 1965); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §4701 (1963); N. Y. Penal Law §§125.30, 125.35 (1967).
The complex problems presented by separate penalty proceedings have frequently been noted. See, e. g., Frady v. United States, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 109-110, 348 F. 2d 84, 115-116 (Burger, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Note, The California Penalty Trial, 52 Calif. L. Rev. 386 (1964); Note, The Two-Trial System in Capital Cases, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 50 (1964). See also Kuh, A Prosecutor Considers the Model Penal Code, 63 Col. L. Rev. 608, 615 (1963). It is not surprising that courts confronted with such problems have concluded that their solution requires “comprehensive legislative and not piecemeal judicial action.” State v. Mount, 30 N. J. 195, 224, 152 A. 2d 343, 358 (concurring opinion). See also People v. Friend, 47 Cal. 2d 749, 763, 306 P. 2d 463, 471, n. 7. But see United States v. Curry, 358 F. 2d 904, 914-915.
The Government informs us that at least three of the defendants who pleaded guilty in cases arising under the Federal Kidnaping Act have been sentenced to death on the recommendation of special penalty juries convened to determine punishment.
Even in States with legislatively established jury proceedings on the penalty issue, defense attorneys have not always been prepared to take advantage of those features of the penalty trial designed to benefit their clients. See Note, Executive Clemency in Capital Cases, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 136, 167 (1964). If the relative novelty of penalty proceedings has thus impaired effective representation in jurisdictions where the contours of such proceedings have been fixed by statute, it seems clear that the difficulties for the defense would be even more formidable under the amorphous case-by-case system that the Government asks us to legitimize today. It is no wonder that the Second Circuit, while not foreclosing two-stage trials altogether, was “loath to compel unwilling defendants to submit” to them. United States v. Curry, 358 F. 2d 904, 914.
It is established that due process forbids convicting a defendant on the basis of a coerced guilty plea. See, e. g., Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116.
See United States v. Curry, 358 F. 2d 904, 913-914 and n. 8. See also Andres v. United States, 333 U. S. 740, 753-t754 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
See McDowell v. United States, 274 F. Supp. 426, 431. See also Laboy v. New Jersey, 266 F. Supp. 581, 585.
See, e. g., Wash. Rev. Code §§9.48.030, 10.01.060, 10.49.010 (1956). Cf. Cal. Penal Code § 190.1 (Supp. 1966).
In an opinion by Justice Zenoff, Spillers v. State, - Nev. -, -, 436 P. 2d 18, 22-23, the Supreme Court of Nevada has recently held unconstitutional a state penalty scheme imposing capital punishment for forcible rape resulting in great bodily injury “if the jury by their verdict affix the death penalty.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.360 (1) (1963).
See Laboy v. New Jersey, 266 F. Supp. 581, 584. So, too, in Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, the Court held that comment on a defendant’s failure to testify imposes an impermissible penalty on the exercise of the right to remain silent at trial. Yet it obviously does not follow that every defendant who ever testified at a pre-Griffin trial in a State where the prosecution could have commented upon his failure to do so is entitled to automatic release upon the theory that his testimony must be regarded as compelled.
United States v. Willis, 75 F. Supp. 628, 630.
The appellees correctly note that Champlin was a case where Congress had included a clause expressly authorizing the severance of any invalid provision, a fact upon which this Court relied in recognizing “a presumption that, eliminating invalid parts, the legislature would have been satisfied with what remained 286 U. S. 210, 235. But whatever relevance such an explicit clause might have in creating a presumption of severability, see Electric Bond Co. v. Comm’n, 303 U. S. 419, 434, the ultimate determination of severability will rarely turn on the presence or absence of such a clause. Thus, for example, the Court in Champlin, after stating the basic test quoted above, cited cases in which invalid statutory provisions had been severed despite the absence of any provision for severability. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 635; Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 395-396; Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 695-696.
As this Court observed in Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 396, “it is not to be presumed that the legislature was legislating for the mere sake of imposing penalties, but the penalties..
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 by
Mr. Justice Marshall,
announced by Mr. Justice Stewart.
Petitioner, the Secretary of Labor, instituted this action under § 402 (b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 534, 29 U. S. C. § 482 (b) , against Local 6799, United Steelworkers of America, to set aside a general election of officers conducted by the union. The lawsuit arose after Nicholas Hantzis, an unsuccessful candidate for president of the local, protested the election to both the local and international union organizations. His protest concerned several matters including the use of union facilities to prepare campaign materials for the incumbent president who was re-elected.
After failing to obtain relief through the internal procedures of either union organization, Hantzis filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor pursuant to § 402 (a) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 482 (a). The complaint repeated the charge that union facilities had been used to promote the candidacy of the incumbent president and raised, for the first time, an additional objection concerning a meeting-attendance requirement imposed as a condition of . candidacy for union office. . At no time during his internal union protests did Hantzis challenge the attendance requirement.
Following an investigation of the complaint, the Secretary concluded that union facilities had been used improperly to aid the re-election of the incumbent president in violation of § 401 (g) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 481 (g). The Secretary also concluded that § 401 (e) had been violated because the meeting-attendance requirement had not been uniformly administered and because the requirement itself was not a reasonable qualification on the right of union members to hold office. Respondents were advised of these conclusions and were asked to take voluntary remedial action. When they failed to comply with the request, the Secretary brought this proceeding in the District Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court held that § 401 (g) had been vio-, lated by the use of union facilities for the benefit of the incumbent president’s campaign and ordered a new election for the office of president. The District Court also held, however, that the meeting-attendance rule was reasonable and that Local 6799 had not violated § 401 (e) by imposing the rule as a qualification on candidacies for union office.
■ On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed without reaching the question whether the attendance requirement was reasonable. In the court’s view, Hantzis’ failure to challenge the requirement during his pursuit of internal union remedies precluded the Secretary from later raising the issue. The court reasoned that since the Act requires that union members protesting the conduct of elections exhaust their internal union remedies before complaining to the Secretary, Congress intended to empower the Secretary to assert only “those violations that are fairly' apparent from a member’s protest to the union . . . 426 F. 2d 969, 971.
Because the case presents an important issue concerning the scope of the Secretary’s authority under the Act, we granted certiorari, 400 U. S. 940. We conclude’ that Hántzis’ failure to object to the attendance rule during pursuit of his internal union remedies bars the Secretary from later challenging the rule in a § 402 (b) action. We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of, Appeals.
Section 402 (b) provides that once a member challenging an election has exhausted his internal union remedies and filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary “shall investigate such complaint and, if he finds probable cause to believe that a violation of this title has occurred and has not been remedied, he shall, within sixty days after the filing of such complaint, bring a civil action against the labor organization . ...” At the outset, petitioner contends that the language of the section empowers the Secretary to investigate and litigate • any and all violations that may have affected ■the outcome of an election pnce a union member has exhausted his internal union remedies concerning any violation that occurred during that election. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the Secretary is authorized to act if his' investigation uncovers “a violation” — this, it is said, means that the Secretary is not limited to seeking redress only in respect of the claims earlier presented by the union member to his union. However, the statutory language is not so devoid , of ambiguity that it alone can bear the weight of the Secretary’s expansive view of his authority. While the words “a violation” might mean “any violation whatever, revealed by .the investigation,” the words are susceptible of other readings. In particular, they can fairly be read to mean, “any of the violations raised by the union member during his internal union election protest.” In Wirtz v. Laborers’ Union, 389 U. S. 477 (1968), this Court noted'that the range of the Secretary’s authority under § 402 (b) must be determined “by inference since there is lacking an explicit provision regarding the permissible scope of' the Secretary’s complaint,” 389 U. S., at 481. We must, therefore, examine the legislative history and statutory policies behind § 402 and the rest of the Act to decide the issue presented by this case.
Examination of the relevant legislative materials reveals a clear congressional concern for the neéd to remedy abuses in union elections without departing needlessly from- the longstanding congressional policy against unnecessary governmental interference with internal union affairs, Wirtz v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., 389 U. S. 463, 470-471 (1968). The introduction to the Senate report accompanying the Act summarizes the general objectives of Congress:
“A strong independent labor movement is a vital part of American institutions. The shocking abuses revealed by recent investigations have been confined to a few unions. The overwhelming majority are honestly and democratically run. In providing remedies for existing evils the Senate should be careful neither to undermine self-government within the labor movement nor to weaken unions in their role as the bargaining representatives of' employees.” S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1959).
The requirement of § 402 (a), that a union member first seek redress of alleged election violations within the union before enlisting the aid of the Secretary, was similarly designed to harmonize the need to eliminate election abuses with a desire to avoid unnecessary governmental intervention. The same Senate Report, in reference to Title IV of the Act arid to the exhaustion requirement, states:
“In .filing a complaint the member must, show that he has pursued any remedies available to him within the union.and any parent body in a timely manner. This rule preserves a maximum amount of independence and self-government by giving every international union the opportunity to correct improper local elections.” Id,., at 21.
Plainly Congress intended to foster a situation in which the unions themselves could remedy as many election violations as possible without the Government’s ever becoming involved. Achieving this objective would not only preserve and strengthen unions as self-regulating institutions, but also avoid unnecessary expenditure of the limited resources of the Secretary of Labor.
Petitioner contends that the congressional concerns underpinning the exhaustion requirement were in fact-adequately served in this case, because the election in question was actually protested by a union member within the union, and because the union was later given á chance to remedy specific violations before being taken to court by the Secretary. In this view, it is irrelevant that Hantzis himself did not focus his election challenge on the attendance requirement when seeking internal union remedies. In sum, the Secretary urges that' § 402 (b) empowers him to act so long as a union member objects in any way to an election and so long as the union is given the opportunity to remedy voluntarily any violations that the Secretary determines may have affected the outcome of that election, regardless whether the member objected to the violations during his protest to the union.
However, under petitioner’s limited, view of congressional objectives, the exhaustion requirement of § 402 (a) is left with virtually no purposé or part to play in the statutory scheme. “Exhaustion” would be accomplished given any sort of protest within the union, no matter how remote' the complaint made there from the alleged violation later litigated. The obvious purpose of an exhaustion requirement is not met when the union, during “ex-haüstion,” is given no notice of the defects to be cured. Indeed, the primary objective of the exhaustion requirement is to preserve the vitality of internal union mechanisms for resolving election disputes — mechanisms to decide complaints brought by members of the union themselves. To accept petitioner’s contention that a union member, who is aware of the facts underlying an alleged violation, need not-first protest this violation to his union before complaining to the Secretary would be needlessly to weaken union self-government. Plainly petitioner’s approach slights the interest in protecting union self-regulation and is out of harmony with the congressional' purpose reflected in § 402 (a).
Of course, any interpretation of the exhaustion requirement must reflect the needs of rank and file union members — those people the requirement is designed ultimately to serve. We are not" unmindful that union members may use broad or imprecise language in framing their internal union protests and that members, will often lack .the necessary information to be aware of.the existence or scope of many election violations. Union democracy •is far too important to permit these deficiencies to foreclose relief from election violations; and in determining whether the exhaustion requirement of § 402 (a) has been satisfied, courts should impose a heavy burden on the union to show that it could not in any way discern that a member was complaining of the violation in question. But when a union member is aware of the facts supporting an alleged election violation, the member must, in some discernible. fashion, indicate to his union his dissatisfaction with those facts if he is to meet the exhaustion requirement.
' In this case, it is clear that the protesting member knew of the existence of the meeting-attendance provision and that his election protests to the local and international unions concerned matters wholly unrelated to the rule. We therefore hold that internal union remedies were not ■properly exhausted and that the Secretary was barred from litigating the claim. Given this holding, we do not reach the question whether the meeting-attendance rule itself is reasonable.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
The United Steelworkers of America, • an international union under which Local 6799 is chartered, intervened as a party defendant.
Hantzis’ written protest consisted of a letter to the International Union which purported to describe the election’s operation. Since the letter did not make specific allegations, it is difficult precisely to define Hantzis’ objections. However, in addition to his general charge that union machinery had been used to aid incumbents, Hantzis also protested several procedural matters including the methods 'used to nominate and swear in officers. . The Secretary of Labor subsequently concluded that none of these procedural matters constituted a violation of the Act.
The attendance rule, which is contained in the constitution of the International Union, provides that a union member, in order to be eligible for election as a local union officer or grievance committeeman, must have attended at least one-half of the regular meetings of his local 'union for 36 months previous to the election unless union activities or working hours prevented his attendance. It is unclear from Hantzis’ complaint whether he objected to the attendance rule itself or to the way in which the rule was administered during the election. Hantzis himself qualified under the rule.
This facet of the District Court’s decision is not challenged here.
“Sec. 402. (a) A member of a labor organization—
“(1) who has exhausted the remedies avaliable under , the constitution and bylaws of such organization and of any parent body, or
“(2) who has invoked such available remedies without obtaining a final decision within three calendar months after their invocation,
“may file a complaint with the Secretary within one calendar month thereafter alleging the violation of any provision of section 401 (including violation of the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization pertaining to the election and removal of officers). The challenged election shall be presumed valid pending a final decision thereon (as hereinafter provided) and in the interim the affairs of the organization shall be conducted by the officers elected or in such other manner as its constitution and bylaws may provide.
“(b) The Secretary shall investigate such complaint and, if he finds probable cause to believe that a violation of this title has occurred and has riot been remedied, he shall, within sixty days after the filing of such complaint, bring a civil action against the labor organization as an entity in the district court of the United States in which such labor organization maintains its principal office to set aside the invalid election, if any, and to direct the conduct of an election or hearing and vote upon the removal of officers under the supervision -of the Secretary and in accordance wtih the provisions of this title and such rules and regulations as the Secretary may. prescribe. The court shalL have power to take such action as it deems.proper to preserve the assets of the labor organization.
“(c) If, upon a preponderance of the-evidence after a trial upon the merits, the court finds—
“(1) that an election has not been held within the time prescribed by section 401, or
“(2) that the yiolation of section 401 may have affected the outcome of an election,
“the court • shall declare the election, if any, to be void and direct the conduct of a new election under supervision of the Secretary and, so far as lawful and practicable, in .conformity with the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization. The Secretary shall promptly certify to the court the names of the persons elected, and the court shall thereupon enter a decree declaring such persons to be the officers of the labor organization. If the proceeding is for the removal of officers .pursuant to subsection (h) of section 401, the Secretary shall certify the results of the vote and the court shall enter a decree declaring whether such persons have been removed as officers of the labor organization.
“(d) An order directing an election, dismissing a complaint, or designating elected officers of a labor organization shall be appealable in the same manner as the final'judgment in a civil action, but- an order directing an election shall not be stayed pending appeal.”
For much the same reasons, members should not be held to procedural niceties while seeking redress within their union, and exhaustion- is not required when internal union remedies are unnecessarily complex or otherwise operate to confuse or inhibit union protestors.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A-1, and II-B-2, an opinion with respect to Parts II-A-2, II-B-1, II-B-3, and III-B, in which Justice Stevens and Justice Souter join, and an opinion with respect to Part III-A, in which Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Thomas join.
This case presents the question whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 353, 42 U. S. C. § 12181 et seq., applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held Title III did not apply because of a presumption, which it sought to derive from this Court’s case law, that, absent a clear indication of congressional intent, general statutes do not apply to foreign-flag ships. 356 F. 3d 641, 644-646 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, on the other hand, has held that the ADA does apply to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters. See Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc., 215 F. 3d 1237 (2000). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 542 U. S. 965 (2004).
Our cases hold that a clear statement of congressional intent is necessary before a general statutory requirement can interfere with matters that concern a foreign-flag vessel’s internal affairs and operations, as contrasted with statutory requirements that concern the security and well-being of United States citizens or territory. While the clear statement rule could limit Title Ill’s application to foreign-flag cruise ships in some instances, when it requires removal of physical barriers, it would appear the rule is inapplicable to many other duties Title III might impose. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the ADA is altogether inapplicable to foreign vessels, and we remand for further proceedings.
t — H
The respondent Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (NCL), a Bermuda corporation with a principal place of business in Miami, Florida, operates cruise ships that depart from, and return to, ports in the United States. The ships are essentially floating resorts. They provide passengers with staterooms or cabins, food, and entertainment. The cruise ships stop at different ports of call where passengers may disembark. Most of the passengers on these cruises are United States residents; under the terms and conditions of the tickets, disputes between passengers and NCL are to be governed by United States law; and NCL relies upon extensive advertising in the United States to promote its cruises and increase its revenues.
Despite the fact that the cruises are operated by a company based in the United States, serve predominantly United States residents, and are in most other respects United States-centered ventures, almost all of NCL’s cruise ships are registered in other countries, flying so-called flags of convenience. The two NCL cruise ships that are the subject of the present litigation, the Norwegian Sea and the Norwegian Star, are both registered in the Bahamas.
The petitioners are disabled individuals and their companions who purchased tickets in 1998 or 1999 for round-trip cruises on the Norwegian Sea or the Norwegian Star, with departures from Houston, Texas. Naming NCL as the defendant, the petitioners filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons similarly situated. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. The petitioners asserted that cruise ships are covered both by Title Ill’s prohibition on discrimination in places of “public accommodation,” § 12182(a), and by its prohibition on discrimination in “specified public transportation services,” § 12184(a). Both provisions require covered entities to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate disabled individuals, §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), 12184(b)(2)(A), and require removal of “architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature,” where such removal is “readily achievable,” §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv), 12184(b)(2)(C).
The District Court held that, as a general matter, Title III applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States territorial waters. Civ. Action No. H-00-2649 (SD Tex., Sept. 10, 2002), App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. The District Court found, however, that the petitioners’ claims regarding physical barriers to access could not go forward because the agencies charged with promulgating architectural and structural guidelines for ADA compliance (the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Justice) had not done so for cruise ships. In these circumstances, the court held, it is unclear what structural modifications NCL would need to make. Id., at 36a-42a. The District Court granted NCL’s motion to dismiss the barrier-removal claims, but denied NCL’s motion with respect to all the other claims. Id., at 47a.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reasoned that our cases, particularly Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S. A., 353 U. S. 138 (1957), and McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U. S. 10 (1963), stand for the proposition that general statutes do not apply to foreign-flag vessels in United States territory absent a clear indication of congressional intent. 356 F. 3d, at 644 (“[T]o apply domestic law to foreign vessels entering United States waters, there must be present the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed” (quoting Benz, supra, at 147; internal quotation marks omitted)); 356 F. 3d, at 646 {Benz and Mc-Culloch “prohibit United States courts from applying domestic statutes to foreign-flagged ships without specific evidence of congressional intent”). As Title III does not contain a specific provision mandating its application to foreign-flag vessels, the Court of Appeals sustained the District Court’s dismissal of the petitioners’ barrier-removal claims on this alternative ground and reversed the District Court on the remaining Title III claims. 356 F. 3d, at 650-651.
The action was ordered dismissed for failure to state a claim, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), before extensive discovery. We cannot then discuss the specific allegations in much detail but must confine our opinion to the relevant general principles. (On November 24,2004, the responsible agencies finally did issue draft guidelines for large passenger vessels and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. See 69 Fed. Reg. 69244, 69249. These developments are not dispositive of the legal question on which we granted certiorari, and we do not address how they might affect the ultimate resolution of the petitioners’ claims.)
II
A
1
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against the disabled in the full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations, 42 U. S. C. § 12182(a), and public transportation services, § 12184(a). The general prohibitions are supplemented by various, more specific requirements. Entities that provide public accommodations or public transportation: (1) may not impose “eligibility criteria” that tend to screen out disabled individuals, §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(i), 12184(b)(1); (2) must make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary” to provide disabled individuals full and equal enjoyment, §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), 12184(b)(2)(A); (3) must provide auxiliary aids and services to disabled individuals, §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), 12184(b)(2)(B); and (4) must remove architectural and structural barriers, or if barrier removal is not readily achievable, must ensure equal access for the disabled through alternative methods, §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)-(v), 12184(b)(2)(C).
These specific requirements, in turn, are subject to important exceptions and limitations. Eligibility criteria that screen out disabled individuals are permitted when “necessary for the provision” of the services or facilities being offered, §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(i), 12184(b)(1). Policies, practices, and procedures need not be modified, and auxiliary aids need not be provided, if doing so would “fundamentally alter” the services or accommodations being offered. §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) — (iii). Auxiliary aids are also unnecessary when they would “result in an undue burden,” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). As we have noted, moreover, the barrier-removal and alternative access requirements do not apply when these requirements are not “readily achievable,” §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)-(v). Additionally, Title III does not impose nondiscrimination or accommodation requirements if, as a result, disabled individuals would pose “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services,” § 12182(b)(3).
Although the statutory definitions of “public accommodation” and “specified public transportation” do not expressly mention cruise ships, there can be no serious doubt that the NCL cruise ships in question fall within both definitions under conventional principles of interpretation. §§ 12181(7)(AMB), (I), (L), 12181(10). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, nevertheless, held that Title III does not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters because the statute has no clear statement or explicit text mandating coverage for these ships. This Court’s cases, particularly Benz and McCulloch, do hold, in some circumstances, that a general statute will not apply to certain aspects of the internal operations of foreign vessels temporarily in United States waters, absent a clear statement. The broad clear statement rule adopted by the Court of Appeals, however, would apply to every facet of the business and operations of foreign-flag ships. That formulation is inconsistent with the Court’s case law and with sound principles of statutory interpretation.
2
This Court has long held that general statutes are presumed to apply to conduct that takes place aboard a foreign-flag vessel in United States territory if the interests of the United States or its citizens, rather than interests internal to the ship, are at stake. See Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 100, 127 (1923) (holding that the general terms of the National Prohibition Act apply to foreign-flag ships in United States waters because “[tjhere is in the act no provision making it [inapplicable” to such ships); Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 282 U. S. 234, 240 (1931) (holding that “general words” should be “generally applied” and that therefore there is “no reason for limiting the liability for torts committed [aboard foreign-flag ships in United States territory] when they go beyond the scope of discipline and private matters that do not interest the territorial power”). The general rule that United States statutes apply to foreign-flag ships in United States territory is subject only to a narrow exception. Absent a clear statement of congressional intent, general statutes may not apply to foreign-flag vessels insofar as they regulate matters that involve only the internal order and discipline of the vessel, rather than the peace of the port. This qualification derives from the understanding that, as a matter of international comity, “all matters of discipline and all things done on board which affec[t] only the vessel or those belonging to her, and [do] not involve the peace or dignity of the country, or the tranquility of the port, should be left by the local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to which the vessel belonged.” Wildenhus’s Case, 120 U. S. 1, 12 (1887). This exception to the usual presumption, however, does not extend beyond matters of internal order and discipline. “[I]f crimes are committed on board [a foreign-flag vessel] of a character to disturb the peace and tranquility of the country to which the vessel has been brought, the offenders have never by comity or usage been entitled to any exemption from the operation of the local laws.” Ibid.
The two cases in recent times in which the presumption against applying general statutes to foreign vessels’ internal affairs has been invoked, Benz and McCulloch, concern labor relations. The Court held that the general terms of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., did not govern the respective rights and duties of a foreign ship and its crew because the NLRA standards would interfere with the foreign vessel’s internal affairs in those circumstances. These cases recognized a narrow rule, applicable only to statutory duties that implicate the internal order of the foreign vessel rather than the welfare of American citizens. McCulloch, 372 U. S., at 21 (holding that “the law of the flag state ordinarily governs the internal affairs of a ship” (emphasis added)); see also Benz, 353 U. S., at 146-147. The Court held the NLRA inapplicable to labor relations between a foreign vessel and its foreign crew not because foreign ships are generally exempt from the NLRA, but because the particular application of the NLRA would interfere with matters that concern only the internal operations of the ship. In contrast, the Court held that the NLRA is fully applicable to labor relations between a foreign vessel and American longshoremen because this relationship, unlike the one between a vessel and its own crew, does not implicate a foreign ship’s internal order and discipline. Longshoremen v. Ariadne Shipping Co., 397 U. S. 195, 198-201 (1970).
This narrow clear statement rule is supported by sound principles of statutory construction. It is reasonable to presume Congress intends no interference with matters that are primarily of concern only to the ship and the foreign state in which it is registered. It is also reasonable, however, to presume Congress does intend its statutes to apply to entities in United States territory that serve, employ, or otherwise affect American citizens, or that affect the peace and tranquility of the United States, even if those entities happen to be foreign-flag ships.
Cruise ships flying foreign flags of convenience offer public accommodations and transportation services to over 7 million United States residents annually, departing from and returning to ports located in the United States. Large numbers of disabled individuals, many'of whom have mobility impairments that make other kinds of vacation travel difficult, take advantage of these cruises or would like to do so. To hold there is no Title III protection for disabled persons who seek to use the amenities of foreign cruise ships would be a harsh and unexpected interpretation of a statute designed to provide broad protection for the disabled. § 12101. The clear statement rule adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, moreover, would imply that other general federal statutes — including, for example, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a et seq. — would not apply aboard foreign cruise ships in United States waters. A clear statement rule with this sweeping application is unlikely to reflect congressional intent.
The relevant category for which the Court demands a clear congressional statement, then, consists not of all applications of a statute to foreign-flag vessels but only those applications that would interfere with the foreign vessel’s internal affairs. This proposition does not mean the clear statement rule is irrelevant to the ADA, however. If Title III by its terms does impose duties that interfere with a foreign-flag cruise ship’s internal affairs, the lack of a clear congressional statement can mean that those specific applications of Title III are precluded. On remand, the Court of Appeals may need to consider which, if any, Title III requirements interfere with the internal affairs of foreign-flag vessels. As we will discuss further, however, Title Ill’s own limitations and qualifications may make this inquiry unnecessary.
B
1
The precise content of the category “internal affairs” (or, as it is variously denoted in the case law, “internal order” or “internal operations”) is difficult to define with precision. There is, moreover, some ambiguity in our cases as to whether the relevant category of activities is restricted to matters that affect only the internal order of the ship when there is no effect on United States interests, or whether the clear statement rule further comes into play if the predominant effect of a statutory requirement is on a foreign ship’s internal affairs but the requirement also promotes the welfare of United States residents or territory. We need not attempt to define the relevant protected category with precision. It suffices to observe that the guiding principles in determining whether the clear statement rule is triggered are the desire for international comity and the presumed lack of interest by the territorial sovereign in matters that bear no substantial relation to the peace and tranquility of the port.
It is plain that Title III might impose any number of duties on cruise ships that have nothing to do with a ship’s internal affairs. The pleadings and briefs in this case illustrate, but do not exhaust, the ways a cruise ship might offend such a duty. The petitioners allege NCL charged disabled passengers higher fares and required disabled passengers to pay special surcharges, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Original Complaint in No. H-00-2649 (SD Tex.), ¶ 32, App. 15 (hereinafter Complaint); Brief for Petitioners 17-20; maintained evacuation programs and equipment in locations not accessible to disabled individuals, Complaint ¶ 19, App. 12; Brief for Petitioners 21; required disabled individuals, but not other passengers, to waive any potential medical liability and to travel with a companion, id., at 8,17-18; and reserved the right to remove from the ship any disabled individual whose presence endangers the “comfort” of other passengers, id., at 8,20. The petitioners also allege more generally that NCL “failed to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures” necessary to ensure the petitioners’ full enjoyment of the services NCL offered. Complaint ¶ 80, App. 15. These are bare allegations, and their truth is not conceded. We express no opinion on the factual support for those claims. We can say, however, that none of these alleged Title III violations implicate any requirement that would interfere with the internal affairs and management of a vessel as our cases have employed that term.
At least one subset of the petitioners’ allegations, however, would appear to involve requirements that might be construed as relating to the internal affairs of foreign-flag cruise ships. These allegations concern physical barriers to access on board. For example, according to the petitioners, most of the cabins on NCL’s cruise ships, including the most attractive cabins in the most desirable locations, are not accessible to disabled passengers. Brief for Petitioners 17-18; Complaint ¶ 16, App. 11. The petitioners also allege that the ships’ coamings — the raised edges around their doors— make many areas of the ships inaccessible to mobility-impaired passengers who use wheelchairs or scooters. Brief for Petitioners 24. Removal of these and other access barriers, the petitioners suggest, may be required by Title Ill’s structural barrier-removal requirement, §§ 12182(b)(2) (A)(iv), 12184(b)(2)(C).
Although these physical barriers affect the passengers as well as the ship and its crew, the statutory requirement could mandate a permanent and significant alteration of a physical feature of the ship — that is, an element of basic ship design and construction. If so, these applications of the barrier-removal requirement likely would interfere with the internal affairs of foreign ships. A permanent and significant modification to a ship’s physical structure goes to fundamental issues of ship design and construction, and it might be impossible for a ship to comply with all the requirements different jurisdictions might impose. The clear statement rule would most likely come into play if Title III were read to require permanent and significant structural modifications to foreign vessels. It is quite a different question, however, whether Title III would require this. The Title III requirements that might impose permanent and substantial changes to a ship’s architecture and design, are, like all of Title Ill’s requirements, subject to the statute’s own specific limitations and qualifications. These limitations may make resort to the clear statement rule unnecessary.
2
Title III requires barrier removal if it is “readily achievable,” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). The statute defines that term as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense,” § 12181(9). Title III does not define “difficulty” in § 12181(9), but use of the disjunctive— “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense” — indicates that it extends to considerations in addition to cost. Furthermore, Title III directs that the “readily achievable” determination take into account “the impact. . . upon the operation of the facility,” § 12181(9)(B).
Surely a barrier-removal requirement under Title III that would bring a vessel into noncompliance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Nov. 1,1974, [1979-1980] 32 U. S. T. 47, T. I. A. S. No. 9700, or any other international legal obligation, would create serious difficulties for the vessel and would have a substantial impact on its operation, and thus would not be “readily achievable.” This understanding of the statute, urged by the United States, is eminently reasonable. Brief as Amicus Curiae 27-28; ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual III-1.2000(D) (Supp. 1994), available at http://www.usdoj. gov/crt/ada/taman3up.html (as visited May 31, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); 56 Fed. Reg. 45600 (1991). If, moreover, Title Ill’s “readily achievable” exemption were not to take conflicts with international law into account, it. would lead to the anomalous result that American cruise ships are obligated to comply with Title III even if doing so brings them into noncompliance with SOLAS, whereas foreign ships — which unlike American ships have the benefit of the internal affairs clear statement rule— would not be so obligated. Congress could not have intended this result.
It is logical and proper to conclude, moreover, that whether a barrier modification is “readily achievable” under Title III must take into consideration the modification’s effect on shipboard safety. A separate provision of Title III mandates that the statute’s nondiscrimination and accommodation requirements do not apply if disabled individuals would pose “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services,” § 12182(b)(3). This reference is to a safety threat posed by a disabled individual, whereas here the question would be whether the structural modification itself may pose the safety threat. It would be incongruous, nevertheless, to attribute to Congress an intent to require modifications that threaten safety to others simply because the threat comes not from the disabled person but from the accommodation itself. The anomaly is avoided by concluding that a structural modification is not readily achievable within the meaning of § 12181(9) if it would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others.
3
Because Title III does not require structural modifications that would conflict with international legal obligations or pose any real threat to the safety of the crew or other passengers, it may well follow — though we do not decide the question here — that Title III does not require any permanent and significant structural modifications that interfere with the internal affairs of any cruise ship, foreign flag or domestic. If that is indeed the case, recourse to the clear statement rule would not be necessary.
Cases may arise, however, where it is prudent for a court to turn first to the internal affairs clear statement rule rather than deciding the precise scope and operation of the statute. Suppose, for example, it is a difficult question whether a particular Title III barrier-removal requirement is readily achievable, but the requirement does entail a permanent and significant structural modification, interfering with a foreign ship’s internal affairs. In that case a court sensibly could invoke the clear statement rule without determining whether Title III actually imposes the requirement. On the other hand, there may be many cases where it is not obvious that a particular physical modification relates to a vessel’s basic architecture and construction, but it is clear the modification would conflict with SOLAS or some other international legal obligation. In those cases, a court may deem it appropriate to hold that the physical barrier modification in question is . not readily achievable, without resort to the clear statement rule.
J-H H — 1 HH
A
In light of the preceding analysis, it is likely that under a proper interpretation of “readily achievable” Title III would impose no requirements that interfere with the internal affairs of foreign-flag cruise ships. If Title III did impose a duty that required cruise ships to make permanent and significant structural modifications that did not conflict with international law or threaten safety, or if the statute otherwise interfered with a foreign ship’s internal affairs, the clear statement rule recognized in Benz and McCulloch would come into play at that point. The Title III requirement in question, however, would still apply to domestic cruise ships, and Title III requirements having nothing to do with internal affairs would continue to apply to domestic and foreign ships alike.
This application-by-application use of the internal affairs clear statement rule is consistent with how the rule has traditionally operated. In Benz and McCulloch, the Court concluded that the NLRA did not apply to labor relations between a foreign-flag ship and its foreign crew because of interference with the foreign ships’ internal affairs. In Ariadne Shipping, however, the Court held that the NLRA does apply to labor relations between a foreign-flag ship and American longshoremen. Ariadne Shipping acknowledged the clear statement rule invoked in Benz and McCulloch but held that the “considerations that informed the Court’s construction of the statute in [those cases] are clearly inapplicable” to the question whether the statute applies to foreign ships’ labor relations with American longshoremen. 397 U. S., at 199. Ariadne Shipping held that the longshoremen’s “short-term, irregular and casual connection with the [foreign] vessels plainly belied any involvement on their part with the ships’ ‘internal discipline and order.’” Id., at 200. Therefore, application of the NLRA to foreign ships’ relations with American longshoremen “would have threatened no interference in the internal affairs of foreign-flag ships.” Ibid. If the clear statement rule restricts some applications of the NLRA to foreign ships (e. g., labor relations with the foreign. crew), but not others (e. g., labor relations with American longshoremen), it follows that the case-by-case application is also required under Title III of the ADA. The rule, where it is even necessary to invoke it, would restrict some applications of Title III to foreign ships (e. g., certain structural barrier-modification requirements), but not others (e. g., the prohibition on discriminatory ticket pricing).
The internal affairs clear statement rule is an implied limitation on otherwise unambiguous general terms of the statute. It operates much like the principle that general statutes are construed not to apply extraterritorially, EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 260 (1991), or the rule that general statutes are presumed not to impose monetary liability on nonconsenting States, Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234 (1985). Implied limitation rules avoid applications of otherwise unambiguous statutes that would intrude on sensitive domains in a way that Congress is unlikely to have intended had it considered the matter. In these instances, the absence of a clear congressional statement is, in effect, equivalent to a statutory qualification saying, for example, “Notwithstanding any general language of this statute, this statute shall not apply extraterritorially”; or “ . . . this statute shall not abrogate the sovereign immunity of nonconsenting States”; or “... this statute does not regulate the internal affairs of foreign-flag vessels.” These clear statement rules ensure Congress does not, by broad or general language, legislate on a sensitive topic inadvertently or without due deliberation. An all-or-nothing approach, under which a statute is altogether inapplicable if but one of its specific applications trenches on the domain protected by a clear statement rule, would convert the clear statement rule from a principle of interpretive caution into a trap for an unwary Congress. If Congress passes broad legislation that has some applications that implicate a clear statement rule — say, some extraterritorial applications, or some applications that would regulate foreign ships’ internal affairs — an all-or-nothing approach would require that the entire statute, or some arbitrary set of applications larger than the domain protected by the clear statement rule, would be nullified. We decline to adopt that posture.
B
Our holding that the clear statement rule operates only when a ship’s internal affairs are affected does not implicate our holding in Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371 (2005). Martinez held that statutory language given a limiting construction in one context must be interpreted consistently in other contexts, “even though other of the statute’s applications, standing alone, would not support the same limitation.” Id., at 380. This was simply a rule of consistent interpretation of the statutory words, with no bearing on the implementation of a clear statement rule addressed to particular statutory applications.
The statute in Martinez, 8 U. S. C. § 1231(a)(6), authorized detention of aliens pending their removal. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678, 696-699 (2001), the Court had interpreted this statute to impose time limits on detention of aliens held for certain reasons stated in the statute. The Court held that an alternative interpretation, one allowing indefinite detention of lawfully admitted aliens, would raise grave constitutional doubts. Having determined the meaning of § 1231(a)(6)’s text in Zadvydas, we were obliged in Martinez to follow the same interpretation even in a context where the constitutional concerns were not present. Martinez, 543 U. S., at 377-381. As already made clear, the question was one of textual interpretation, not the scope of some implied exception. The constitutional avoidance canon simply informed the choice among plausible readings of § 1231(a)(6)’s text: “The canon of constitutional avoidance,” Martinez explained, “comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction; and the canon functions as a means of choosing between them.” Id., at 385 (emphasis deleted).
Martinez gives full respect to the distinction between rules for resolving textual ambiguity and implied limitations on otherwise unambiguous text. Indeed, Martinez relies on the distinction to reconcile its holding with two cases which did involve a clear statement rule, Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U. S. 533 (2002), and Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U. S. 456 (2003). Raygor had held that the tolling provision in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1367(d), does not apply to nonconsenting States because the statute lacks the required clear statement that States are within its coverage. Later, in Jinks, we held that the § 1367(d) tolling provision does apply to suits against counties. The counties were not protected by a clear statement rule analogous to the one applicable to States. See Martinez, 543 U. S., at 383, and n. 6; see also id., at 393-394 (Thomas, J., dissenting). “This progression of decisions,” we held in Martinez, “does not remotely establish that § 1367(d) has two different meanings, equivalent to the unlimited-detention/limited-detention meanings of § 1231(a)(6) urged upon us here. They hold that the single and unchanging disposition of § 1367(d)... does not apply to claims against States that have not consented to be sued in federal court.” Id., at 383. The distinction between Zadvydas and Martinez, on the one hand, and Raygor and Jinks, on the other, is the distinction between a canon for choosing among plausible meanings of an ambiguous statute and a clear statement rule that implies a special substantive limit on the application of an otherwise unambiguous mandate.
The internal affairs clear statement rule is an implied limitation rule, not a principle for resolving textual ambiguity. Our cases, then, do not compel or permit the conclusion that if any one application of Title III might interfere with a foreign-flag ship’s internal affairs, Title III is inapplicable to foreign ships in every other instance.
* * *
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that general statutes do not apply to foreign-flag ships in United States waters. This Court’s cases, however, stand only for the proposition that general statutes are presumed not to impose requirements that would interfere with the internal affairs of foreign-flag vessels. Except insofar as Title III regulates a vessel’s internal affairs — a category that is not always well defined and that may require further judicial elaboration — the statute is applicable to foreign ships in United States waters to the same extent that it is applicable to American ships in those waters.
Title Ill’s own limitations and qualifications prevent the statute from imposing requirements that would conflict with international obligations or threaten shipboard safety. These limitations and qualifications, though framed in general terms, employ a conventional vocabulary for instructing courts in the interpretation and application of the statute. If, on remand, it becomes clear that even after these limitations are taken into account Title III nonetheless imposes certain requirements that would interfere with the internal affairs of foreign ships — perhaps, for example, by requiring permanent and substantial structural modifications — the clear statement rule would come into play. It is also open to the court on remand to consider application of the clear statement rule at the outset if, as a prudential matter, that appears to be the more appropriate course.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
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.
Per Curiam.
This action was instituted by the appellants attacking a Kansas statute which authorized segregation in the schools of that State. It was urged that the State of Kansas was without power to enact such legislation, claimed by appellants to be in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the District Court, the State, by its Governor and Attorney General, intervened and defended the constitutionality of the statute. The court upheld its validity.
In this Court, the appellants continue their constitutional attack. No appearance has been entered here by the State of Kansas, the Board of Education of Topeka, and the other appellees; nor have they presented any brief in support of the statute’s validity. The Court has been advised by counsel for the Board of Education that it does not propose to appear in oral argument or present a brief.
Because of the national importance of the issue presented and because of its importance to the State of Kansas, we request that the State present its views at oral argument. If the State does not desire to appear, we request the Attorney General to advise whether the State’s default shall be construed as a concession of invalidity.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the United States is liable for sums withheld from the pay of one of its employees because it complied with a direction to withhold those sums contained in a writ of garnishment issued by a court without personal jurisdiction over the employee.
On December 27, 1976, respondent, a Colonel in the United States Air Force, was stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. On that date Elmendorf’s Finance Office received by certified mail a writ of garnishment, accompanied by a copy of a judgment against respondent that had been issued by the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama in a divorce proceeding. The writ, which was in the regular form used in Alabama, directed the Air Force to withhold $4,100 of respondent’s pay to satisfy sums due under the judgment “for alimony and child support.” The Finance Office promptly notified respondent that it had received the writ. On advice from an Air Force attorney, respondent told the Finance Office that the state court’s order was void because the Alabama court had no jurisdiction over him. Nevertheless, the Finance Officer honored the writ and paid $4,100 to the Clerk of the Alabama court, deducting that amount from respondent’s pay. Subsequently additional writs of garnishment were served on the Air Force with similar results.
Respondent apparently never made any attempt to contest the garnishment itself beyond his initial protest to the Elmendorf Finance Office. Eventually, however, he in ef-feet collaterally attacked the garnishment by bringing this action against the United States to recover the amounts that had been withheld from his pay and remitted to the Alabama court. The Government took the position that it had a complete defense since Congress has by statute provided:
“Neither the United States, any disbursing officer, nor governmental entity shall be liable with respect to any payment made from moneys due or payable from the United States to any individual pursuant to legal process regular on its face, if such payment is made in accordance with this section and the regulations issued to carry out this section.” 42 U. S. C. §659(f).
The trial judge first noted that the Alabama writ was on the regular form used by the Alabama courts. Thus, he did not disagree with the Government’s position that the writ was “regular on its face” within the meaning of the statute. He held, however, that the writ was not “legal process” within the meaning of § 659(f) because the statutory definition of that term requires that it be issued by a “court of competent jurisdiction.” He reasoned that the portion of the divorce decree ordering respondent to make alimony and child support payments had not been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction because the Alabama court did not have personal jurisdiction over respondent. Since respondent was not domiciled in Alabama at the time of the divorce proceedings, and since Alabama did not then have a statute authorizing personal service on nonresidents for child support or alimony and could not assert jurisdiction under either its own law or the Due Process Clause because it lacked sufficient contacts with respondent, the trial judge concluded that the Alabama judgment on which the garnishment orders were based was void for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the trial judge held that respondent was entitled to recover the amounts withheld from his pay from the United States.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, 708 F. 2d 680 (1983). It concluded that when an obligor notifies the Government that the court issuing the garnishment order does not have personal jurisdiction over him, the order does not constitute “legal process regular on its face” within the meaning of the statute. Judge Nies dissented, reasoning that the statute required only that the state court have subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the writ of garnishment, and that the notice respondent had provided the disbursing officer did not affect the question whether the Alabama court was a “court of competent jurisdiction.”
Because the holding of the Federal Circuit creates a substantial risk of imposing significant liabilities upon the United States as a result of garnishment proceedings, and because the decision below created a conflict in the Circuits, we granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, 465 U. S. 1004 (1984).
b-i
Ten years ago Congress decided that compensation payable to federal employees, including members of the Armed Services, should be subject to legal process to enforce employees’ obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments. Section 459(a) of the Social Services Amendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 2357-2358, was enacted as a result. As amended, it currently provides:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective January 1, 1975, moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States or the District of Columbia (including any agency, subdivision, or instrumentality thereof) to any individual, including members of the armed services, shall be subject, in like manner and to the same same extent as if the United States or the District of Columbia were a private person, to legal process brought for the enforcement, against such individual of his legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments.” 42 U. S. C. § 659(a).
In 1977 Congress amended the statute by specifying a procedure for giving notice to affected employees, directing that the normal federal pay and disbursement cycle should not be modified to comply with garnishment writs, authorizing promulgation of appropriate implementing regulations, and defining terms such as “alimony,” “child support,” and “legal process.” It also added subparagraph (f), the provision at issue in this case. See 91 Stat. 157-162.
I — I h — i
We assume, as does the Government, that the Alabama court lacked jurisdiction over respondent when it issued its writs of garnishment. Based on that assumption, respondent defends the judgment below by arguing that the Alabama court was not a “court of competent jurisdiction,” and hence its orders could not satisfy the statutory definition of “legal process.”
If we were to look at the words “competent jurisdiction” in isolation, we would concede that the statute is ambiguous. The concept of a court of “competent jurisdiction,” though usually used to refer to subject-matter jurisdiction, has also been used on occasion to refer to a court’s jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. We do not, however, construe statutory phrases in isolation; we read statutes as a whole. Thus, the words “legal process” must be read in light of the immediately following phrase — “regular on its face.” That phrase makes it clear that the term “legal process” does not require the issuing court to have personal jurisdiction.
Subject-matter jurisdiction defines the court’s authority to hear a given type of case, whereas personal jurisdiction protects the individual interest that is implicated when a nonresident defendant is haled into a distant and possibly inconvenient forum. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 701-703, and n. 10 (1982). The strength of this interest in a particular case cannot be ascertained from the “face” of the process; it can be
determined only by evaluating a specific aggregation of facts, as well as the possible vagaries of the law of the forum, and then determining if the relationship between the defendant— in this case the obligor — and the forum, or possibly the particular controversy, makes it reasonable to expect the defendant to defend the action that has been filed in the forum State. The statutory requirement that the garnishee refer only to the “face” of the process is patently inconsistent with the kind of inquiry that may be required to ascertain whether the issuing court has jurisdiction over the obligor’s person.
Nor can the plain language of § 659(f) be escaped simply because the obligor may have provided some information that raises a doubt concerning the issuing court’s jurisdiction over him, as he must do under the Court of Appeals’ holding. In such a case the determination would be based on the information provided by the obligor, rather than, as is required by the statute, “on the face” of the writ of garnishment. The writ is simply a direction to the garnishee; it contains no information shedding light upon the issuing court’s jurisdiction over the obligor. Inquiry into the issuing court’s jurisdiction over the debtor cannot be squared with the plain language of the statute, which requires the recipient of the writ to act on the basis of the “face” of the process.
I — I HH HH
The legislative history does not contain any specific discussion of the precise question presented by this case. It does, however, show that Congress did not contemplate the kind of inquiry into personal jurisdiction that the Court of Appeals’ holding would require, and it plainly identifies legislative objectives that would be compromised by requiring such an inquiry.
In colloquy on the floor of the House during the consideration of the 1974 legislation, two of its principal sponsors made it clear that no more than the face of the writ of garnishment was to be the basis for the garnishment of a federal employee’s salary:
“Mr. ST GERMAIN. Essentially, the mother or the wife goes into the State court and gets a judgment, and then proceeds on the judgment, on the execution of same, and proceeds with the garnishment; is that not correct?
“Mr. ULLMAN. The gentleman is correct.
“Mr. ST GERMAIN. And there are no other conditions precedent?
“Mr. ULLMAN. The garnishment is on the basis of the court order or decision. It is on the basis of the court order or by trial by the court in the case of a father or mother failing to live up to his or her obligations.
“Mr. ST GERMAIN. That is correct. Or with alimony?
“Mr. ULLMAN. That is right, with alimony.” 120 Cong. Rec. 41810 (1974).
Of course, it would be impossible to inquire into personal jurisdiction based on nothing more than the court order. No such inquiry could have been intended.
The liability of private employers under similar circumstances is also illuminating. The legislative history, as well as the plain language of § 659(a), indicates that Congress intended the Government to receive the same treatment as a private employer with respect to garnishment orders. A construction of the statute that would impose liability on the Government for honoring a writ issued by a court with subject-matter jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the law applicable to private garnishees. It has long been the rule that at least when the obligor receives notice of the garnishment, the garnishee cannot be liable for honoring a writ of garnishment. See Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, 226-227 (1905). For example, after imposing on all employers a duty to honor writs of garnishment, the District of Columbia Code, which Congress itself enacted, see 77 Stat. 555, provides:
“Any payments made by an employer-garnishee in conformity with this section shall be a discharge of the liability of the employer to the judgment debtor to the extent of the payment.” D. C. Code § 16-573(c) (1981).
The law in Alaska and Alabama is to similar effect, as it is in the great majority of jurisdictions. Thus, to hold the Government liable in this case would be to conclude that Congress intended to adopt a different standard for liability than would be applicable to a private employer. Such a conclusion is foreclosed by the statute and its legislative history.
Finally, the underlying purpose of §659 is significant. The statute was enacted to remedy the plight of persons left destitute because they had no speedy and efficacious means of ensuring that their child support and alimony would be paid. Burdening the garnishment process with inquiry into the state court’s jurisdiction over the obligor can only frustrate this fundamental purpose as a consequence of the resulting delay in the process of collection. And “[bjecause delay so often results in loss of substantial rights, the effect frequently will be also to make impossible the ultimate as well as the immediate collection of what is due; and to substitute a right of lifelong litigation for one of certain means of subsistence.” Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U. S. 220, 239, n. 4 (1946) (Rutledge, J., dissenting in part). Such a result could not be more at odds with congressional intent.
IV
As part of the 1977 amendment, Congress authorized the promulgation of “regulations for the implementation of the provisions of section 659,” 42 U. S. C. § 661(a). In the last sentence of § 659(f), Congress indicated that the United States could not be held liable for honoring a wait of garnishment so long as payment is made in accordance with these regulations. Because Congress explicitly delegated authority to construe the statute by regulation, in this case we must give the regulations legislative and hence controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or plainly contrary to the statute. Moreover, implementing regulations which simplify a disbursing officer’s task in deciding whether to honor a writ of garnishment are entitled to special deference, since that was the precise objective of Congress when it delegated authority to issue regulations.
The relevant regulations squarely address the question presented by this case. The regulations require that within 15 days of the service of process, the garnishee must give notice of service and a copy of the process to the employee. 5 CFR § 581.302(a) (1984). The regulations further provide that the garnishee entity must honor the process except in specified situations, none of which involves the issuing court’s lack of jurisdiction over the employee. They then state:
“If a governmental entity receives legal process which, on its face, appears to conform to the laws of the jurisdiction from which it was issued, the entity shall not be required to ascertain whether the authority which issued the legal process had obtained personal jurisdiction over the obligor.” § 581.305(f).
Thus, the regulations definitively resolve the question before us. They cannot possibly be considered “clearly inconsistent” with the statute or “arbitrary,” since the terms “legal process” and “court of competent jurisdiction” are at least ambiguous, and they further congressional intent to facilitate speedy enforcement of garnishment orders and to minimize the burden on the Government.
V
The plain language of the statute, its legislative history and underlying purposes, as well as the explicit regulations authorized by the statute itself, all indicate that the Government cannot be held liable for honoring a writ of garnishment which is “regular on its face” and has been issued by a court with subject-matter jurisdiction to issue such orders. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The trial court found that after respondent was first notified of the service of the writ, the Air Force attorney he consulted assured him that he could ignore the writ because he was not within the jurisdiction of the state court. Apparently the only remedy respondent has ever sought with respect to the garnishment of his salary is the instant action.
The statute provides:
“The term ‘legal process’ means any writ, order, summons, or other similar process in the nature of garnishment, which—
“(1) is issued by (A) a court of competent jurisdiction within any State, territory, or possession of the United States . . . and
“(2) is directed to, and the purpose of which is to compel, a governmental entity, which holds moneys which are otherwise payable to an individual, to make a payment from such moneys to another party in order to satisfy a legal obligation of such individual to provide child support or make alimony payments.” 42 U. S. C. § 662(e).
See Calhoun v. United States, 557 F. 2d 401 (CA4), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 966 (1977).
Although at least the initial garnishment in this ease occurred prior to the passage of the 1977 amendment, the parties agree that the statute as amended in 1977 applies to this case.
This is, however, the only ground on which respondent attacks the enforcement of the writs of garnishment. Thus, no question is raised concerning the sufficiency of the notice and opportunity to contest the garnishment that respondent received prior to the execution of the writs, see generally Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922 (1982); North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U. S. 601 (1975); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969); and in particular no question is raised as to whether respondent was afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the jurisdiction of the court issuing the writ in the jurisdiction where the writ was enforced, see generally Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U. S. 416 (1957); May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528 (1953); Estin v. Estin, 334 U. S. 541, 548-549 (1948); Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U. S. 220 (1946).
As far back as Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1878), we drew a clear distinction between a court’s “competence” and its jurisdiction over the parties:
“To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution — that is, by the law of its creation — to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit; and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the State, or his voluntary appearance.” Id., at 733.
See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 11, Comment a (1982).
See, e. g., Stafford v. Briggs, 444 U. S. 527, 535 (1980); Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U. S. 707, 713 (1975); Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. FPC, 420 U. S. 395, 403 (1975); Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U. S. 157, 185 (1971).
See, e. g., Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S. 770, 775-776 (1984); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 292 (1980); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 203-204 (1977).
The Comptroller General wrote in a similar ease:
“The inquiry into whether an order is valid on its face is an examination of the procedural aspects of the legal process involved, not the substantive issues. Whether a process conforms or is regular ‘on its face’ means just that. Facial validity of a writ need not be determined ‘upon the basis of scrutiny by a trained legal mind,’ nor is facial validity to be judged in light of facts outside the writ’s provisions which the person executing the writ may know.” In re Mathews, 61 Comp. Gen. 229, 230-231 (1982).
Moreover, the floor debates also indicate that Congress envisioned garnishments based on foreign judgments against nonresident debtors under the statute:
“[Mr. WHITE.] As I read the conference report, a paternity suit could be brought in another State, a judgment rendered in that State, and then the judgment brought back into Texas where there is no paternity suit action line and brought into a U. S. Federal court and file a garnishment against social security and veterans’ benefits, is this true?
“Mr. PETTIS. I understand that is correct.” 120 Cong. Rec. 41813 (1974).
The 1977 amendment of the statute, adding § 659(f), did not alter this state of affairs, since it specifies only those circumstances in which the Government is not liable. In fact, the legislative history of the amendment indicates that it was intended only to clarify the law. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-263, p. 35 (1977); 123 Cong. Ree. 12909 (1977) (remarks of Sens. Curtis and Nunn). Inquiry into personal jurisdiction would actually be inconsistent with the intent of the 1977 amendment of the statute. In a memorandum explaining the amendment, its sponsors indicated that they intended federal agencies to respond to garnishment orders promptly: “The amendment provides specific conditions and procedures to be followed under section 459. It specifies that service of legal process brought for the enforcement of an individual’s obligation to provide child support or alimony is to be accomplished by certified or registered mail, or by personal service, upon the person designated to accept the service for a government entity. The process must be accomplished by sufficient data to permit prompt identification of the individual and the moneys which are involved. These provisions will permit inexpensive and expedited service and will enable the agency to respond in an efficient way.” Id., at 12912. This explanatory material was taken from the Report on a virtually identical bill which had been reported by the Senate Finance Committee during the preceding session of Congress. See S. Rep. No. 94-1350, p. 4 (1976). The 1977 amendment’s language and intent was substantially the same as this earlier version, 123 Cong. Rec. 12909 (1977) (remarks of Sens. Curtis and Nunn). This twice-stated congressional goal of speed and efficiency would be seriously undermined if the Government could not rely on the face of the garnishment order and instead had to inquire into the circumstances relating to the issuing court’s jurisdiction over the obligor.
For example, the explanatory material accompanying the 1977 amendment stated:
“It should be emphasized that the fact that section [6]59 is applicable to particular moneys does not necessarily mean that those moneys will be subjeet to legal process; it merely means that the question of whether such moneys will be subject to legal process will be determined in accordance with State law in like manner as if the United States were a private person.” Id., at 12914.
See also S. Rep. No. 94-1350, p. 9 (1976); S. Rep. No. 93-1356, pp. 53-54 (1974); 120 Cong. Rec. 40338-40339 (1974) (remarks of Sen. Montoya); id., at 41810 (remarks of Reps. Ullman and Waggonner).
See Ala. Code §§6-6-453(a), 6-6-461 (1975); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 09.40.040 (1983).
See, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §12-1592 (1982); Ark. Stat. Ann. §31-146 (1962); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §706.154(b) (West Supp. 1984); Idaho Code §8-510 (1979); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, §12-812 (1983); Ind. Code § 34-1-11-29 (1982); Iowa Code § 642.18 (1983); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § ll-601(a) (1984); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 246, §43 (West 1959); Mich. Comp. Laws §600.4061(3) (1968); Minn. Stat. §571.54 (1982); Miss. Code Ann. § 11-35-37 (1972); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 525.070 (1978); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §512:38 (1983-1984); N. J. Stat. Ann. §2A:17-53 (West Supp. 1984); N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 5209 (McKinney 1978); N. D. Cent. Code §32-09.1-15 (Supp. 1983); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2716.21(D) (Supp. 1983); Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, §1233 (1961); Ore. Rev. Stat. §29.195 (1983); S. D. Codified Laws § 21-18-32 (1979); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-7-117 (1980); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, §3081 (1973); Wash. Rev. Code §7.33.200 (1983); W.Va. Code §38-7-25 (1966); Wis. Stat. §812.16(2) (1981-1982); Wyo. Stat. § 1-15-302 (1977).
Senator Montoya said:
“The modification proposed by the committee provides that money due from the United States to any individual citizen, including service men and women, may be garnished as a result of legal process for payment of alimony and child support.
“What this really means is that civil servants and military personnel can be forced to accept full responsibility for care of families — especially dependent children — in the same way that other Americans can.
“It is tragic that there are any men or women in the United States who would willingly desert their children, leaving wives and families to struggle alone or to go on our already overburdened welfare rolls.
“However, as any member of the judiciary or legal profession can tell you, the truth is that there are always some who try to avoid responsibility and who must be forced to pay debts.
“Mr. President, the child support proposal contained in the committee substitute will give us an opportunity to prove to these women and children that justice exists for them, too, in the United States. The proposal is not new. I believe it is time for us to make sure that this small change is made in our law in order to correct what is patently a disgraceful situation. We must give the wives and children of Federal employees and retirees the same legal protections which we have provided for all other American women and children.” 120 Cong. Rec. 40338-40339 (1974).
To similar effect, see S. Rep. No. 93-1356, pp. 43-44 (1974); 120 Cong. Rec. 40323 (1974) (remarks of Sen. Long); id., at 41809 (remarks of Rep. Ullman). See also H. R. Rep. No. 92-481, pp. 17-18 (1971).
See Sckweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 44 (1981); Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 425-426 (1977).
See 123 Cong. Rec. 12912-12913 (1977); S. Rep. No. 94-1350, p. 6 (1976).
The regulations provide:
“The governmental entity shall comply with legal process, except where the process cannot be complied with because:
“(1) It does not, on its face, conform to the laws of the jurisdiction from which it was issued;
“(2) The legal process would require the withholding of funds not deemed moneys due from, or payable by, the United States as remuneration for employment;
“(3) The legal process is not brought to enforce legal obligation(s) for alimony and/or child support;
“(4) It does not comply with the mandatory provisions of this part;
“(5) An order of a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining or suspending the operation of the legal process has been served on the governmental entity; or
“(6) Where notice is received that the obligor has appealed either the legal process or the underlying alimony and/or child support order, payment of moneys subject to the legal process shall be suspended until the governmental entity is ordered by the court, or other authority, to resume payments. However, no suspension action shall be taken where the applicable law of the jurisdiction wherein the appeal is filed requires compliance with the legal process while an appeal is pending. Where the legal process has been issued by a court in the District of Columbia, a motion to quash shall be deemed equivalent to an appeal.” 5 CFR § 581.305(a) (1984).
See also 48 Fed. Reg. 811, 26279 (1983).
Respondent argues that § 581.305(f) is not entitled to deference because it was not promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management until after this suit was brought. But that fact is of no consequence. Congress authorized the issuance of regulations so that problems arising in the administration of the statute could be addressed. Litigation often brings to light latent ambiguities or unanswered questions that might not otherwise be apparent. Thus, assuming the promulgation of § 581.305(f) was a response to this suit, that demonstrates only that the suit brought to light an additional administrative problem of the type that Congress thought should be addressed by regulation. When OPM responded to this problem by issuing regulations it was doing no more than the task which Congress had assigned it. See generally Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. United States, 562 F. 2d 972, 979-985 (CA5 1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 944 (1978).
See supra, at 828.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 case concerns the scope of 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (c)(3), which specifies that the United States District Courts may issue writs of habeas corpus on behalf of prisoners who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . of the United States.” The question presented is whether a district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a prisoner incarcerated under consecutive sentences who claims that a sentence that he is scheduled to serve in the future is invalid because of a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court considered this issue in McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131 (1934), and held that the habeas corpus statute does not authorize attacks upon future consecutive sentences. We granted certiorari in this case to re-examine McNally. 389 U. S. 1035 (1968). We conclude that the decision in that case was compelled neither by statute nor by history and that today it represents an indefensible barrier to prompt adjudication of constitutional claims in the federal courts.
Respondents, Robert Rowe and Clyde Thacker, are serving prison terms in the Virginia State Penitentiary. In June 1963 Rowe was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of rape. Subsequently, he pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with felonious abduction with intent to defile arising from the same events which had led to the rape conviction. He was sentenced to a 20-year term on this conviction to run consecutively to the 30-year sentence. After exhausting state remedies, Rowe petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He did not attack the rape conviction, but alleged that the conviction for felonious abduction was constitutionally defective because he had been subjected to double jeopardy, because his plea of guilty had been involuntary, because the indictment had failed to state an offense and because he had been inadequately represented by trial counsel. Without reaching the merits of Rowe’s claims, the District Court denied relief. Applying McNally, the court found Rowe was then detained under the 30-year sentence for rape. Since he did not claim that sentence was invalid, it was held that he was not then “in custody” under an unconstitutionally imposed sentence within the meaning of § 2241. The court concluded that it could not entertain Rowe’s challenge to the conviction for felonious abduction until he was confined under the sentence imposed for that conviction. That time would not arrive until 1993.
Thacker’s § 2241 petition in the Eastern District of Virginia met a similar fate. He is imprisoned under a number of sentences totaling more than 60 years. He asserted that three consecutive five-year sentences imposed for housebreaking in 1953 were invalid because of inadequate representation by counsel at the time he entered pleas of guilty. Finding that Thacker’s attack on these sentences was premature because he had not begun to serve them, the District Court dismissed the petition “without prejudice to Thacker’s reapplication at the proper time.” Under McNally, the “proper time” will be in 1994 when Thacker commences service of the first of the three sentences he challenges.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit consolidated the two cases. After a hearing en banc, it reversed and remanded them to the District Courts. 383 F. 2d 709 (1967). Recognizing that the District Courts had correctly applied McNally, the Court of Appeals declined to adhere to that decision. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Judge Haynsworth reasoned that this Court would no longer follow McNally, which in his view represented a “doctrinaire approach” based on an “old jurisdictional concept” which had been “thoroughly rejected by the Supreme Court in recent cases.” Id., at 714. We are in complete agreement with this conclusion and the considerations underlying it.
The writ of habeas corpus is a procedural device for subjecting executive, judicial, or private restraints on liberty to judicial scrutiny. Where it is available, it assures among other things that a prisoner may require his jailer to justify the detention under the law. In England where it originated and in the United States, this high purpose has made the writ both the symbol and guardian of individual liberty. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries *131-138; see Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75 (1807); Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (1874); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1923); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938); Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953); Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963).
The habeas corpus jurisdiction of the federal courts is enumerated in 28 U. S. C. § 2241. Like the predecessor statute which controlled in McNally, § 2241 provides for the issuance of writs on behalf of persons “in custody.” But the statute does not attempt to define the terms “habeas corpus” or “custody.” Confronted with this fact, the Court in McNally reasoned that “[t]o ascertain its meaning and the appropriate use of the writ in the federal courts, recourse must be had to the common law . . . and to the decisions of this Court interpreting and applying the common law principles .. ..” McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S., at 136. We need not look very far to discover three principal characteristics of the writ as it had developed in the federal courts even before the decision in McNally. First, though the writ in England had been utilized largely to secure the admission to bail and discharge of prisoners, its major office in the federal courts since the Civil War has been to provide post-conviction relief. Second, the partial codifications of the common-law writ in England and more recent legislation in this country have contained specific and detailed provisions requiring prompt adjudication of the validity of the challenged restraint. See and compare Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 31 Car. 2, c. 2; Act of February 5, 1867, c. 28, 14 Stat. 385; and 28 U. S. C. § 2243. Third, at least tentatively in Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309 (1915), and more clearly in Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1923), this Court had recognized that a district court was authorized to look behind the bare record of a trial proceeding and conduct a factual hearing to determine the merits of alleged deprivations of constitutional rights — a procedure that reached full flowering in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938). Thus, by the time McNally was decided, the federal writ of habeas corpus was substantially a post-conviction device which could afford prompt adjudication of factual as well as legal issues. Keeping these purposes of the writ in mind, we turn to consideration of the McNally holding and the reasons which compel us to overrule it.
A federal jury had found McNally guilty of three counts of an indictment charging offenses under the Motor Vehicle Theft Act (now 18 U. S. C. §§ 2312-2313). He had been sentenced to two years on the first count and four years each on the second and third counts, the sentences on the first and second counts to run concurrently and the sentence on the third consecutively. In his application in a district court for a writ of habeas corpus, McNally claimed that the indictment failed to state an offense as to the third count. He did not attack the convictions under the first and second counts. When he filed his petition he was serving under the second count. The lower courts denied relief on the merits. But this Court affirmed on a jurisdictional ground, holding that because McNally had not begun to serve the sentence on the third count- — and therefore was not “in custody” under that sentence — his petition for relief was premature:
“[WJithout restraint which is unlawful, the writ may not be used. A sentence which the prisoner has not begun to serve cannot be the cause of restraint which the statute makes the subject of inquiry.” 293 U. S., at 138.
The effect of this disposition was ameliorated somewhat by the Court’s suggestion that McNally might seek relief by another route. Id., at 140. See also Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U. S. 342, 349 (1941). But cf. Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 546 (1941). Moreover, McNally’s challenge was directed at the face of the indictment. Therefore, postponement of adjudication of his claims probably would not have resulted in the loss of crucial evidence. But the harshness of a rule which may delay determination of federal claims for decades becomes obvious when applied to the cases of Rowe and Thacker. Their cases also exemplify the manner in which the decision in McNally cuts against the prior and subsequent development of the writ in the federal courts.
Both Rowe and Thacker allege that they were so inadequately represented at trial that they were denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Petitioner concedes that, but for McNally, respondents’ allegations would entitle them to plenary hearings in the District Courts. Brief for Petitioner 6. Yet, under the current schedules of confinement, it is argued, neither Rowe nor Thacker may obtain adjudication of his claims until after 1990. By that time, dimmed memories or the death of witnesses is bound to render it difficult or impossible to secure crucial testimony on disputed issues of fact. Of course prejudice to meritorious claims resulting from the kind of delay which McNally imposes is not limited to situations involving ineffective assistance of counsel. To name but a few examples, factual determinations are often dispositive of claims of coerced confession, e. g., Reck v. Pate, 367 U. S. 433 (1961), Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556 (1954); lack of competency to stand trial, e. g., Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 (1966); and denial of a fair trial, e. g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966). Postponement of the adjudication of such issues for years can harm both the prisoner and the State and lessens the probability that final disposition of the case will do substantial justice. As the Court of Appeals observed:
“Years hence, the prisoner, at least, may be expected to give testimonial support to the allegations of his petition, but if they are false in fact, the Commonwealth of Virginia may be unable to refute them because of the unavailability of records and of the testimony of responsible officials and participants in the trial. The greater the lapse of time, the more unlikely it becomes that the state could re-prosecute if retrials are held to be necessary. It is to the great interest of the Commonwealth and to the prisoner to have these matters determined as soon as possible when there is the greatest likelihood the truth of the matter may be established.” 383 F. 2d, at 715.
Clearly, to the extent that the rule of McNally postpones plenary consideration of issues by the district courts, it undermines the character of the writ of habeas corpus as the instrument for resolving fact issues not adequately developed in the original proceedings. To that extent, it also undermines Moore v. Dempsey, supra, and is inconsistent with subsequent decisions of this Court which have reaffirmed Moore. E. g., Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938); Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953); Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963).
McNally is also at odds with the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus in another respect. As noted above, a principal aim of the writ is to provide for swift judicial review of alleged unlawful restraints on liberty. Calendar congestion, considerations of federalism, see, e. g., Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S., at 415-420; Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 (1886), and the exigencies of appellate review account for largely unavoidable delays in the processing of criminal cases. But the prematurity rule of McNally in many instances extends without practical justification the time a prisoner entitled to release must remain in confinement. Rowe and Thacker eventually may establish that the convictions they challenge were obtained in violation of the Constitution. If they do, each day they are incarcerated under those convictions while their cases are in the courts will be time that they might properly have enjoyed as free men. Common sense dictates that prisoners seeking habeas corpus relief after exhausting state remedies should be able to do so at the earliest practicable time.
The foregoing analysis demonstrates that McNally is inconsistent with the purposes underlying the federal writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, in arriving at its decision, the Court in McNally relied in part upon an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the habeas corpus statute. Standing alone, the limitation of § 2241 (c) (3) — that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless ... [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution” — is not free of ambiguity. However, in common understanding “custody” comprehends respondents’ status for the entire duration of their imprisonment. Practically speaking, Rowe is in custody for 50 years, or for the aggregate of his 30- and 20-year sentences. For purposes of parole eligibility, under Virginia law he is incarcerated for 50 years. Va. Code Ann. § 53-251 (1967); see n. 3, supra. Nothing on the face of § 2241 militates against an interpretation which views Rowe and Thacker as being “in custody” under the aggregate of the consecutive sentences imposed on them. Under that interpretation, they are “in custody in violation of the Constitution” if any consecutive sentence they are scheduled to serve was imposed as the result-of a deprivation of constitutional rights. This approach to the statute is consistent with the canon of construction that remedial statutes should be liberally construed. It also eliminates the inconsistencies between purpose and practice which flow from the McNally holding. Meaningful factual hearings on alleged constitutional deprivations can be conducted before memories and records grow stale, and at least one class of prisoners will have the opportunity to challenge defective convictions and obtain relief without having to spend unwarranted months or years in prison.
We find unpersuasive the arguments made in McNally to support the narrower interpretation of the custody requirement. No prior decision of the Court was cited as clear authority for the prematurity doctrine. To fill the gap, the Court relied on the history of the writ in England prior to 1789 and a line of reasoning whose unexamined premise was doubtful before McNally and was subsequently rejected. Both the historical and conceptual bases of the opinion are revealed in the Court’s observation that “[djiligent search of the English authorities and the digests before 1789 has failed to disclose any case where the writ was sought or used ... as a means of securing the judicial decision of any question which, even if determined in the prisoner’s favor, could not have resulted in his immediate release.” McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S., at 137-138. To the extent that the Court thought that the absence of eighteenth century English precedent demonstrated that McNally was not entitled to habeas corpus relief, the Court’s reliance seems to have been misplaced. In light of the fact that English judges had no power to impose cumulative punishment in felony cases, and apparently did not assume such power in misdemeanor cases until 1769, it is not at all surprising that research failed to uncover a pre-1789 common-law analogy for McNally’s petition for relief. In any event, the development of the- writ of habeas corpus did not end in 1789. What we said of the writ in a similar context in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963), is equally applicable here.
“[The writ] is not now and never has been a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose — the protection' of individuals against erosion of their right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty.” Id., at 243.
Of course the excursion in McNally into history to determine that the writ of habeas corpus issued only to adjudicate entitlement to “immediate release”' was not unnecessary. Though McNally held only that-the petitioner did not meet the custody requirements of the statute, see Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U. S. 335 (1968), that holding rested in part on the premise that physical discharge from custody is the only relief available in a habeas corpus proceeding. But the statute does not deny the federal courts power to fashion appropriate relief other than immediate release. Since 1874, the habeas corpus statute has directed the courts to determine the facts and dispose of the case summarily, “as law and justice require.” Rev. Stat. § 761 (1874), superseded by 28 U. S. C. § 2243. Consistently with this command, this Court has held that a prisoner whose first-sentence parole was revoked upon a second conviction could challenge the second conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding though he would not be released if he prevailed, Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 646 (1941); that a person who was paroled after he filed his habeas corpus petition could still obtain relief from the restraints imposed by the parole conditions, Jones v. Cunningham, supra; and that a prisoner could attack the first of two consecutive sentences in a federal habeas corpus proceeding even though he would still be confined under the second sentence if he succeeded, Walker v. Wainwright, supra. See also United States v. Pridgeon, 153 U. S. 48, 63-64 (1894). Thus, to the extent that McNally relied on the notion that immediate physical release was the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus, it finds no support in the statute and has been rejected by this Court in subsequent decisions.
We overrule McNally and hold that a prisoner serving consecutive sentences is “in custody” under any one of them for purposes of § 2241 (c)(3). This interpretation is consistent with the statutory language and with the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts.
Affirmed.
Rowe’s initial plea of double jeopardy had been overruled by the trial court.
Rowe had filed an application for state habeas corpus relief in the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. This petition was denied under Virginia’s version of the McNally rule. See Peyton v. Williams, 206 Va. 595, 145 S. E. 2d 147 (1965). Subsequent to the decision below, the Virginia Legislature enacted a statute, effective June 28, 1968, which will abolish the rule of prematurity in the State. See n. 17, infra.
If Rowe receives full credit for “good time,” the 30-year sentence will expire in 1982. Under the two sentences, he will be eligible for parole in 1974. If he were relieved of the 20-year term, he would be eligible for parole in 1970. See Va. Code Ann. §53-251 (1967).
These sentences were originally suspended, but the suspension was revoked in 1956.
If Thacker does not receive good-time credit, he will commence service of the three sentences in 2009. He will be eligible for parole in 1976.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case was preceded by two cases in which it held that § 2241 (c) (3) permits attack upon a future consecutive sentence which affects or may affect a prisoner’s current parole eligibility. Williams v. Peyton, 372 F. 2d 216 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1967); Martin v. Virginia, 349 F. 2d 781 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1965). In McNally, the Court rejected the prisoner’s argument that he was entitled to habeas corpus relief because he would be eligible for parole if the challenged sentence were invalidated. 293 U. S., at 134, 140. In Williams and Martin, the Court of Appeals concluded that this Court’s decision in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963), represented a departure from this narrow reading of the habeas corpus statute.
E. g., Darnel’s Case [“Five Knights' Case”] 3 How. St. Tr. 1-59 (K. B. 1627); Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (1866). The proceedings in Darnel’s Case are summarized in D. Meador, Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta 13-16 (1966).
E. g., Bushel’s Case, Jones, T. 13, 84 Eng. Rep. 1123 (K. B.); Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U. S. 335 (1968).
E. g., Rex v. Clarkson, 1 Strange 444, 93 Eng. Rep. 625 (K. B. 1721); see Ford v. Ford, 371 U. S. 187 (1962).
The indignation aroused by the decision in Darnel’s Case, supra, n. 7, led to enactment in 1627 of the Petition of Right, 3 Car. 1, c. 1, which condemned a return reciting that imprisonment was by “speciale mandatum Domini Regis” as insufficient under “the law of the land.” See W. Church, A Treatise on the Writ of Habeas Corpus 8-9 (2d ed. 1893). In the United States, the Act of February 5, 1867, c. 28, 14 Stat. 385, made the writ available to “any person . . . restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.”
Rev. Stat. §753 (1874). For a collection and discussion of the federal habeas corpus statutes from the original Judiciary Act of 1789 to 1953, see G. Longsdorf, The Federal Habeas Corpus Acts Original and Amended, 13 F. R. D. 407 (1953).
The celebrated Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 31 Car. 2, c. 2, was concerned exclusively with providing an efficacious remedy for pretrial imprisonment. See W. Church, A Treatise on the Writ of Habeas Corpus 21-32, 48-58 (2d ed. 1893).
This development is explained in part by this Court’s recognition that certain trial or sentencing defects could invalidate the proceedings in a court which had jurisdiction over the crime and the defendant, e. g., Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (1874), by the Court’s decisions holding that some of the safeguards of criminal procedure embodied in the Bill of Rights are applicable to state criminal proceedings by virtue of the Due. Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and by the requirement that a state prisoner exhaust state remedies before applying for federal habeas corpus. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 (1886); 28 U. S. C. § 2254; see Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 415-420 (1963).
The Court in Frank recognized that the Act of February 5, 1867, c. 28, 14 Stat. 385, substituted “for the bare legal review that seems to have been the limit of judicial authority under the common-law practice ... a more searching investigation, in which the applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of the matter respecting the causes of his detention, and the court, upon determining the actual facts, is to ‘dispose of the party as law and justice require.’ ” 237 U. S., at 330-331. In Moore, the Court remanded the case to the District Court for determination of the truth of allegations that the pervading influence of a mob had denied the appellants a fair trial in the state court. 261 U. S., at 92.
Because McNally was imprisoned by federal authorities, his application for habeas corpus relief could have rested on the clause of Rev. Stat. § 753 (1874) which authorized federal courts to entertain petitions from prisoners in the custody of the United States. However, the Court’s interpretation of the custody requirement in McNally was equally applicable to state prisoners claiming their incarceration violated the Constitution. E. g., Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 203 (1950).
Even where resolution of constitutional claims turns on record evidence, loss or destruction of a relevant document or failure to transcribe the record over a period of years, cf. Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U. S. 420 (1963), could mean that a claim relegated to the limbo of prematurity might never be adequately determined.
This consideration has led at least two States which previously followed the prematurity doctrine to reject it in recent years. See Commonwealth ex rel. Stevens v. Myers, 419 Pa. 1, 213 A. 2d 613 (1965); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 138.510 (1961). See also Landreth v. Gladden, 213 Ore. 205, 324 P. 2d 475 (1958). California does not follow the McNally rule. In re Chapman, 43 Cal. 2d 385, 273 P. 2d 817 (1954). Finally, while this case was under consideration in this Court, Virginia repudiated the prematurity doctrine by statute. See Va. S. No. 44, 1968 Sess., amending Va. Code Ann. § 8-596 (effective June 28, 1968). A committee of the American Bar Association which is inquiring into post-conviction remedies has recommended abandonment of the prematurity doctrine which it calls “one of the most frustrating elements of present post-conviction practice.” Advisory Committee on Sentencing and Review, A. B. A. Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Post-Conviction Remedies 43 (Tent. Draft 1967).
Of the prior decisions of this Court cited in McNally, only In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637 (1893), suggested a rule of prematurity. Even in Swan, the Court held no more than that the prisoner was not entitled to immediate discharge from confinement merely because the sentencing judge had imposed an allegedly unauthorized fine in addition to a valid prison term. 150 U. S., at 653. In at least two cases, Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632 (1915), and Ex parte Spencer, 228 U. S. 652 (1913), the Court had reached the merits of habeas corpus applications by prisoners who had not served the valid portions of their sentences. Though relief was ultimately denied in Morgan and Spencer, they illustrate that the prior decisions of the Court by no means compelled the McNcdly result.
See Regina v. Albury, [1951] 1 All E. R. 491 (Crim. App.); 1 J. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England 291-292 (1883).
Wilkes v. Rex, 4 Bro. P. C. 360, 2 Eng. Rep. 244 (H. L. 1769).
We intimate no views on the merits of respondents’ underlying claims.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These are direct appeals from an order of a three-judge District Court dismissing appellants’ complaint seeking to set aside an Interstate Commerce Commission decision which refused to prescribe through routes and joint rates for traffic moving between appellant railroad and the Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway (the “S. P. & S.”) system via Spokane, Washington. The Commission found, contrary to appellants’ contention, that, with limited exceptions, no through routes existed for the movement of freight by the S. P. & S. system and appellant railroad (the “Milwaukee”) via Spokane. It also held. that the short-haul protection provided in § 15 (4) of the Interstate Commerce Act applied because the S. P. & S. was operated in conjunction with and under common management of its parents, the Great Northern Railway Co. and the Northern Pacific Railway Co. (the “Northern Lines”), each of which owned 50% of the S. P. & S. Finally, it entered a finding that the refusal of the S. P. & S. system to grant the through routes and joint rates requested did not result in discrimination against the Milwaukee or in undue preference or prejudice between shippers and localities and further found that they were not “needed in order to provide adequate and more efficient or more economic transportation.” 300 I. C. C. 453. The District Court held that the findings of the Commission were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed its ruling as to the application of § 15 (4). 182 F. Supp. 81. We noted probable jurisdiction. 364 U. S. 860. We affirm the judgment.
The factual situation is described in detail in the Commission’s report and we will, therefore, set it out only briefly. It appears that the S. P. & S. was built by the Northern Lines for the purpose of relieving congestion, avoiding double mountain trackage, and obtaining low grade road facilities to the West Coast. Its lines— approximately 950 miles in length — run along the Snake and Columbia Rivers westward between Spokane, Washington, and the Pacific Coast via Portland, Oregon. The lines of its parents, the Northern Lines, operate between Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, and the head of the Great Lakes on the east and Portland, Oregon, and coastal points in Washington on the west. They serve the larger cities in northern Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota and Minnesota. The Milwaukee operates some 10,600 miles of line from Chicago, Illinois, and West-port, Indiana, on the east and Longview, Washington, on the west. While it serves many of the same cities in Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas and Minnesota from which the Northern Lines receive traffic, appellant railroad serves no point in Oregon directly. If it could establish through routes and joint rates with the S. P. & S. system, the Milwaukee might secure, on interchange at Spokane, much of the traffic that originates or terminates on the S. P. & S. system. On the other hand, the Northern Lines seek to obtain as much of this haul as possible and have published joint rates on all important commodities interchanged between the S. P. & S. system and the Northern Lines at Spokane. These rates are lower than the combination of the local rates of the S. P. & S. and the appellant railroad now applicable to traffic which could be interchanged at the same point, Spokane, between these carriers. It appears that the S. P. & S. system and the Northern Lines are not opposed to the publication of joint rates by the S. P. & S. system and the Milwaukee for traffic to or from points served only by the latter (local points) but refuse to establish through routes and joint rates via appellant’s line to points which are also served by the Northern Lines.
We find, as did the District Court, that substantial evidence does support the factual findings of the Commission. We shall, therefore, forego a discussion of the appellants’ contentions based on the findings. We are left with only the principal issue, namely, whether the protection of § 15 (4) of the Act extends to two railroads owning a third in the relationship existing here.
The Northern Lines compete with- each other but own in equal shares all of the bonds and stock of the S. P. & S. Their presidents alternate yearly as president and vice president of, and personally pass upon the executive problems of, the S. P. & S., which, however, has an operating vice president of its own. As to equipment, the Northern Lines furnish a substantial amount of the car supply of the S. P. & S. system. The traffic policies of the latter are directed and controlled jointly by the traffic departments of the Northern Lines. Transcontinental traffic matters are handled by representatives of the Northern Lines but local traffic problems — under the general policies aforementioned — are left to the S. P. & S. officials. In short, except when the Northern Lines disagree between themselves, they entirely control the operation of the S. P. & S.
Section 1 (4) of the Interstate Commerce Act requires railroads “to establish reasonable through routes” with each other. Where such routes are not established voluntarily, the Commission has the power, under § 15 (3) of the Act, to prescribe them “whenever deemed by it to be necessary or desirable in the public interest.” This authority is restricted against short hauling, however, by § 15 (4) which provides that the Commission “shall not . . . require any carrier by railroad ... to embrace in such route substantially less than the entire length of its railroad and of any intermediate railroad operated in conjunction and under a common management or control therewith, which lies between the termini of such proposed through route . . . .” Appellants contend that since the eastern terminus of the S. P. & S. is Spokane, the establishment of the through routes via that point would not short haul the S. P. & S. If, however, the S. P. & S. is under the “common management or control” of the Northern Lines and the short-haul protection of § 15 (4) is available to them, the through routes sought would, if granted; result in the latter being short hauled in contravention of this section.
The findings of the Commission, approved by the District Court, indicate clearly that neither of the Northern Lines individually controls the S. P. & S. However, it is equally clear that jointly they do manage and control it as effectively as if it' were part of their own lines. This is particularly true of its traffic policy, which is the heart of the problem here. However, appellants contend that, regardless of the factual circumstances, as a matter of law only a single railroad can operate or control another line within the meaning of the short-haul protection of § 15 (4).
The short-haul exception of § 15 (4) originated in the Mann-Elkins Act of 191Ó. 36 Stat. 539, 552. The crucial words “common management or control” were not defined and the subsequent legislative history of the provision is of little assistance to our inquiry. However, the overriding purpose of the Congress seems to have been the protection of the traffic of the controlling line. As Senator Elkins, a coauthor of the measure, stated to the Senate, the exception “is one which has always been recognized in the transportation business of the country. The road that initiates the freight and starts it on its movement in interstate commerce should not be required . . . to transfer its business from its own road to that of a competitor . . . when the commerce initiated by it can be as promptly and safely transported ... by its road as by the line of its competitor.” 45 Cong. Rec. 3475-3476. The same reasoning would equally apply here. Moreover, the Senate Report on the provision emphasizes the same purpose.
While the language of the section is framed in the singular, it appears to us that the reason for this exception is as valid and necessary in the case of two railroads owning a third as it is when only a single railroad and its subsidiary are involved. See Louisville & N. R. Co. v. United States, 242 U. S. 60 (1916), where this Court, in construing the discrimination provisions of the predecessor of § 3 (4) of the Act, stated, “[tjherefore, if either carrier owned and used this terminal alone it could not be found to discriminate against the Tennessee Central by merely refusing to switch for it ... . We conceive that what is true of one owner would be equally true of two joint owners . . . .” At p. 73.
. Appellants rely heavily on the fact that the Congress, in enacting the Transportation Act of 1940, broadened the definition of the term “control” in many of the sections of the Interstate Commerce Act but did not do so in § 15 (4), thereby indicating an intention to restrict the scope of the exception. This definition, however, was enacted as the result of this Court’s holding in Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125 (1939), which gave a broad construction to “control” as used in § 2 (b) of the Communications Act. 47 U. S. C. § 152 (b). It appears that the Congress decided to extend this broad definition to certain sections of the Interstate Commerce Act to insure Commission jurisdiction over persons in indirect .control of carriers. See H. R. Rep. No. 2016, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 58. If, however, that definition were applied to § 15 (4), the opposite result would obtain and the Commission’s power would be restricted, for the short-haul exception would then be afforded to carriers having only an indirect control of another line. For this reason, the Congress “thought [it] undesirable to make any change in the interpretation of present law, . . . notably . . . section 15 (4).” H. R. Rep. No. 2832, 76th Cong, 3d Sess. 63.
Apparently the phrase “operated in conjunction and under a common management or control” has received no prior judicial interpretation, as we have been unable to find any cases in point and have been referred to none by counsel. However, the decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission support the view that control of the traffic policy of an affiliate is sufficient to constitute “control” or “management” within the meaning of § 15 (4). The Commission’s conception of these terms was first expressed in a rate case, Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 87 I. C. C. 654 (1924), in which the Commission stated that “the term ‘carriers under the same management and control’. . . refers to carriers generally controlled through ownership, lease, or otherwise to the extent of controlling traffic policy, even though separate corporate entity may be maintained.” At p. 664. (Emphasis added.) In subsequent rate cases the Commission has continued to apply this criterion to determine whether or not lines are under the same “management” or “control.”
In another line of rate-making cases, the Commission has held that there can be joint management and control of a third railroad. In rate cases, the Commission generally prescribes a higher scale of distance rates for traffic moving over a combination of independent lines than it does for goods carried over a single line or over a parent-subsidiary system. The distinction is made because the latter are expected to result in economies of operation which should be passed on to the public. Livestock To, From, and Between Points in the Southeast, 101 I. C. C. 105 (1925). For the same reason, short or “weak” lines are allowed arbitrarles, i. e., differentially higher rates in addition to rate scales prescribed for general application, whereas - small railroads under the “management” or “control” of larger lines are not permitted the additional rates. Rate Structure Investigation, Part 13, Salt, 197 I. C. C. 115 (1933).
Unless the long haul of railroads, under joint management and control as interpreted by the rate-making cases, is protected by § 15 (4), the advantages which the Commission assumed existed, i. e., economies of operation, will be taken from them. The very reasons for applying the higher distance rates and denying arbitraries would cease to exist. Such a result, flowing from the failure to construe § 15 (4) as including joint control, would be clearly inconsistent with Commission policy in the rate-making cases. Therefore, the Commission has relied upon the same criteria in § 15 (4) cases. In Alabama, T. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 148 I. C. C. 708 (1928), the Commission specifically referred to its definition in Black-shear, supra, and applied the limitation of § 15 (4) to the three roads there involved. See also Georgia & F. R. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 191 I. C. C. 489 (1933). In fact, in seven separate proceedings involving the S. P. & S., the Commission has noted that for rate-making purposes it must be considered as part of the Northern Lines. In one of these proceedings, West Coast Lumbermen’s Assn. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 129 I. C. C. 363 (1927), joint through rates via Canada were sought to destinations served by the Milwaukee and the Northern Lines. It was urged that the joint rates, if they were prescribed, should be made over routes that would secure the long haul of these railroads. The Commission refused to establish the joint fates via the Canadian routes, holding, inter alia, that the S. P. & S. “is considered for rate-making purposes a part of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern.” At p. 364.
Likewise, the case of Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Carolina & N. R. Co., 204 I. C. C. 416 (1934), applied the Blackshear definition to discrimination cases under § 3 (4) of the Act. The Commission held that under §3 (3), the predecessor of § 3 (4), there could be no discrimination where the roads involved were under a common management and control. The Commission found that the Carolina & Northwestern officials “determine the policy to be adopted with regard to traffic matters local to that carrier, but in matters of common interest between the Southern and the Carolina & Northwestern, the policy determined by the Southern prevails. It is apparent, therefore, that both carriers are operated under a common management and control.” At p. 420. Although not a § 15 (4) case, it is significant, as pointed out by the District Court, because the Commission applied the Blackshear test and, upon finding the roads under common management and control, permitted them to retain the long haul as protected by § 15 (4). The interrelationship between the two sections as applied by the Commission indicates the necessity for the use of the same criteria as to control in each.
We do not consider the cases, relied upon by the appellants, to the contrary. Common management and control was not established. They were concerned with ownership, as distinguished from control, and even that by more than two railroads. There is nothing in these cases holding that such control cannot exist under the joint ownership and active management of two carriers. Nor do we feel that appellants’ other Commission cases are apposite.
Summarizing, we find that the Commission has for many years followed the Blackshear criteria as to what constitutes “common management” or “control.” Likewise, it has since permitted such management and control to be jointly exercised by more than one railroad. We believe that the Congress took note of these cases in 1940 when it decided not “to make any change in the interpretation” of the limitation provision of § 15 (4) of the Act. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this'case.
The S. P. & S. system is composed of the Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Co. and two wholly owned subsidiaries, the Oregon Trunk Railway and the Oregon Electric Railway Co.
49 U. S. C. § 15 (4) provides in pertinent part:
“In establishing any such through route the Commission shall not . . . require any carrier by railroad, without its consent, to embrace in such route substantially less than the entire length of its railroad and of any intermediate railroad operated in conjunction and under a common management or control therewith, which lies between the termini of such proposed through route . . . .”
“A 'through route’ is an arrangement, express or implied, between connecting railroads for the continuous carriage of goods from the originating point on the line of one carrier to destination on the line of another.” St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 136, 139, note 2 (1917).
“[T]he essential feature of a joint rate is that connecting roads have agreed or mutually consented to carry traffic from points bn one road to points on another road for an aggregate charge which is less than the sum of their local charges between the same points.” New York, N. H. & H. B. Co. v. Platt, 7 I. C. C. 323, 333 (1897).
“It would seem to be unreasonable to empower the commission to require a railroad company having a line of its own between two designated termini to allow a portion only of that line to be taken and linked up with other lines for the purpose of creating another through route in competition with it, thus depriving it of the natural advantage of possessing a direct line between the termini . . . .” S. Rep. No. 355, 61st Cong., 2d Sess. 10.
49 U. S. C. § 1 (3)(b).
Rates on Chert, Clay, Sand, and Gravel, 197 I. C. C. 215 (1933); Humbard Construction Co. v. Southern R. Co., 161 I. C. C. 38 (1930); Justice Co. v. Holton Interurban R. Co., 153 I. C. C. 673 (1929); Raleigh Freight Traffic Bureau v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 107 I. C. C. 156 (1926); Livestock To, From, and Between Points in the Southeast, 101 I. C. C. 105 (1925); Livestock To, From, and Between Points in the Southeast, 91 I. C. C. 292 (1924).
This group of cases is bottomed on Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Assn., 247 U. S. 490 (1918), wherein this Court found that two competitive railroads owning a subsidiary coequally did, for rate purposes, each “directly control and operate” the subsidiary and that the latter must be treated as a part of each of the two owning carriers. See Des Moines Union Ry. Switching, 231 I. C. C. 631 (1939); Blum Packing Co. v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 204 I. C. C. 93 (1934); Russ Market Co. v. Northwestern Pacific R. Co., 171 I. C. C. 117 (1930); Eriksen v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 102 I. C. C. 374 (1925); Pacific Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Pacific R. Co., 51 I. C. C. 738 (1918).
Helix Milling Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 287 I. C. C. 77 (1952); Pillsbury-Astoria Flour Mills Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 198 I. C. C. 642 (1934); Spokane, P. & S. R. Co., 41 I. C. C. Valuation Reports 1 (1932); West Coast Lumbermen’s Assn. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 129 I. C. C. 363 (1927); Inland Empire Shippers League v. Director General, 59 I. C. C. 321 (1920); Astoria v. Spokane, P. & S. R. Co., 38 I. C. C. (1916); Portland Chamber of Commerce v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co., 19 I. C. C. 265 (1910).
49 U. S. C. § 3 (4) provides in part that carriers “shall not discriminate in their rates, fares, and charges between connecting lines, or unduly prejudice any connecting line in- the distribution of traffic that is not specifically routed by the shipper.”
Manufacturers R. Co. v. Ahnapee & W. R. Co., 172 I. C. C. 554 (1931); Absorption of Switching Charges, 157 I. C. C. 129 (1929).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case originated in companion suits by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc. (NAACP), and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (Defense Fund), brought in 1957 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suits sought to restrain the enforcement of Chapters 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36 of the Virginia Acts of Assembly, 1956 Extra Session, on the ground that the statutes, as applied to the activities of the plaintiffs, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, after hearing evidence and making fact-findings, struck down Chapters 31, 32 and 35 but abstained from passing upon the validity of Chapters 33 and 36 pending an authoritative interpretation of these statutes by the Virginia courts. The complainants thereupon petitioned in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond to declare Chapters 33 and 36 inapplicable to their activities, or, if applicable, unconstitutional. The record in the Circuit Court was that made before the three-judge court supplemented by additional evidence. The Circuit Court held the chapters to be both applicable and constitutional. The holding was sustained by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals as to Chapter 33, but reversed as to Chapter 36, which was held unconstitutional under both state and federal law. Thereupon the Defense Fund returned to the Federal District Court, where its case is presently pending, while the NAACP filed the instant petition. We granted certiorari. 365 U. S. 842. We heard argument in the 1961 Term and ordered reargument this Term. 369 U. S. 833. Since no cross-petition was filed to review the Supreme Court of Appeals’ disposition of Chapter 36, the only issue before us is the constitutionality of Chapter 33 as applied to the activities of the NAACP.
There is no substantial dispute as to the facts; the dispute centers about the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of Chapter 33, as construed and applied by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to include NAACP’s activities within the statute’s ban against “the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business.”
The NAACP was formed in 1909 and incorporated under New York law as a nonprofit membership corporation in 1911. It maintains its headquarters in New York and presently has some 1,000 active unincorporated branches throughout the Nation. The corporation is licensed to do business in Virginia, and has 89 branches there. The Virginia branches are organized into the Virginia State Conference of NAACP Branches (the Conference), an unincorporated association, which in 1957 had some 13,500 members. The activities of the Conference are financed jointly by the national organization and the local branches from contributions and membership dues. NAACP policy, binding upon local branches and conferences, is set by the annual national convention.
The basic aims and purposes of NAACP are to secure the elimination of all racial barriers which deprive Negro citizens of the privileges and burdens of equal citizenship rights in the United States. To this end the Association engages in extensive educational and lobbying activities. It also devotes much of its funds and energies to an extensive program of assisting certain kinds of litigation on behalf of its declared purposes. For more than 10 years, the Virginia Conference has concentrated upon financing litigation aimed at ending racial segregation in the public schools of the Commonwealth.
The Conference ordinarily will finance only cases in which the assisted litigant retains an NAACP staff lawyer to represent him. The Conference maintains a legal staff of 15 attorneys, all of whom are Negroes and members of the NAACP. The staff is elected at the Conference’s annual convention. Each legal staff member must agree to abide by the policies of the NAACP, which, insofar as they pertain to professional services, limit the kinds of litigation which the NAACP will assist. Thus the NAÁCP will not underwrite ordinary damages actions, criminal actions in which the defendant raises no question of possible racial discrimination, or suits in which the plaintiff seeks separate but equal rather than fully desegregated public school facilities. The staff decides whether a litigant, who may or may not be an NAACP member, is entitled to NAACP assistance. The Conference defrays all expenses of litigation in an assisted case, and usually, although not always, pays each lawyer on the case a per diem fee not to exceed $60, plus out-of-pocket expenses. The assisted litigant receives no money from the Conference or the staff lawyers. The staff member may not accept, from the Jitigant or any other source, any other compensation for his services in an NAACP-assisted case. None of the staff receives a salary or. retainer from the NAACP; the per diem fee is paid only for professional services in a particular case. This per diem payment is smaller than the compensation ordinarily received for equivalent private professional work. The actual conduct of assisted litigation is under the control of the attorney, although the NAACP continues to be concerned that the outcome of the lawsuit should be consistent with NAACP’s policies already described. A client is free at any time to withdraw from an action.
The members of the legal staff of the Virginia Conference and other NAACP or Defense Fund lawyers called in by the staff to assist are drawn into litigation in various ways. One is for an aggrieved Negro to apply directly to the Conference or the legal staff for assistance. His application is referred to the Chairman of the legal staff. The Chairman, with the concurrence of the President of the Conference, is authorized to agree to give legal assistance in an appropriate case. In litigation involving public school segregation, the procedure tends to be different. Typically, a local NAACP branch will invite a member of the legal staff to explain to a meeting of parents and children the legal steps necessary to achieve desegregation. The staff member will bring printed forms to the meeting authorizing him, and other NAACP or Defense Fund attorneys of his designation, to represent the signers in legal proceedings to achieve-desegregation. On occasion, blank forms have been signed by litigants, upon the understanding that a member or members of the legal staff, with or without assistance from other NAACP lawyers, or from the Defense Fund, would handle the case. It is usual, after obtaining authorizations, for the staff lawyer to briiig into the case the other staff members in the area where suit is to be brought, and sometimes to bring in lawyers from the national organization or the Defense Fund. In effect, then, the prospective litigant retains not so much a particular attorney as the “firm” of NAACP and Defense Fund lawyers, which has a corporate reputation for expertness in presenting and arguing the difficult questions of law that frequently arise in civil rights litigation.
These meetings are sometimes prompted by letters and bulletins from the Conference urging active steps to fight segregation. The Conference has on occasion distributed to the local branches petitions for desegregation to be signed by parents and filed with local school boards, and advised branch officials to obtain, as petitioners, persons willing to “go all the way” in any possible litigation that may ensue. While the Conference in these ways encourages the bringing of lawsuits, the plaintiffs in particular actions, so far as appears, make their own decisions to become such.
Statutory regulation of unethical and nonprofessional conduct by attorneys has been in force in Virginia since 1849. These provisions outlaw, inter alia, solicitation of legal business in the form of “running” or “capping.” Prior to 1956, however, no attempt was made to proscribe under such regulations the activities of the NAACP, which had been carried on openly for many years in substantially the manner described. In 1956, however, the legislature amended, by the addition of Chapter 33, the provisions of the Virginia Code forbidding solicitation of legal business by a “runner” or “capper” to include, in the definition of “runner” or “capper,” an agent for an individual or organization which retains a lawyer in connection with an action to which it is not a party and in which it has no pecuniary right or liability. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the chapter's purpose “was to strengthen the existing statutes to further control the evils of solicitation of legal business....” 202 Va., at 154,116 S. E. 2d, at 65. The court held that the activities of NAACP, the Virginia Conference, the Defense Fund, and the lawyers furnished by them, fell within, and could constitutionally be proscribed by, the chapter’s expanded definition of improper solicitation of legal business, and also violated Canons 35 and 47 of the American Bar Association’s Canons of Professional Ethics, which the court had adopted in 1938. Specifically the court held that, under the expanded definition, such activities on the part of NAACP, the Virginia Conference, and the Defense Fund constituted “fomenting and soliciting legal business in which they are not parties and have no pecuniary right or liability, and which they channel to the enrichment of certain lawyers employed by them, at no cost to the litigants and over which the litigants have no control.” 202 Va., at 155; 116 S. E. 2d, at 66. Finally, the court restated the decree of the Richmond Circuit Court. We have excerpted the pertinent portion of the court's holding in the margin.
I.
A jurisdictional question must first be resolved: whether the judgment below was “final” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257. The three-judge Federal District Court retained jurisdiction of this case while an authoritative construction of Chapters 33 and 36 was being sought in the Virginia courts Cf. Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, Inc., 316 U. S. 168, 173. The question of our jurisdiction arises because, when the case was last here, we observed that such abstention to secure state court interpretation “does not, of course, involve the abdication [by the District Court] of federal jurisdiction, but only the postponement of its exercise....” Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 177. We meant simply that the District Court had properly retained jurisdiction, since a party has the right to return to the District Court, after obtaining the authoritative state court construction for which the court abstained, for a final determination of his claim. Where, however, the party remitted to the state courts elects to seek a complete and final adjudication of his rights in the state courts, the District Court’s reservation of jurisdiction is purely formal, and does not impair our jurisdiction to review directly an otherwise final state court judgment. Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U. S. 45. We think it clear that petitioner made such an election in the instant case, by seeking from the Richmond Circuit Court “a binding adjudication” of all its claims and a permanent injunction as well as declaratory relief, by making no reservation to the disposition of the entire case by the state courts, and by coming here directly on certiorari. Therefore, the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals was final, and the case is properly before us.
II.
Petitioner challenges the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals on many grounds. But we reach qnly one: that Chapter 33 as construed and applied abridges the freedoms of the First Amendment, protected against state action by the Fourteenth. More specifically, petitioner claims that the chapter infringes the right of the NAACP and its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights. We think petitioner may assert this right on its own behalf, because, though a corporation, it is directly engaged in those activities,.claimed to be constitutionally protected, which the statute would curtail. Cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233. We also think petitioner has standing to assert the corresponding rights of its members. See NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 458-460; Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 523, n. 9; Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 296.
We reverse the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the iegal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.
A.
We meet at the outset the contention that “solicitation” is wholly outside the area of freedoms protected by the First Amendment. To this contention there are two answers. The first is that a State cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels. The second is that abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 537; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 259-264. Cf. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369; Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4. In the context of NAACP objectives, litigation is not a technique of resolving private differences;' it is a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community in this country. It is thus a form of political expression. Groups which find themselves unable to achieve their objectives through the ballot frequently turn to the courts. Just as it was true of the opponents of New Deal legislation during the 1930’s, for example, no less is it true of the Negro minority today. And under the conditions of modern government, litigation may well be the sole practicable avenue open to a minority to petition for redress of grievances.
We need not, in order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, whereby Negroes seek through lawful means to achieve legitimate political ends, subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly. For there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity. Thus we have affirmed the right “to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas.” NAACP v. Alabama, supra, at 460. We have deemed privileged, under certain circumstances, the efforts of a union official to organize workers. Thomas v. Collins, supra. We have said that the Sherman Act does not apply to certain concerted activities of railroads “at least insofar as those activities comprised mere solicitation of governmental action with respect to the passage and enforcement of laws” because “such a construction of the Sherman Act would raise important constitutional questions,” specifically, First Amendment questions. Eastern R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127,138. And we have refused to countenance compelled disclosure of a person’s political associations in language closely applicable to the instant case:
“Our form of government is built on the premise that every citizen shall have the right to engage in political expression and association. This right was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Exercise of these basic freedoms in America has traditionally been through the media of political associations. Any interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents. All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups....” Sweezysr. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250-251 (plurality opinion). Cf. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364-366.
The NAACP is not a conventional political party; but the litigation it assists, while serving to vindicate the legal rights of members of the American Negro community, at the same time and perhaps more importantly, makes possible the distinctive contribution of a minority group to the ideas and beliefs of our society. For such a group, association for litigation may be the most effective form of political association.
B.
Our concern is with the impact of enforcement of Chapter 33 upon First Amendment freedoms. We start, of course, from the decree of the Supreme Court of Appeals. Although the action before it was one basically for declaratory relief, that court not only expounded the purpose and reach of the chapter but held concretely that certain of petitioner’s activities had, and certain others had not, violated the chapter. These activities had been explored in detail at the trial and were spread out plainly on the record. We have no doubt that the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals in the instant case was intended as a full and authoritative construction of Chapter 33 as applied in a detailed factual context. That construction binds us. For us, the words of Virginia’s highest court are the words of the statute. Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 317. We are not left to speculate at large upon the possible implications of bare statutory language.
But it does not follow that this Court now has only a clear-cut task to decide whether the activities of the petitioner deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court of Appeals are constitutionally privileged. If the line drawn by the decree between the permitted and prohibited activities of the NAACP, its members and lawyers is an ambiguous one, we will not presume that the statute curtails constitutionally protected activity as little as possible. For standards of permissible statutory vagueness are strict in the area of free expression. See Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 161; Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 509-510, 517-518; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359; United States v. C. I. O., 335 U. S. 106, 142 (Rutledge, J., concurring). Furthermore, the instant decree may be invalid if it prohibits privileged exercises of First Amendment rights whether or not the record discloses that the petitioner has engaged in privileged conduct. For in appraising a statute’s inhibitory effect upon such rights, this Court has not hesitated to take into account possible applications of the statute in other factual contexts besides that at bar. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98; Winters v. New York, supra, at 518-520. Cf. Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313. It makes no difference that the instant case was not a criminal prosecution and not based on a refusal to comply with a licensing requirement. The objectionable quality of vagueness and overbreadth does not depend upon absence of fair notice to a criminally accused or upon unchanneled delegation of legislative powers, but upon the danger of tolerating, in the area of First Amendment freedoms, the existence of a penal statute susceptible of sweeping and improper application. Cf. Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, 733. These freedoms are delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society. The threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions. Cf. Smith v. California, supra, at 151-154; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526. Because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 311.
We read the decree of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in the instant case as proscribing any arrangement by which prospective litigants are advised to seek the assistance of particular attorneys. No narrower reading is plausible. We cannot accept the reading suggested on behalf of the Attorney General of Virginia on the second oral argument that the Supreme Court of Appeals construed Chapter 33 as proscribing control only of the actual litigation by the NAACP after it is instituted. In the first place, upon a record devoid of any evidence of interference by the NAACP in the actual conduct of litigation, or neglect or harassment of clients, the court nevertheless held that petitioner, its members, agents and staff attorneys had practiced criminal solicitation. Thus, simple referral to or recommendation of a lawyer may be solicitation within the meaning of Chapter 33. In the second place, the decree does not seem to rest on the fact that the attorneys were organized as a staff and paid by petitioner. The decree expressly forbids solicitation on behalf of “any particular attorneys” in addition to attorneys retained or compensated by the NAACP. In the third place, although Chapter 33 purports to prohibit only solicitation by attorneys or their “agents,” it defines agent broadly as anyone who “represents” another in his dealings with a third person. Since the statute appears to depart from the common-law concept of the agency relationship and since the Virginia court did not clarify the statutory definition, we cannot say that it will not be applied with the broad sweep which the statutory language imports.
We conclude that under Chapter 33, as authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court of Appeals, a person who advises another that his legal rights have been infringed and refers him to a particular attorney or group of attorneys (for example, to the Virginia Conference’s legal staff) for assistance has committed a crime, as has the attorney who knowingly renders assistance under such circumstances. There thus inheres in the statute the gravest danger of smothering all discussion looking to the eventual institution of litigation on behalf of the rights of members of an unpopular minority. Lawyers on the legal staff or even mere NAACP members or sympathizers would understandably hesitate, at an NAACP meeting or on any other occasion, to do what the decree purports to allow, namely, acquaint “persons with what they believe to be their legal rights and... [advise] them to assert their rights by commencing or further prosecuting a suit....” For if the lawyers, members or sympathizers also appeared in or had any connection with any litigation supported with NAACP funds contributed under the provision of the decree by which the NAACP is not prohibited “from contributing money to persons to assist them in commencing or further prosecuting such suits,” they plainly would risk (if lawyers) disbarment proceedings and, lawyers and nonlawyers alike, criminal prosecution for the offense of “solicitation,” to which the Virginia court gave so broad and uncertain a meaning. It makes no difference whether such prosecutions or proceedings would actually be commenced. It is enough that a vague and broad statute lends itself to selective enforcement against unpopular causes. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the militant Negro civil rights movement has engendered the intense resentment and opposition of the politically dominant white community of Virginia; litigation assisted by the NAACP has been bitterly fought. In such circumstances, a statute broadly curtailing group activity leading to litigation may easily become a weapon of oppression, however evenhanded its terms appear. Its mere existence could well freeze out of existence all such activity on behalf of the civil rights of Negro citizens.
It is apparent, therefore, that Chapter 33 as construed limits First Amendment freedoms. As this Court said in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 537, “ ‘Free trade in ideas’ means free trade in the opportunity to persuade to action, not merely to describe facts.” Thomas was convicted for delivering a speech in connection with an impending union election under National Labor Relations Board auspices, without having first registered as a “labor organizer.” He urged workers to exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act and join the union he represented. This Court held that the registration requirement as applied to his activities was constitutionally invalid. In the instant case, members of the NAACP urged Negroes aggrieved by the allegedly unconstitutional segregation of public schools in Virginia to exercise their legal rights and to retain members of the Association’s legal staff. Like Thomas, the Association and its members were advocating lawful means of vindicating legal rights.
We hold that Chapter 33 as construed violates the Fourteenth Amendment by unduly inhibiting protected freedoms of expression and association. In so holding, we reject two further contentions of respondents. The first is that the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has guaranteed free expression by expressly confirming petitioner’s right to continue its advocacy of civil-rights litigation. But in light of the whole decree of the court, the guarantee is of purely speculative value. As construed by the Court, Chapter 33, at least potentially, prohibits every cooperative activity that would make advocacy of litigation meaningful. If there is an internal tension between proscription and protection in the statute, we cannot assume that, in its subsequent enforcement, ambiguities will be resolved in favor of adequate protection of First Amendment rights. Broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect. See, e. g., Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479; Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293. Cf. Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U. S. 147, 162. Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.
C.
The second contention is that Virginia has a subordinating interest in the regulation of the legal profession, embodied in Chapter 33, which justifies limiting petitioner’s First Amendment rights. Specifically, Virginia contends that the NAACP’s activities in furtherance of litigation, being “improper solicitation” under the state statute, fall within the traditional purview of state regulation of professional conduct. However, the State’s attempt to equate the activities of the NAACP and its lawyers with common-law barratry, maintenance and champerty, and to outlaw them accordingly, cannot obscure the serious encroachment worked by Chapter 33 upon protected freedoms of expression. The decisions of this Court have consistently held that only a compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State’s constitutional power to regulate can justify limiting First Amendment freedoms. Thus it is no answer to the constitutional claims asserted by petitioner to say, as the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has said, that the purpose of these regulations was merely to insure high professional standards and not to curtail free expression. For a State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights. See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232; Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U. S. 252. Cf. In re Sawyer, 360 U. S. 622. In NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 461, we said, “In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association, the decisions of this Court recognize that abridgment of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action.” Later, in Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 524, we said, “[w]here there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling.” Most recently, in Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 297, we reaffirmed this principle: “... regulatory measures... no matter how sophisticated, cannot be employed in purpose or in effect to stifle, penalize, or curb the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
However valid may be Virginia’s interest in regulating the traditionally illegal practices of barratry, maintenance and champerty, that interest does not justify the prohibition of the NAACP activities disclosed by this record. Malicious intent was of the essence of the common-law offenses of fomenting or stirring up litigation. And whatever may be or may have been true of suits against government in other countries, the exercise in our own, as in this case, of First Amendment rights to enforce constitutional rights through litigation, as a matter of law, cannot be deemed malicious. Even more modern, subtler regulations of unprofessional conduct or interference with professional relations, not involving malice, would not touch the activities at bar; regulations which reflect hostility to stirring up litigation have been aimed chiefly at those who urge recourse to the courts for private gain, serving no public interest. Hostility still exists to stirring up private litigation where it promotes the use of legal machinery to oppress: as, for example, to sow discord in a family; to expose infirmities in land titles, as by hunting up claims of adverse possession; to harass large companies through a multiplicity of small claims; or to oppress debtors as by seeking out unsatisfied judgments. For a member of the bar to participate, directly or through intermediaries, in such misuses of the legal process is conduct traditionally condemned as injurious to the public. And beyond this, for a lawyer to attempt to reap gain by urging another to engage in private litigation has also been condemned: that seems to be the import of Canon 28, which the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has adopted as one of its Rules.
Objection to the intervention of a lay intermediary, who may control litigation or otherwise interfere with the rendering of legal services in a confidential relationship, also derives from the element of pecuniary gain. Fearful of dangers thought to arise from that element, the courts of several States have sustained regulations aimed at these activities. We intimate no view one way or the other as to the merits of those decisions with respect to the particular arrangements against which they are directed. It is enough that the superficial resemblance in form between those arrangements and that at bar cannot obscure the vital fact that here the entire arrangement employs constitutionally privileged means of expression to secure constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. There has been no showing of a serious danger here of professionally reprehensible conflicts of interest which rules against solicitation frequently seek to prevent. This is so partly because no monetary stakes are involved, and so there is no danger that the attorney will desert or subvert the paramount interests of his client to enrich himself or an outside sponsor. And the aims and interests of NAACP have not been shown to conflict with those of its members and nonmember Negro litigants; compare NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 459, where we said:
“[the NAACP] and its members are in every practical sense identical. The Association, which provides in its constitution that ‘[a]ny person who is in accordance with [its] principles and policies...’ may become a member, is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their own views.” See also Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 177.
Resort to the courts to seek vindication of constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain. Lawsuits attacking racial discrimination, at least in Virginia, are neither very profitable nor very popular. They are not an object of general competition among Virginia lawyers; the problem is rather one of an apparent dearth of lawyers who are willing to undertake such litigation. There has been neither claim nor proof that any assisted Negro litigants have desired, but have been prevented from retaining, the services of other counsel. We realize that an NAACP lawyer must derive personal satisfaction from participation in litigation on behalf of Negro rights, else he would hardly be inclined to participate at the risk of financial sacrifice. But this would not seem to be the kind of interest or motive which induces criminal conduct.
We conclude that although the petitioner has amply shown that its activities fall within the First Amendment’s protections, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner’s activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed. Nothing that this record shows as to the nature and purpose of NAACP activities permits an inference of any injurious intervention in or control of litigation which would constitutionally authorize the application of Chapter 33 to those activities. A fortiori, nothing in this record justifies the breadth and vagueness of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ decree.
A final observation is in order. Because our disposition is rested on the First Amendment as absorbed in the Fourteenth, we do not reach the considerations of race or racial discrimination which are the predicate of petitioner’s challenge to the statute under the Equal Protection Clause. That the petitioner happens to be engaged in activities of expression and association on behalf of the rights of Negro children to equal opportunity is constitutionally irrelevant to the ground of our decision. The course of our decisions in the First Amendment area makes plain that its protections would apply as fully to those who would arouse our society against the objectives of the petitioner. See, e. g., Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697; Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290. For the Constitution protects expression and association without regard to the race, creed, or political or religious affiliation of the members of the group which invokes its shield, or to the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.
Reversed.
NAACP v. Patty, 159 F. Supp. 503 (D. C. E. D. Va. 1958). On direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, from the judgment striking down Chapters 31, 32 and 35, this Court reversed, remanding with instructions to permit the complainants to seek an authoritative interpretation of the statutes in the Virginia courts. Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167. In ensuing litigation, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond held most of the provisions of the three chapters unconstitutional. NAACP v. Harrison, Chancery causes No. B-2879 and No. B-2880, Aug. 31, 1962.
NAACP v. Harrison, 202 Va. 142, 116 S. E. 2d 55 (1960). Chapter 36, which is codified in § 18.1-394 et seq., Code of Virginia (1960 Repl. Vol.), prohibits the advocacy of suits against the Commonwealth and the giving of any assistance, financial or otherwise, to such suits.
Certiorari was first granted sub nom. NAACP v. Gray. The litigation began sub nom. NAACP v. Patty, Attorney General of Virginia. During the course of the litigation the names of successive holders of that office have been substituted as party respondent. See Supreme Court Rule 48, par. 3, as amended. 366 U. S. 979.
However, the record contains two instances where Negro litigants had retained attorneys, not on the legal staff, prior to seeking financial assistance from the Conference. The Conference rendered substantial financial assistance in both cases. In one case the Conference paid the attorney’s fee.
The Defense Fund, which is not involved in the present phase of the litigation, is a companion body to the NAACP. It is also a nonprofit New York corporation licensed to do business in Virginia, and has the same general purposes and policies as the NAACP. The Fund maintains a legal staff in New York City and retains regional counsel elsewhere, one of whom is in Virginia. Social scientists, law professors and law students throughout the country donate their services to the Fund without compensation. When requested by the NAACP, the Defense Fund provides assistance in the form of legal research and counsel.
Seven persons who were or had been plaintiffs
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
The Chief Justice ..took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service) has broad statutory authority to summon a taxpayer to produce documents or give testimony relevant to determining tax liability. If the taxpayer fails to comply, the IRS may petition a federal district court to enforce the summons. In an enforcement proceeding, the IRS must show that it issued the summons in good faith.
This case requires us to consider when a taxpayer, as part of such a proceeding, has a right to question IRS officials about their reasons for issuing a summons. We hold, contrary to the Court of Appeals below, that a bare allegation of improper purpose does not entitle a taxpayer to examine IRS officials. Rather, the taxpayer has a right to conduct that examination when he points to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith.
I
Congress has "authorized and required" the IRS "to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes" the Internal Revenue Code imposes. 26 U.S.C. § 6201(a). And in support of that authority, Congress has granted the Service broad latitude to issue summonses "[f]or the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax ..., or collecting any such liability." § 7602(a). Such a summons directs a taxpayer (or associated person 1) to appear before an IRS official and to provide sworn testimony or produce "books, papers, records, or other data ... relevant or material to [a tax] inquiry." § 7602(a)(1).
If a taxpayer does not comply with a summons, the IRS may bring an enforcement action in district court. See §§ 7402(b), 7604(a). In that proceeding, we have held, the IRS "need only demonstrate good faith in issuing the summons." United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 359, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989). More specifically, that means establishing what have become known as the Powell factors: "that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the [IRS's] possession, and that the administrative steps required by the [Internal Revenue] Code have been followed." United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964). To make that showing, the IRS usually files an affidavit from the responsible investigating agent. See Stuart, 489 U.S., at 360, 109 S.Ct. 1183. The taxpayer, however, has an opportunity to challenge that affidavit, and to urge the court to quash the summons "on any appropriate ground"-including, as relevant here, improper purpose. See Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 449, 84 S.Ct. 508, 11 L.Ed.2d 459 (1964).
The summons dispute in this case arose from an IRS examination of the tax returns of Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership (Dynamo) for the 2005-2007 tax years. The IRS harbored suspicions about large interest expenses that those returns had reported. As its investigation proceeded, the Service persuaded Dynamo to agree to two year-long extensions of the usual 3-year limitations period for assessing tax liability; in 2010, with that period again drawing to a close, Dynamo refused to grant the IRS a third extension. Shortly thereafter, in September and October 2010, the IRS issued summonses to the respondents here, four individuals associated with Dynamo whom the Service believed had information and records relevant to Dynamo's tax obligations. None of the respondents complied with those summonses. In December 2010 (still within the augmented limitations period), the IRS issued a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment proposing changes to Dynamo's returns that would result in greater tax liability. Dynamo responded in February 2011 by filing suit in the United States Tax Court to challenge the adjustments. That litigation remains pending. A few months later, in April 2011, the IRS instituted proceedings in District Court to compel the respondents to comply with the summonses they had gotten.
Those enforcement proceedings developed into a dispute about the IRS's reasons for issuing the summonses. The IRS submitted an investigating agent's affidavit attesting to the Powell factors; among other things, that declaration maintained that the testimony and records sought were necessary to "properly investigate the correctness of [Dynamo's] federal tax reporting" and that the summonses were "not issued to harass or for any other improper purpose." App. 26, 34. In reply, the respondents pointed to circumstantial evidence that, in their view, suggested "ulterior motive[s]" of two different kinds. App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a. First, the respondents asserted that the IRS issued the summonses to "punish[ ] [Dynamo] for refusing to agree to a further extension of the applicable statute of limitations." App. 52. More particularly, they stated in sworn declarations that immediately after Dynamo declined to grant a third extension of time, the IRS, "despite having not asked for additional information for some time, ... suddenly issued" the summonses. Id., at 95. Second, the respondents averred that the IRS decided to enforce the summonses, subsequent to Dynamo's filing suit in Tax Court, to "evad[e] the Tax Court['s] limitations on discovery" and thus gain an unfair advantage in that litigation. Id., at 53. In support of that charge, the respondents submitted an affidavit from the attorney of another Dynamo associate, who had chosen to comply with a summons issued at the same time. The attorney reported that only the IRS attorneys handling the Tax Court case, and not the original investigating agents, were present at the interview of his client. In light of those submissions, the respondents asked for an opportunity to question the agents about their motives.
The District Court denied that request and ordered the respondents to comply with the summonses. According to the court, the respondents "ha[d] made no meaningful allegations of improper purpose" warranting examination of IRS agents. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. The court characterized the respondents' statute-of-limitations theory as "mere conjecture." Id., at 14a. And it ruled that the respondents' evasion-of-discovery-limits claim was "incorrect as a matter of law" because "[t]he validity of a summons is tested as of the date of issuance," not enforcement-and the Tax Court proceedings had not yet begun when the IRS issued the summonses. Id., at 15a.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the District Court's refusal to allow the respondents to examine IRS agents constituted an abuse of discretion. In support of that ruling, the Court of Appeals cited binding Circuit precedent holding that a simple "allegation of improper purpose," even if lacking any "factual support," entitles a taxpayer to "question IRS officials concerning the Service's reasons for issuing the summons." 517 Fed.Appx. 689, 691 (2013) (quoting United States v. Southeast First Nat. Bank of Miami Springs, 655 F.2d 661, 667 (C.A.5 1981)); see Nero Trading, LLC v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 570 F.3d 1244, 1249 (C.A.11 2009) (reaffirming Southeast ).
Every other Court of Appeals has rejected the Eleventh Circuit's view that a bare allegation of improper motive entitles a person objecting to an IRS summons to examine the responsible officials.2 We granted certiorari to resolve that conflict, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 895, 187 L.Ed.2d 701 (2014), and we now vacate the Eleventh Circuit's opinion.
II
A person receiving an IRS summons is, as we have often held, entitled to contest it in an enforcement proceeding. See United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 146, 95 S.Ct. 915, 43 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975); Powell, 379 U.S., at 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248;Reisman, 375 U.S., at 449, 84 S.Ct. 508. The power "vested in tax collectors may be abused, as all power" may be abused. Bisceglia, 420 U.S., at 146, 95 S.Ct. 915. In recognition of that possibility, Congress made enforcement of an IRS summons contingent on a court's approval. See 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b). And we have time and again stated that the requisite judicial proceeding is not ex parte but adversarial. See Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 527, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971); Powell, 379 U.S., at 58, 85 S.Ct. 248;Reisman, 375 U.S., at 446, 84 S.Ct. 508. The summoned party must receive notice, and may present argument and evidence on all matters bearing on a summons's validity. See Powell, 379 U.S., at 58, 85 S.Ct. 248.
Yet we have also emphasized that summons enforcement proceedings are to be "summary in nature." Stuart, 489 U.S., at 369, 109 S.Ct. 1183. The purpose of a summons is "not to accuse," much less to adjudicate, but only "to inquire." Bisceglia, 420 U.S., at 146, 95 S.Ct. 915. And such an investigatory tool, we have recognized, is a crucial backstop in a tax system based on self-reporting. See ibid. (restricting summons authority would enable "dishonest persons [to] escap[e] taxation[,] thus shifting heavier burdens to honest taxpayers"). Accordingly, we long ago held that courts may ask only whether the IRS issued a summons in good faith, and must eschew any broader role of "oversee[ing] the [IRS's] determinations to investigate." Powell, 379 U.S., at 56, 85 S.Ct. 248. So too, we stated that absent contrary evidence, the IRS can satisfy that standard by submitting a simple affidavit from the investigating agent. See Stuart, 489 U.S., at 359-360, 109 S.Ct. 1183. Thus, we have rejected rules that would "thwart and defeat the [Service's] appropriate investigatory powers." Donaldson, 400 U.S., at 533, 91 S.Ct. 534.
The balance we have struck in prior cases comports with the following rule, applicable here: As part of the adversarial process concerning a summons's validity, the taxpayer is entitled to examine an IRS agent when he can point to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith. Naked allegations of improper purpose are not enough: The taxpayer must offer some credible evidence supporting his charge. But circumstantial evidence can suffice to meet that burden; after all, direct evidence of another person's bad faith, at this threshold stage, will rarely if ever be available. And although bare assertion or conjecture is not enough, neither is a fleshed out case demanded: The taxpayer need only make a showing of facts that give rise to a plausible inference of improper motive. That standard will ensure inquiry where the facts and circumstances make inquiry appropriate, without turning every summons dispute into a fishing expedition for official wrongdoing. And the rule is little different from the one that both the respondents and the Government have recommended to us.3
But that is not the standard the Eleventh Circuit applied. Although the respondents gamely try to put another face on the opinion below, see Brief for Respondents 24-25, and n. 17, we have no doubt that the Court of Appeals viewed even bare allegations of improper purpose as entitling a summons objector to question IRS agents. The court in fact had some evidence before it pertaining to the respondents' charges: The respondents, for example, had submitted one declaration relating the timing of the summonses to Dynamo's refusal to extend the limitations period, see App. 95, and another aiming to show that the IRS was using the summonses to obtain discovery it could not get in Tax Court, see id., at 97-100. But the Eleventh Circuit never assessed whether those (or any other) materials plausibly supported an inference of improper motive; indeed, the court never mentioned the proffered evidence at all. Instead, and in line with Circuit precedent, the court applied a categorical rule, demanding the examination of IRS agents even when a taxpayer made only conclusory allegations. See supra, at 2366. That was error. On remand, the Court of Appeals must consider the respondents' submissions in light of the standard we have stated.
That consideration must as well give appropriate deference to the District Court's ruling. An appellate court, as the Eleventh Circuit noted, reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to order-or not-the questioning of IRS agents. See 517 Fed.Appx., at 691, n. 2;Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 324, n. 7, 105 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed.2d 678 (1985). That standard of review reflects the district court's superior familiarity with, and understanding of, the dispute; and it comports with the way appellate courts review related matters of case management, discovery, and trial practice. See, e.g.,Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 172-173, 110 S.Ct. 482, 107 L.Ed.2d 480 (1989); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599-601, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals must take into account on remand the District Court's broad discretion to determine whether a taxpayer has shown enough to require the examination of IRS investigators.
But two caveats to that instruction are in order here. First, the District Court's decision is entitled to deference only if based on the correct legal standard. See Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 2217, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011) ("A trial court has wide discretion when, but only when, it calls the game by the right rules"). We leave to the Court of Appeals the task of deciding whether the District Court asked and answered the relevant question-once again, whether the respondents pointed to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of improper motive.
And second, the District Court's latitude does not extend to legal issues about what counts as an illicit motive. As indicated earlier, one such issue is embedded in the respondents' claim that the Government moved to enforce these summonses to gain an unfair advantage in Tax Court litigation. See supra, at 2366. The Government responds, and the District Court agreed, that any such purpose is irrelevant because "the validity of a summons is judged at the time" the IRS originally issued the summons, and here that preceded the Tax Court suit. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7; see Reply Brief 19-20; App. to Pet. for Cert. 15a. Similarly, with respect to the respondents' alternative theory, the Government briefly suggested at argument that issuing a summons because "a taxpayer declined to extend a statute of limitations would [not] be an improper purpose," even assuming that happened here. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. We state no view on those issues; they are not within the question presented for our review. We note only that they are pure questions of law, so if they arise again on remand, the Court of Appeals has no cause to defer to the District Court. Cf. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) ("A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law").
For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
The IRS has authority to summon not only "the person liable for tax," but also "any officer or employee of such person," any person having custody of relevant "books of account," and "any other person the [IRS] may deem proper." 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a)(2). For convenience, this opinion refers only to the "taxpayer."
See, e.g.,Sugarloaf Funding, LLC v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 584 F.3d 340, 350-351 (C.A.1 2009) (requiring "a sufficient threshold showing that there was an improper purpose"); Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 121 (C.A.9 1995) (requiring "some minimal amount of evidence" beyond "mere memoranda of law or allegations" (internal quotations and alterations omitted)); United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 540 (C.A.7 1981) (requiring "develop[ment] [of] facts from which a court might infer a possibility of some wrongful conduct"); United States v. Garden State Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 61, 71 (C.A.3 1979) (requiring "factual[ ] support[ ] by the taxpayer's affidavits").
See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29 (respondents) (The taxpayer is entitled to question the agent "when he presents specific facts from which an improper purpose ... may plausibly be inferred"); id., at 5 (United States) ("[A] summons opponent has to put in enough evidence to at least raise an inference" of improper motive, and "[c]ircumstantial evidence is enough").
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Per Curiam.
The question presented in this case is the power of a State to prohibit topless dancing in an establishment licensed by the State to serve liquor. In 1977, the State of New York amended its Alcoholic Beverage Control Law to prohibit nude dancing in establishments licensed by the State to sell liquor for on-premises consumption. N. Y. Aleo. Bev. Cont. Law, § 106, subd. 6-a (McKinney Supp. 1980-1981 ). The statute does not provide for criminal penalties, but its violation may cause an establishment to lose its liquor license.
Respondents, owners of nightclubs, bars, and restaurants which had for a number of years offered topless dancing, brought a declaratory judgment action in state court, alleging that the statute violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution insofar as it prohibits all topless dancing in all licensed premises. The New York Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 50 N. Y. 2d 524, 407 N. E. 2d 460. It reasoned that topless dancing was a form-of protected expression under the First Amendment and that the State had not demonstrated a need for prohibiting “licensees from presenting nonobscene topless dancing performances to willing customers . . . Id., at 529, 407 N. E. 2d, at 463. The dissent contended that the statute was well within the State’s power, conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment, to regulate the sale of liquor within its boundaries. We agree with the reasoning of the dissent and now reverse the decision of the New York Court of Appeals.
This Court has long recognized that a State has absolute power under the Twenty-first Amendment to prohibit totally the sale of liquor within its boundaries. Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 U. S. 132, 138 (1939). It is equally well established that a State has broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the times, places, and circumstances under which liquor may be sold. In California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109 (1972), we upheld the facial constitutionality of a statute prohibiting acts of “gross sexuality,” including the display of the genitals and live or filmed performances of sexual acts, in establishments licensed by the State to serve liquor. Although we recognized that not all of the prohibited acts would be found obscene and were therefore entitled to some measure of First Amendment protection, we reasoned that the statute was within the State’s broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the sale of liquor.
In Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975), we considered a First Amendment challenge to a local ordinance which prohibited females from appearing topless not just in bars, but “any public place.” Though we concluded that the District Court had not abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance, that decision does not limit our holding in LaRue. First, because Doran arose in the context of a preliminary injunction, we limited our standard of review to whether the District Court abused its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claim, not whether the ordinance actually violated the First Amendment. Thus, the decision may not be considered a “final judicial decision based on the actual merits of the controversy.” University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390, 396 (1981). Second, the ordinance was far broader than the ordinance ‘involved either in LaRue or here, since it proscribed conduct at “any public place,” a term that “ ‘could include the theater, town hall, opera place, as well as a public market place, street or any place of assembly, indoors or outdoors.’ ” 422 U. S., at 933 (quoting Salem Inn, Inc. v. Frank, 364 F. Supp. 478, 483 (EDNY 1973)). Here, in contrast, the State has not attempted to ban topless dancing in “any public place”: As in LaRue, the statute’s prohibition applies only to establishments which are licensed by the State to serve liquor. Indeed, we explicitly recognized in Doran that a more narrowly drawn statute would survive judicial scrutiny:
“Although the customary ‘barroom’ type of nude dancing may involve only the barest minimum of protected expression, we recognized in California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 118 (1972), that this form of entertainment might be entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection under some circumstances. In LaRue, however, we concluded that the broad powers of the States to regulate the sale of liquor, conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment, outweighed any First Amendment interest in nude dancing and that a State could therefore ban such dancing as part of its liquor license control program.” 422 U. S., at 932-933.
Judged by the standards announced in LaRue and Doran, the statute at issue here is not unconstitutional. What the New York Legislature has done in this case is precisely what this Court in Doran has said a State may do. Pursuant to its power to regulate the sale of liquor within its boundaries, it has banned topless dancing in establishments granted a license to serve liquor. The State’s power to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages entirely includes the lesser power to ban the sale of liquor on premises where topless dancing occurs.
Respondents nonetheless insist that LaRue is distinguishable from this case, since the statute there prohibited acts of "gross sexuality” and was well supported by legislative findings demonstrating a need for the rule. They argue that the statute here is unconstitutional as applied to topless dancing because there is no legislative finding that topless dancing poses anywhere near the problem posed by acts of "gross sexuality.” But even if explicit legislative findings were required to uphold the constitutionality of this statute as applied to topless dancing, those findings exist in this case. The purposes of the statute have been set forth in an accompanying legislative memorandum, New York State Legislative Annual 150 (1977).
"Nudity is the kind of conduct that is a proper subject for legislative action as well as regulation by the State Liquor Authority as a phase of liquor licensing. It has long been held that sexual acts and performances may constitute disorderly behavior within the meaning of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law ....
“Common sense indicates that any form of nudity coupled with alcohol in a public place begets undesirable behavior. This legislation prohibiting nudity in public will once and for all, outlaw conduct which is now quite out of hand.”
In short, the elected representatives of the State of New York have chosen to avoid the disturbances associated with mixing alcohol and nude dancing by means of a reasonable restriction upon establishments which sell liquor for on-premises consumption. Given the “added presumption in favor of the validity of the state regulation” conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment, California v. LaRue, 409 U. S., at 118, we cannot agree with the New York Court of Appeals that the statute violates the United States Constitution. Whatever artistic or communicative value may attach to topless dancing is overcome by the State’s exercise of its broad powers arising under the Twenty-first Amendment. Although some may quarrel with the wisdom of such legislation and may consider topless dancing a harmless diversion, the Twenty-first Amendment makes that a policy judgment for the state legislature, not the courts.
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. T, . 7 7
It is so ordered.
Justice Marshall concurs in the judgment.
Justice Brennan dissents from the summary disposition and would set the case for oral argument.
The statute provides:
“No retail licensee for on premises consumption shall suffer or permit any person to appear on licensed premises in such manner or attire as to expose to view any portion of the pubic area, anus, vulva or genitals, or any simulation thereof, nor shall suffer or permit any female to appear on licensed premises in such manner or attire as to expose to view any portion of the breast below the top of the areola, or any simulation thereof.”
The Twenty-first Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Court has before it the motions of the United States for judgment and of Louisiana for leave to take depositions. As a result of its consideration of these matters, including the representations made by the State of Texas in its amicus curiae brief, the Court is of the opinion that the issues in this litigation are so related to the possible interests of Texas, and other States situated on the Gulf of Mexico, in the subject matter of this suit, that the just, orderly, and effective determination of such issues requires that they be adjudicated in a proceeding in which all the interested parties are before the Court.
Accordingly, to that end, the Court, acting pursuant to Rules 9 (2) and (6) of its Revised Rules, Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the general equity powers of the Court, grants leave to each of the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas to intervene in this suit within 60 days from the date of this opinion, with leave to the United States, within 60 days thereafter, to file an amended or supplemental complaint adding as parties to this suit any of such States as shall not have so intervened. The bringing in of such additional parties shall be without prejudice to the present motions of the United States and Louisiana, subject only to such terms as justice may require vis-á-vis the additional parties. Meanwhile such motions are continued.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, owner of Wallace and Hand patent No. 2,236,387, filed a complaint against this petitioner for infringement of claims 1 to 6, 8 to 13, 15 and 16. The District Court held the claims invalid for want of patentable invention and dismissed the complaint. 67 F. Supp. 814. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held the claims valid and reversed. 164 F. 2d 861. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had previously affirmed a district court’s invalidation of the same patent. Wallace v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 45 F. Supp. 465; 133 F. 2d 763. To resolve the conflict we granted certiorari.
The patent is for an “improved” cosmetic preparation to retard or inhibit perspiration. Prior to application for the patent (1938), many antiperspirants were on the market containing acid salts of a metal, usually aluminum chloride or aluminum sulfate. The acidity produced by these acid-reacting salts is an astringent which retards perspiration. But, as stated in the patent specifications, the acid sometimes irritates the skin and also rots clothing to which the acid may adhere, particularly when that clothing is heated by ironing. Thus in the old antiperspirants the astringent qualities of the acid were desirable because essential to their effectiveness in retarding perspiration; on the other hand, the skin irritating and cloth corroding qualities of the acid were obviously undesirable. This was the problem as posed by the patent application.
The patent specifications asserted and the District Court found that though standard alkalies would neutralize and thus reduce acidity and consequent skin irritation and cloth corrosion, these alkalies would by neutralizing acidity also reduce the astringency essential to check perspiration. The claimed discovery of the patent is in adding to the old acid-salts cosmetics certain types of the reactive amino chemical group, particularly urea. This addition, the patentees asserted, results in an improved compound which checks perspiration but neither irritates the skin nor corrodes the clothing.
The District Court found that the addition of urea to the older preparations greatly reduced whatever likelihood there had been that application of the preparation would irritate skin or corrode garments. It found that the patentees were the first persons to use urea as a corrosion inhibiting agent in an antiperspirant. But the District Court also found that prior to the patentees’ alleged discovery the use of urea as an anticorrosive agent was already a matter of public knowledge, and that it had previously been used as a corrosion inhibitor in compounds other than antiperspirants. As a conse-x quence of these findings, the District Court held the patent invalid. The District Court and the United States Court of Appeals in the case of Wallace v. F. W. Woolworth Co., supra, had held the patent invalid for the same reason.
Long prior to this patent, it was generally recognized in the chemical field that urea would react with acids, bases, and salts to produce new substances. Urea had been in general use wherever these results were desirable for chemical stabilizations. And respondent concedes that before application was made for this patent it was commonly known, at least by chemists, that urea would react with acids in a manner which would reduce their corrosiveness. These facts are made clear by this record, by the opinions of the four courts that considered this patent, and by their discussions of the prior patents relied on by the respondent here.
Prior patents (Schupphaus, No. 514,838, and Koch No. 2,011,292) had suggested use of urea as a stabilizer against decomposition of chemical combinations into deleterious acidic substances. It may be assumed that these patents standing alone would not have taught these patentees to experiment with urea to solve their cosmetic problem. They do, however, show the state of the prior art and point to the possibility of using urea to inhibit unwanted decomposition of substances containing acid or acid salts. Indeed, Koch dealt with the addition of urea to aluminum salts. And Missbach, in No. 2,069,711, proposed to protect clothes from the deleterious effects of dry cleaning fluids by the use of urea to prevent injury due to acidic substances brought about by acidic reactions of carbon tetrachloride. He claimed his invention provided “an effective corrosion inhibitor.”
Shipp patent No. 2,174,534 pointed out that “certain uses of sulfuric acids on textiles are so advantageous that endeavors have been made to so treat textiles with sulfuric acid as to obtain the desired effects but to avoid the undesirable effects.” The undesirable result Shipp wanted to eliminate was the “marked degrading or disintegrating effect on cellulose fibers” of “strong sulfuric acid.” He therefore proposed use of an agent “capable of inhibiting or at least greatly retarding the normal degrading action of strong sulfuric acid upon cellulose.” The “inhibiting” agent there proposed was urea or other materials such as “an amide alone or an amide and an amine . . . .” The corrosion “inhibiting” agents here are amino groups which include urea.
Respondent contends that the Shipp patent is irrelevant. He urges that the Shipp preparation merely retards corrosion on cloth whereas respondent’s stops corrosion completely. He also points out that Shipp dealt with sulfuric acid and not an acid salt as is involved in this patent. He argues that the teachings of the Shipp and other patents would not have led a chemist skilled in his art to undertake the experiment which eventuated in the success of these patentees. He takes this position because in the use of alkalies and even of urea with plain acids, the acids did not retain their full effectiveness as antiperspirants. The natural conclusion of a chemist, he argues, would have been that urea would result in the same failure if combined with the acid salts involved in his patent. But it did not. Urea combined with acid salts brought about the desired result. This result he therefore contends was a “paradoxical” one, unpredictable by a skilled chemist. Consequently, he says, the discovery rose to the level of patentable invention.
But we think that the state of the prior art was plainly sufficient to demonstrate to any skilled chemist searching for an anticorrosive agent that he should make the simple experiment that was made here. The patentees knew that urea was in general use as a stabilizing agent with acid and salts. Moreover, the patentees knew that standard alkalies had been successfully employed in prior patents for their anticorrosive effect. It is not surprising therefore that after experimenting with various standard alkalies in an effort to find a corrosion inhibitor that would not greatly reduce acidic astringency, the patentees promptly turned to urea. Their success was immediate.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pointed out when this patent was before it: “. . . skillful experiments in a laboratory, in cases where the principles of the investigations are well known, and the achievement of the desired end requires routine work rather than imagination, do not involve invention.” These established principles of law would dispose of the case except for the position taken by the United States Court of Appeals in this case that the cosmetic problem here was remote and unrelated to the problems considered in the prior art. For this reason that court held that patentees in the field of cosmetics were not bound by prior art knowledge disclosed by the Shipp and other patents. The court therefore considered this patent almost as though patentees were writing on a clean sheet. Accordingly it held that the use of urea in the cosmetics field with the results here obtained was patentable invention.
In this the court was in error. As we have pointed out, the general store of chemical knowledge in 1938 was such that anyone working on any problem of acidic corrosion and irritation would naturally and spontaneously have tried urea. All that these patentees did was to utilize in a cosmetic preparation, publicly available knowledge that urea would inhibit acidic corrosion. The step taken by the patentees in advance of past knowledge was too short to amount to invention. They merely applied an old process of inhibition to a new cosmetic use. This is not invention. Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 324 U. S. 320, 327.
Reversed.
MR. Justice Douglas would reverse the judgment on the authority of Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 131, which was decided after the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case.
Petitioner points out that the District Court in the Woolworth case found the evidence before it inadequate to show that the old preparations had resulted in substantial skin irritation and urges a like inadequacy of evidence here. But the District Court here found that “the astringent materials may attack the skin of sensitive individuals” and that “a residue of acid remained which sometimes irritated the skin.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Chattanooga Building Trades Council, AFL, is composed of 17 building trades unions, including Hod-Carriers Building and Common Laborers’ Union of America and its Local 846, two of the petitioners. Respondent Rea Construction Company, a large North Carolina building contractor, was engaged by respondent Jafco, Inc., as general contractor to erect a shopping center on a site in Cleveland, Tennessee. Rea operated an open shop, and workers on the project were paid lower wages than the union scale. The Council authorized the Hod-Carriers to place a single picket at the site in protest. The petitioner Liner, carrying a sign which read “Rea Construction Co., not under contract with Chattanooga Building Trades Council, A. F. of L.,” began peaceful picketing on August 8, 1960. Construction workers on the job promptly ceased work. On the same day respondent Jafco, Inc., sought an ex parte injunction against the picketing from the Tennessee Chancery Court, which ordered the injunction to issue upon the execution and filing of an injunction bond. See 5 Tenn. Code Ann., 1955, § 23-1901. The next day, August 9, Jafco filed a bond providing that, if the injunction action failed, Jafco “shall well and truly pay and satisfy the said [petitioners] all such costs, damages, interest, and other sums as may be awarded and recovered against the said Jafco, Inc. in any suit or suits which may be hereafter broyght [sic] for wrongfully suing out said Injunction . . . Thereupon the ex parte injunction issued, the picketing ceased in compliance with it, and work on the project was resumed.
The petitioners moved promptly in the Chancery Court to dissolve the injunction on the ground that the state court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy because the subject matter of the picketing was exclusively within the cognizance of the National Labor Relations Board. The motion was denied on September 29 by an order which recited, “There is no bona fide labor dispute between the parties in this litigation and therefore the state court has jurisdiction of the matter and the same has not [been] preempted by the National Labor Relations Board.” Following a hearing, the injunction was made permanent by a final decree entered on June 16, 1961. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, which affirmed on January 12, 1962. The opinion, not officially reported, is reported in 49 L. R. R. M. 2585. Pending decision on the appeal, construction at the site had been completed. Noting this fact, the court stated, “In the first place the questions in this case have become moot.” However, the court went on to say, “Further, we concur with the Chancellor’s finding that a bona fide labor dispute did not exist.” 49 L. R. R. M., at 2587. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, by an unreported order, denied certiorari. We brought the case here, 371 U. S. 961, to consider the validity of the injunction in light of our decision in Local 438, Construction Laborers v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542. We hold that the issuance of the injunction was beyond the power of the Tennessee courts and therefore reverse the judgment.
We must first consider respondents’ challenge to our jurisdiction to review the Tennessee courts’ rejection of the petitioners’ federal preemption claim. The argument is that we are bound by the state appellate court’s holding that this case was rendered moot by the completion of construction. We think, however, that in this case the question of mootness is itself a question of federal law upon which we must pronounce final judgment. Love v. Griffith, 266 U. S. 32. In that case a Texas trial court dismissed a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional rule which barred Negroes from voting in a single Houston Democratic primary election. An appeal from the dismissal was in turn dismissed by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals on the ground that, since the election was, at that time, long since passed, the cause of action had ceased to exist. This Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Holmes, implicitly denied that the state court’s finding of mootness precluded our independent determination of that question, saying,
“When as here there is a plain assertion of federal rights in the lower court, local rules as to how far it shall be reviewed on appeal do not necessarily prevail. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24. Whether the right was denied or not given due recognition by the Court of Civil Appeals is a question as to which the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke our judgment. Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17,22.” 266 U. S., at 33-34.
The Court did not, however, think that the action of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals prejudiced the appellants’ constitutional rights. Since the election had been held, any order reversing the trial court and ordering the injunction to issue would have been futile; an injunction could not at that date redress the alleged constitutional injury. The Court said:
“If the case stood here as it stood before the court of first instance it would present a grave question of constitutional law and we should be astute to avoid hindrances in the way of taking it up. But that is not the situation. The rule promulgated by the Democratic Executive Committee was for a single election only that had taken place long before the decision of the Appellate Court. No constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in error were infringed by holding that the cause of action had ceased to exist. The bill was for an injunction that could not be granted at that time. There was no constitutional obligation to extend the remedy beyond what was prayed.” 266 U. S., at 34.
In contrast, the prejudice to the petitioners from the action of the Tennessee Court of Appeals in affirming the injunction which did issue in the instant case is clear. The petitioners plainly have “a substantial stake in the judgment . . . ,” Fiswick v. United States, 329 U. S. 211, 222, which exists apart from and is unaffected by the completion of construction. Their interest derives from the undertaking of respondent Jafco, Inc., in the injunction bond to indemnify them in damages if the injunction was “wrongfully” sued out. Whether the injunction was wrongfully sued out turns solely upon the answer to the federal question which the petitioners have pressed from the beginning. If the answer of the Tennessee Court of Appeals to that question may not be challenged here, the petitioners have no recourse against Jafco on the bond. Thus, unlike Love v. Griffith, supra, the federal issues remain of operative importance to the parties as they come to this Court; here it may be said that the Tennessee courts have in substance and effect denied a federal right, and the completion of construction cannot be deemed a hindrance to our review of the federal question. This is not a case where this Court’s decision on the merits of that question “cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it.” St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41, 42.
Moreover, this is particularly a case in which “we should be astute to avoid hindrances in the way of taking” up that question. Despite the completion of construction, our superintendence of a state court injunction against conduct alleged to be cognizable exclusively by the National Labor Relations Board is desirable “if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted,” San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 245. This controversy involves the fundamental question of whether the Tennessee courts had any power whatever to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Congress has invested the National Labor Relations Board with the exclusive power to adjudicate conduct arguably protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, supra. If the peaceful picketing complained of in this case is such conduct, Congress has ordained — to further uniform regulation and to avoid the inconsistencies which would result from the application of disparate state remedies — that only the federal agency shall deal with it. Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468. The issuance of the state injunction in this case tended to frustrate this federal policy. This would be true even if the picketing were prohibited conduct. For although the National Labor Relations Board is not barred- from granting appropriate remedies by the fact that the challenged conduct has ceased, Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U. S. 563, or that the construction has been completed, Local 74, Carpenters Union v. Labor Board, 341 U. S. 707, charges of unfair labor practices must be filed within six months of their occurrence, and an employer armed with a state injunction would have no incentive to initiate Board proceedings. It would encourage such interference with the federal agency’s exclusive jurisdiction if a state court’s holding of mootness based on the chance event of completion of construction barred this Court’s review of the state court’s adverse decision on the claim of federal preemption. We have given significant weight to the vital importance of preventing state injunctions from frustrating federal labor policy in situations wfiich the Congress has ordained shall be dealt with exclusively by the Board. In Construction Laborers v. Curry, supra, we considered whether a state court temporary injunction in a labor dispute should be considered to be a final judgment for purposes of our review under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. We held that the temporary injunction should be deemed a final judgment “particularly when postponing review would seriously erode the national labor policy requiring the subject matter of respondents' cause to be heard by the National Labor Relations Board, not by the state courts,” and said further, “The truth is that authorizing the issuance of a temporary injunction, as is frequently true of temporary injunctions in labor disputes, may effectively dispose of petitioner’s rights and render entirely illusory his right to review here as well as his right to a hearing before the Labor Board.” 371 U. S., at 550.
In Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173, a patent licensee defended against a suit for unpaid royalties by attacking the validity under the Sherman Act of a price-fixing stipulation in his license. The lower courts held that having accepted the license with the price-fixing stipulation, the licensee was estopped to deny the validity of the stipulation. This Court reversed. The question presented was “whether the doctrine of estoppel as invoked below is so in conflict with the Sherman Act’s prohibition of price-fixing that this Court may resolve the question even though its conclusion be contrary to that of a state court.” 317 U. S., at 175. We held that local rules of estoppel would.not be permitted to thwart the purposes of statutes of the United States. We said, 317 U. S., at 176:
“It is familiar doctrine that the prohibition of a federal statute may not be set at naught, or its benefits denied, by state statutes or state common law rules. In such a case our decision is not controlled by Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64. There we followed state law because it was the law to be applied in the federal courts. But the doctrine of that case is inapplicable to those areas of judicial decision within which the policy of the law is so dominated by the sweep of federal statutes that legal relations which they affect must be deemed governed by federal law having its source in those statutes, rather than by local law. . . . When a federal statute condemns an act as unlawful, the extent and nature of the legal consequences of the condemnation, though left by the statute to judicial determination, are nevertheless federal questions, the answers to which are to be derived from the statute and the federal policy which it has adopted. To the federal statute and policy, conflicting state law and policy must yield. Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 2; . . .”
If in Sola a state substantive rule of law had to yield to the federal statute and policy, even more so here— where the claim is that the federal statute and policy oust state courts of any power whatever to deal with the conduct in question — local rules which purport to preclude state appellate court adjudication of the federal preemption claim cannot conclusively render the case moot for the purposes of this Court’s review.
We turn then to the merits. Our discussion need not be extended, for in our view the case is squarely governed by our decision in Construction Laborers v. Curry, supra. Whether or not the facts showed a “labor dispute” within the meaning of 29 U. S. C. § 152 (9) is certainly at least arguable. Consequently, as we said in Curry, “the state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction or to adjudicate this controversy, which lay within the exclusive powers of the National Labor Relations Board.” 371 U. S., at 546-547.
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The respondent Rea Construction Company was added as a party complainant by an amended and supplemental bill filed August 10, 1960.
In its opinion on making the injunction perpetual, the trial court also found “that the erection of the shopping center does not involve Interstate Commerce. It is a localized action and by no definition of the term can it be said that this operation amounts to Interstate Commerce.” The respondents do not support this finding in this Court. The proof was that, before the hearing, Rea Construction Company purchased outside Tennessee and brought to the site materials costing $147,099.67. This meets the direct inflow standards set by the National Labor Relations Board for the exercise of its jurisdiction. See 23 N. L. R. B. Ann. Rep. 8 (1958).
Our lack of jurisdiction to review moot cases derives from the requirement of Article III of the Constitution under which the exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a case or controversy. See Diamond, Federal Jurisdiction to Decide Moot Cases, 94 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 125 (1946); Note, 103-Ü. of Pa. L. Rev. 772 (1955).
29 U. S. C. §160 (b).
The petitioners sought to advance the hearing and decision of their appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The court said, 49 L. R. R. M., at 2587: “The [petitioners] in brief filed June 22nd, 1961, in which they were seeking to advance the cause for hearing, stated:
“ ‘In the instant case, the right of picketing will become moot by August 1, 1961, as the construction will be completed and the building ready for occupancy. Appellants know that they desire to picket one of the complainants, Rea Construction Company, this coming fall on a project which will require approximately six or eight months of construction. Without judicial review of this case they can only expect the same Trial Court to act the same, and again they cannot possibly get the case to the appellate court for a decision within that time.’ ”
“The term 'labor dispute’ includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Monty Lee Eddings was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. • Because this sentence was imposed without “the type of individualized consideration of mitigating factors . . . required by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in capital cases,” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 606 (1978) (opinion of Burger, C. J.), we reverse.
I
On April 4, 1977, Eddings, a 16-year-old youth, and several younger companions ran away from their Missouri homes. They traveled in a car owned by Eddings’ brother, and drove without destination or purpose in a southwesterly direction eventually reaching the Oklahoma Turnpike. Eddings had in the car a shotgun and several rifles he had taken from his father. After he momentarily lost control of the car, he was signalled to pull over by Officer Crabtree of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Eddings did so, and when the officer approached the car, Eddings stuck a loaded shotgun out of the window and fired, killing the officer.
Because Eddings was a juvenile, the State moved to have him certified to stand trial as an adult. Finding that there was prosecutive merit to the complaint and that Eddings was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system, the trial court granted the motion. The ruling was affirmed on appeal. In re M. E., 584 P. 2d 1340 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied sub nom. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 436 U. S. 921 (1978). Eddings was then charged with murder in the first degree, and the District Court of Creek County found him guilty upon his plea of nolo contendere.
The Oklahoma death penalty statute provides in pertinent part:
“Upon conviction ... of guilt of a defendant of murder in the first degree, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. . . . In the sentencing proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any mitigating circumstances or as to any of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in this act.” Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §701.10 (1980) (emphasis added).
Section 701.12 lists seven separate aggravating circumstances; the statute nowhere defines what is meant by “any mitigating circumstances.”
At the sentencing hearing, the State alleged three of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in the statute: that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, that the crime was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, and that there was a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. §§701.12(4), (5), and (7).
In mitigation, Eddings presented substantial evidence at the hearing of his troubled youth. The testimony of his supervising Juvenile Officer indicated that Eddings had been raised without proper guidance. His parents were divorced when he was 5 years old, and until he was 14 Eddings lived with his mother without rules or supervision. App. 109. There is the suggestion that Eddings’ mother was an alcoholic and possibly a prostitute. Id., at 110-111. By the time Eddings was 14 he no longer could be controlled, and his mother sent him to live with his father. But neither could the father control the boy. Attempts to reason and talk gave way to physical punishment. The Juvenile Officer testified that Eddings was frightened and bitter, that his father overreacted and used excessive physical punishment: “Mr. Ed-dings found the only thing that he thought was effectful with the boy was actual punishment, or physical violence— hitting with a strap or something like this.” Id., at 121.
Testimony from other witnesses indicated that Eddings was emotionally disturbed in general and at the time of the crime, and that his mental and emotional development were at a level several years below his age. Id., at 134, 149, and 173. A state psychologist stated that Eddings had a socio-pathic or antisocial personality and that approximately 30% of youths suffering from such a disorder grew out of it as they aged. Id., at 137 and 139. A sociologist specializing in juvenile offenders testified that Eddings was treatable. Id., at 149. A psychiatrist testified that Eddings could be rehabilitated by intensive therapy over a 15- to 20-year period. Id., at 181. He testified further that Eddings “did pull the trigger, he did kill someone, but I don’t even think he knew that he was doing it.” The psychiatrist suggested that, if treated, Eddings would no longer pose a serious threat to society. Id., at 180-181.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial judge weighed the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He found that the State had proved each of the three alleged aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Turning to the evidence of mitigating circumstances, the judge found that Eddings’ youth was a mitigating factor of great weight: “I have given very serious consideration to the youth of the Defendant when this particular crime was committed. Should I fail to do this, I think I would not be carrying out my duty.” Id., at 188-189. But he would not consider in mitigation the circumstances of Eddings’ unhappy upbringing and emotional disturbance: “[T]he Court cannot be persuaded entirely by the . . . fact that the youth was sixteen years old when this heinous crime was committed. Nor can the Court in following the law, in my opinion, consider the fact of this young man’s violent background.” Id., at 189 (emphasis added). Finding that the only mitigating circumstance was Eddings’ youth and finding further that this circumstance could not outweigh the aggravating circumstances present, the judge sentenced Eddings to death.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentence of death. 616 P. 2d 1159 (1980). It found that each of the aggravating circumstances alleged by the State had been present. It recited the mitigating evidence presented by Eddings in some detail, but in the end it agreed with the trial court that only the fact of Eddings’ youth was properly considered as a mitigating circumstance:
“[Eddings] also argues his mental state at the time of the murder. He stresses his family history in saying he was suffering from severe psychological and emotional disorders, and that the killing was in actuality an inevitable product of the way he was raised. There is no doubt that the petitioner has a personality disorder. But all the evidence tends to show that he knew the difference between right and wrong at the time he pulled the trigger, and that is the test of criminal responsibility in this State. For the same reason, the petitioner’s family history is useful in explaining why he behaved the way he did, but it does not excuse his behavior.” Id., at 1170 (citation omitted).
II
In Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), Chief Justice Burger, writing for the plurality, stated the rule that we apply today:
“[W]e conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer . . . 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 (emphasis in original).
Recognizing “that the imposition of death by public authority is . . . profoundly different from all other penalties,” the plurality held that the sentencer must be free to give “independent mitigating weight to aspects of the defendant’s character and record and to circumstances of the offense proffered in mitigation . . . .” Id., at 605. Because the Ohio death penalty statute only permitted consideration of three mitigating circumstances, the Court found the statute to be invalid.
As The Chief Justice explained, the rulé in Lockett is the product of a considerable history reflecting the law’s effort to develop a system of capital punishment at once consistent and principled but also humane and sensible to the uniqueness of the individual. Since the early days of the common law, the legal system has struggled to accommodate these twin objectives. Thus, the common law began by treating all criminal homicides as capital offenses, with a mandatory sentence of death. Later it allowed exceptions, first through an exclusion for those entitled to claim benefit of clergy and then by limiting capital punishment to murders upon “malice prepensed.” In this country we attempted to soften the rigor of the system of mandatory death sentences we inherited from England, first by grading murder into different degrees of which only murder of the first degree was a capital offense and then by committing use of the death penalty to the absolute discretion of the jury. By the time of our decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), the country had moved so far from a mandatory system that the imposition of capital punishment frequently had become arbitrary and capricious.
Beginning with Furman, the Court has attempted to provide standards for a constitutional death penalty that would serve both goals of measured, consistent application and fairness to the accused. Thus, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), the principal opinion held that the danger of an arbitrary and capricious death penalty could be met “by a carefully drafted statute that ensures that the sentencing authority is given adequate information and guidance.” Id., at 195. By its requirement that the jury find one of the aggravating circumstances listed in the death penalty statute, and by its direction to the jury to consider “any mitigating circumstances,” the Georgia statute properly confined and directed the jury’s attention to the circumstances of the particular crime and to “the characteristics of the person who committed the crime . . . .” Id., at 197.
Similarly, in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976), the plurality held that mandatory death sentencing was not a permissible response to the problem of arbitrary jury discretion. As the history of capital punishment had shown, such an approach to the problem of discretion could not succeed while the Eighth Amendment required that the individual be given his due: “the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment. . . requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.” Id., at 304. See Roberts (Harry) v. Louisiana, 431 U. S. 633 (1977); Roberts (Stanislaus) v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325 (1976).
Thus, the rule in Lockett followed from the earlier decisions of the Court and from the Court’s insistence that capital punishment be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all. By requiring that the sentencer be permitted to focus “on the characteristics of the person who committed the crime,” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 197, the rule in Lockett recognizes that “justice . . . requires . . . that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.” Pennsylvania v. Ashe, 302 U. S. 51, 55 (1937). By holding that the sentencer in capital cases must be permitted to consider any relevant mitigating factor, the rule in Lockett recognizes that a consistency produced by ignoring individual differences is a false consistency.
HH HH H-l
We now apply the rule in Lockett to the circumstances of this case. The trial judge stated that “in following the law,” he could not “consider the fact of this young man’s violent background.” App. 189. There is no dispute that by “violent background” the trial judge was referring to the mitigating evidence of Eddings’ family history. From this statement it is clear that the trial judge did not evaluate the evidence in mitigation and find it wanting as a matter of fact; rather he found that as a matter of law he was unable even to consider the evidence.
The Court of Criminal Appeals took the same approach. It found that the evidence in mitigation was not relevant because it did not tend to provide a legal excuse from criminal responsibility. Thus the court conceded that Eddings had a “personality disorder,” but cast this evidence aside on the basis that “he knew the difference between right and wrong . . . and that is the test of criminal responsibility.” 616 P. 2d, at 1170. Similarly, the evidence of Eddings’ family history was “useful in explaining” his behavior, but it did not “excuse” the behavior. From these statements it appears that the Court of Criminal Appeals also considered only that evidence to be mitigating which would tend to support a legal excuse from criminal liability.
We find that the limitations placed by these courts upon the mitigating evidence they would consider violated the rule in Lockett. Just as the State may not by statute preclude the sentencer from considering any mitigating factor, neither may the sentencer refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence. In this instance, it was as if the trial judge had instructed a jury to disregard the mitigating evidence Eddings proffered on his behalf. The sentencer, and the Court of Criminal Appeals on review, may determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence. But they may not give it no weight by excluding such evidence from their consideration.
Nor do we doubt that the evidence Eddings offered was relevant mitigating evidence. Eddings was a youth of 16 years at the time of the murder. Evidence of a difficult family history and of emotional disturbance is typically introduced by defendants in mitigation. See McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 187-188, 193 (1971). In some cases, such evidence properly may be given little weight. But when the defendant was 16 years old at the time of the offense there can be no doubt that evidence of a turbulent family history, of beatings by a harsh father, and of severe emotional disturbance is particularly relevant.
The trial judge-recognized that youth must be considered a relevant mitigating factor. But youth is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage. Our history is replete with laws and judicial recognition that minors, especially in their earlier years, generally are less mature and responsible than adults. Particularly “during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment” expected of adults. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622, 635 (1979).
Even the normal 16-year-old customarily lacks the maturity of an adult. In this case, Eddings was not a normal 16-year-old; he had been deprived of the care, concern, and paternal attention that children deserve. On the contrary, it is not disputed that he was a juvenile with serious emotional problems, and had been raised in a neglectful, sometimes even violent, family background. In addition, there was testimony that Eddings’ mental and emotional development were at a level several years below his chronological age. All of this does not suggest an absence of responsibility for the crime of murder, deliberately committed in this case. Rather, it is to say that just as the chronological age of a minor is itself a relevant mitigating factor of great weight, so must the background and mental and emotional development of a youthful defendant be duly considered in sentencing.
We are not unaware of the extent to which minors engage increasingly in violent crime. Nor do we suggest an absence of legal responsibility where crime is committed by a minor. We are concerned here only with the manner of the imposition of the ultimate penalty: the death sentence imposed for the crime of murder upon an emotionally disturbed youth with a disturbed child’s immaturity.
On remand, the state courts must consider all relevant mitigating evidence and weigh it against the evidence of the aggravating circumstances. We do not weigh the evidence for them. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed to the extent that it sustains the imposition of the death penalty, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
There was evidence that immediately after the shooting Eddings said: “I would rather have shot an Officer than go back to where I live.” App. 93.
The psychiatrist suggested that, at the time of the murder, Eddings was in his own mind shooting his stepfather — a policeman who had been married to his mother for a brief period when . Eddings was seven. The psychiatrist stated: “I think -that given the circumstances and the facts of his life, and the facts of his arrested development, he acted as a seven year old seeking revenge and rebellion; and the act — he did pull the trigger, he did kill someone, but I don’t even think he knew that he was doing it.” Id., at 172.
The trial judge found first that the crime was “heinous, atrocious, and cruel” because “designed to inflict a high degree of pain ... in utter indifference to the rights of Patrolman Crabtree.” Id., at 187. Second, the judge found that the crime was “committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution.” Id., at 187-188. The evidence was sufficient to indicate that at the time of the offense Eddings did not wish to be returned to Missouri and that in stopping the car the officer’s intent was to make a lawful arrest. Finally, the trial judge found that Eddings posed a continuing threat of violence to society. There was evidence that at one point on the day of the murder, after Eddings had been taken to the county jail, he told two officers that “if he was loose . . . he would shoot” them all. Id., at 77. There was also evidence that at another time, when an officer refused to turn off the light in Eddings’ cell, Eddings became angry and threatened the officer: “Now I have shot one of you people, and I’ll get you too if you don’t turn this light out.” Id., at 103. Based on these two “spontaneous utterances,” id., at 188, the trial judge found a strong likelihood that Eddings would again commit a criminal act of violence if released.
We understand the Court of Criminal Appeals to hold that the murder of a police officer in the performance of his duties is “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” under the Oklahoma statute. See Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U. S. 633, 636 (1977). However, we doubt that the trial judge’s understanding and application of this aggravating circumstance conformed to that degree of certainty required by our decision in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980). See n. 3, supra.
Because we decide this case on the basis of Lockett v. Ohio, we do not reach the question of whether — in light of contemporary standards — the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of a defendant who was 16 at the time of the offense. Cf. Bell v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 637 (1978).
“[T]he jury’s attention is focused on the characteristics of the person who committed the crime: . . . Are there any special facts about this defendant that mitigate against imposing capital punishment (e. g., his youth, the extent of his cooperation with the police, his emotional state at the time of the crime).” 428 U. S., at 197.
“A process that accords no significance to relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender or the circumstances of the particular offense excludes from consideration in fixing the ultimate punishment of death the possibility of compassionate or mitigating factors stemming from the diverse frailties of humankind. It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings . . . .” 428 U. S., at 304.
Brief for Respondent 55 (“the inference that can be drawn is that the court did not consider petitioner’s juvenile record and family life to be a mitigating circumstance”); Tr. of Oral Arg. 36 (“the trial court did not consider the fact of his family background as a mitigating circumstance. . . . [T]he violent background, which I assume he meant was . . . [that Eddings] was subject to some slapping around and some beating by his father”) (argument of respondent).
Eddings argued to the Court of Criminal Appeals that imposition of the death penalty in the particular circumstances of his case, and in light of the mitigating factors present, was excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment. But he did not specifically argue that the trial judge erred in refusing to consider relevant mitigating circumstances in the process of sentencing. In rejecting his claim of excessive punishment, the court examined the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and held that Eddings’ family history and emotional disorder were not mitigating circumstances that ought to be weighed in the balance. The court’s holding that these factors were irrelevant to an inquiry into excessiveness was also a holding that they need not have been considered by the sentencer in imposing capital punishment. Similarly, Eddings’ argument in his petition for certiorari that imposition of the death penalty was excessive on the facts of this case comprises the argument that the sentencer erred in refusing to consider relevant mitigating circumstances proffered by him at the sentencing hearing. In short, although neither the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals nor Eddings’ petition for certiorari spoke to our decision in Lockett by name, the question of whether the decisions below were consistent with our decision in Lockett is properly before us. Our jurisdiction does not depend on citation to book and verse. See, e. g., New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 67 (1928).
Although Eddings’ petition for certiorari did not expressly present the Lockett issue, his brief in this Court argued it, and the State responded to the argument. Brief for Petitioner 64-67; Brief for Respondent 55-57. The dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice, post, at 120, n. 1, states that the courts below were not afforded the opportunity to consider this issue. The fact is, however, that in his petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a rehearing, Eddings specifically presented the issue and at some considerable length. See Petition for Re-Hearing and Supporting Brief in No. C-78-325, p. 10 (“This Court, by its interpretation of mitigating circumstances, has effectively limited the scope of mitigation and that limitation renders the Oklahoma death penalty statute unconstitutional”). The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition, stating that it had given it full consideration and had been “fully advised in the premises.” See Rule 1.18, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals (1980) (court will entertain new arguments upon a petition for rehearing). Cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 476 (1975). See also Wood v. Georgia, 450 U. S. 261, 265, n. 5 (1981); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625, 631, n. 6 (1980); Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U. S. 478, 479, n. 3 (1974).
We note that the Oklahoma death penalty statute permits the defendant to present evidence “as to any mitigating circumstances.” Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, § 701.10 (1980). Lockett requires the sentencer to listen.
“Adolescents everywhere, from every walk of life, are often dangerous to themselves and to others.” The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime 41 (1967). “[A]dolescents, particularly in the early and middle teen years, are more vulnerable, more impulsive, and less self-disciplined than adults. Crimes committed by youths may be just as harmful to victims as those committed by older persons, but they deserve less punishment because adolescents may have less capacity to control their conduct and to think in long-range terms than adults. Moreover, youth crime as such is not exclusively the offender’s fault; offenses by the young also represent a failure of family, school, and the social system, which share responsibility for the development of America’s youth.” Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Sentencing Policy Toward Young Offenders, Confronting Youth Crime 7 (1978).
As Justice Frankfurter stated, “[c]hildren have a very special place in life which law should reflect.” May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 536 (1953) (concurring opinion). And indeed the law does reflect this special place. Every State in the country makes some separate provision for juvenile offenders. See In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 14 (1967).
See, e. g., National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force Report on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 3 (1976).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitions for writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are granted for the purpose of deciding whether it is proper to approve school desegregation plans without considering, at a full evi-dentiary hearing, the impact on those plans of faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis. We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in both these cases in this regard, 345 F. 2d 310, 319-321; 345 F. 2d 325, 328.
Plans for desegregating the public school systems of Hopewell and Richmond, Virginia, were approved by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia without full inquiry into petitioners’ contention that faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis rendered the plans inadequate under the principles of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. The Court of Appeals, while recognizing the standing of petitioners, as parents and pupils, to raise this contention, declined to decide its merits because no evidentiary hearings had been held on this issue. But instead of remanding the cases for such hearings prior to final approval of the plans, the Court of Appeals held that “[wjhether and when such an inquiry is to be had are matters with respect to which the District Court . . . has a large measure of discretion,” and it reasoned as follows:
“When direct measures are employed to eliminate all direct discrimination in the assignment of pupils, a District Court may defer inquiry as to the appropriateness of supplemental measures until the effect and the sufficiency of the direct ones may be determined. The possible relation of a reassignment of teachers to protection of the constitutional rights of pupils need not be determined when it is speculative. When all direct discrimination in the assignment of pupils has been eliminated, assignment of teachers may be expected to follow the racial patterns established in the schools. An earlier judicial requirement of general reassignment of all teaching and administrative personnel need not be considered until the possible detrimental effects of such an order upon the administration of the schools and the efficiency of their staffs can be appraised along with the need for such an order in aid of protection of the constitutional rights of pupils.” 345 F. 2d, at 320-321.
We hold that petitioners were entitled to such full evidentiary hearings upon their contention. There is no merit to the suggestion that the relation between faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis and the adequacy of the desegregation plans is entirely speculative. Nor can we perceive any reason for postponing these hearings: Each plan had been in operation for at least one academic year; these suits had been pending for several years; and more than a decade has passed since we directed desegregation of public school facilities “with all deliberate speed,” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 301. Delays in desegregating school systems are no longer tolerable. Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683, 689; Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263, 264-265; see Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals are vacated and the cases are remanded to the District Court for evidentiary hearings consistent with this opinion. We, of course, express no views of the merits of the desegregation plans submitted, nor is further judicial review precluded in these cases following the hearings.
Vacated rnd remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case is the constitutionality of a Wisconsin statute, Wis. Stat. §§245.10 (1), (4), (5) (1973), which provides that members of a certain class of Wisconsin residents may not marry, within the State or elsewhere, without first obtaining a court order granting permission to marry. The class is defined by the statute to include any “Wisconsin resident having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment.” The statute specifies that court permission cannot be granted unless the marriage applicant submits proof of compliance with the support obligation and, in addition, - demonstrates that the children covered by the support order “are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges.” No marriage license may lawfully be issued in Wisconsin to a person covered by the statute, except upon court order; any marriage entered into without compliance with § 245.10 is declared void; and persons acquiring marriage licenses in violation of the section are subject to criminal penalties.
After being denied a marriage license because of his failure to comply with § 245.10, appellee brought this class action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, challenging the statute as violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin held the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and enjoined its enforcement. 418 F. Supp. 1061 (1976). We noted probable jurisdiction, 429 U. S. 1089 (1977), and we now affirm.
I
Appellee Redhail is a Wisconsin resident who, under the terms of § 245.10, is unable to enter into a lawful marriage in Wisconsin or elsewhere so long as he maintains his Wisconsin residency. The facts, according to the stipulation filed by the parties in the District Court, are as follows. In January 1972, when appellee was a minor and a high school student, a paternity action was instituted against him in Milwaukee County Court, alleging that he was the father of a baby girl born out of wedlock on July 5, 1971. After lie appeared and admitted that he was the child's father, the court entered an order on May 12, 1972, adjudging appellee the father and ordering him to pay $109 per month as support for the child until she reached 18 years of age. From May 1972 until August 1974, appellee was unemployed and indigent, and consequently was unable to make any support payments.
On September 27, 1974, appellee filed an application for a marriage license with appellant Zablocki, the County Clerk of Milwaukee County, and a few days later the application was denied on the sole ground that appellee had not obtained a court order granting him permission to marry, as required by § 245.10. Although appellee did not petition a state court thereafter, it is stipulated that he would not have been able to satisfy either of the statutory prerequisites for an order granting permission to marry. First, he had not satisfied his support obligations to his illegitimate child, and as of December 1974 there was an arrearage in excess of $3,700. Second, the child had been a public charge since her birth, receiving benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. It is stipulated that the child's benefit payments were such that she would have been a public charge even if appellee had been current in his support payments.
On December 24, 1974, appellee filed his complaint in the District Court, on behalf of himself and the class of all Wisconsin residents who had been refused a marriage license pursuant to § 245.10 (1) by one of the county clerks in Wisconsin. Zablocki was named as the defendant, individually and as representative of a class consisting of all county clerks in the State. The complaint alleged, among other things, that appellee and the woman he desired to marry were expecting a child in March 1975 and wished to be lawfully married before that time. The statute was attacked on the grounds that it deprived appellee, and the class he sought to represent, of equal protection and due process rights secured by the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284. Appellee moved for certification of the plaintiff and defendant classes named in his complaint, and by order dated February 20, 1975, the plaintiff class was certified under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (b)(2). After the parties filed the stipulation of facts, and briefs on the merits, oral argument was heard in the District Court on June 23, 1975, with a representative from the Wisconsin Attorney General’s office participating in addition to counsel for the parties.
The three-judge court handed down a unanimous decision on August 31, 1976. The court ruled, first, that it was not required to abstain from decision under the principles set forth in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), since there was no pending state-court proceeding that could be frustrated by the declaratory and injunctive relief requested: Second, the court held that the class of all county clerks in Wisconsin was a proper defendant class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2), and that neither Rule 23 nor due process required prejudgment notice to the members of the plaintiff or the defendant class.
On the merits, the three-judge panel analyzed the challenged statute under the Equal Protection Clause and concluded that “strict scrutiny” was required because the classification created by the statute infringed upon a fundamental right, the right to marry. The court then proceeded to evaluate the interests advanced by the State to justify the statute, and, finding that the classification was not necessary for the achievement of those interests, the court held the statute invalid and enjoined the county clerks from enforcing it.
Appellant brought this direct appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, claiming that the three-judge court erred in finding §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. Appellee defends the lower court’s equal protection holding and, in the alternative, urges affirmance of the District Court’s judgment on the ground that the statute does not satisfy the requirements of substantive due process. We agree with the District Court that the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause.
II
In evaluating §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) under the Equal Protection Clause, “we must first determine what burden of justification the classification created thereby must meet, by looking to the nature of the classification and the individual interests affected.” Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250, 253 (1974). Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that “critical examination” of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 312, 314 (1976); see, e. g., San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 17 (1973).
The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia’s miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court’s opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause'. Id., at 11-12. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. The Court’s language on the latter point bears repeating:
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
“Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Id., at 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942).
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals. Long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as “the most important relation in life,” id., at 205, and as “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,” id., at 211. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id., at 399, and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, marriage was described as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” 316 U. S., at 541.
More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental “right of privacy” implicit in. the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:
“We deal with a right’ of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.” Id., at 486.
See also id., at 495 (Goldberg, J., concurring); id., at 502-503 (White, J., concurring in judgment).
Cases subsequent to Griswold and Loving have routinely categorized the decision to marry as among the personal decisions protected by the right of privacy. See generally Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 598-600, and nn. 23-26 (1977). For example, last Term in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678 (1977), we declared:
“While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions'relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 536, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (White, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, [262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923)].’ ” Id., at 684-685, quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 152-153 (1973).
See also Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639-640 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 842-844 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 499 (1977); Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 713 (1976).
It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. Wade, supra, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 768-770, and n. 13 (1977); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 175-176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee’s right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. See Califano v. Jobst, ante, p. 47; n. 12, infra. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.
Under the challenged statute, no Wisconsin resident in the affected class may marry in Wisconsin or elsewhere without a court order, and marriages contracted in violation of the statute are both void and punishable as criminal offenses. Some of those in the affected class, like appellee, will never be able to obtain the necessary court order, because they either lack the financial means to meet their support obligations or cannot prove that their children will not become public-charges. These persons are absolutely prevented from getting married. Many others, able in theory to satisfy the statute’s requirements, will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry. And even those who can be persuaded to meet the statute’s requirements suffer a serious intrusion into their freedom of choice in an area in which we have held such freedom to be fundamental.
Ill
When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests. See, e. g., Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 686; Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S., at 262-263; San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S., at 16-17; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134, 144 (1972). Appellant asserts that two interests are served by the challenged statute: the permission-to-marry proceeding furnishes an opportunity to counsel the applicant as to the necessity of fulfilling his prior support obligations; and the welfare of the out-of-custody children is protected. We may accept for present purposes that these are legitimate and substantial interests, but, since the means selected by the State for achieving these interests unnecessarily impinge on the right to marry, the statute cannot be sustained.
There is evidence that the challenged statute, as originally introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature, was intended merely to establish a mechanism whereby persons with support obligations to children from prior marriages could be counseled before they entered into new marital relationships and incurred further support obligations. Court permission to marry was to be required, but apparently permission was automatically to be granted after counseling was completed. The statute actually enacted, however, does not expressly require or provide for any counseling whatsoever, nor for any automatic granting of permission to marry by the court, and thus it can hardly be justified as a means for ensuring counseling of the persons within its coverage. Even assuming that counseling-does take place — a fact as to which there is no evidence in the record — this interest obviously cannot support the withholding of court permission to marry once counseling is completed.
With regard to safeguarding the welfare of the out-of-custody children, appellant’s brief does not make clear the connection between the State’s interest and the statute’s requirements. At.argument, appellant’s counsel suggested that, since permission to marry cannot be granted unless the applicant shows that he has satisfied his court-determined support obligations to the prior children and that those children will not become public charges, the statute provides incentive for the applicant to make support payments to his children. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17-20. This “collection device” rationale cannot justify the statute’s broad infringement on the right to marry.
First, with respect to individuals who are unable to meet the.statutory requirements, the statute merely prevents the applicant from getting married, without delivering any money at all into the hands of the applicant’s prior children. More importantly, regardless of the applicant’s ability or willingness to meet the statutory requirements, the State already has numerous other means for exacting compliance with support obligations, means that are at least as effective as the instant statute’s and yet do not impinge upon the right to marry. Under Wisconsin law, whether the children are from a prior marriage or were born out of wedlock, court-determined support obligations may be enforced directly via wage assignments, civil contempt proceedings, and criminal penalties. And, if the State believes that parents of children out of their custody should be responsible for ensuring that those children do not become public charges, this interest can be achieved by adjusting the criteria used for determining the amounts to be paid under their support orders.
There is also some suggestion that § 245.10 protects the ability of marriage applicants to meet support obligations to prior children by preventing the applicants from incurring new support obligations. But the challenged provisions of § 245.10 are grossly underinclusive with respect to this purpose, since they do not limit in any way new financial commitments by the applicant other than those arising out of the contemplated marriage. The statutory classification is substantially over-inclusive as well: Given the possibility that the new.spouse will actually better the applicant’s financial situation, by contributing income from a job or otherwise, the statute in. many cases may prevent affected individuals from improving their ability to satisfy their prior support obligations. And, although it is true that the applicant will incur support obligations to any children born during the contemplated marriage, preventing the marriage may only result in the children being born out of wedlock, as in fact occurred in appellee’s case. Since the support obligation is the same whether the child is born in or out of wedlock, the net result of preventing the marriage is simply more illegitimate children.
The statutory classification created by §§245.10(1), (4), (5) thus cannot be justified by the interests advanced in support of it. The judgment of the District Court is, accordingly,
Affirmed.
Wisconsin Stat. § 245.10 provides in pertinent part:
“(1) No Wisconsin resident having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment, may marry in this state or elsewhere, without the order of either the court of this state which granted such judgment or support order, or the court having divorce jurisdiction in the county of this state where such minor issue resides or where the marriage license application is made. No marriage license shall be issued to any such person except upon court order. The court, within 5 days after such permission is sought by verified petition in a special proceeding, shall direct a court hearing to be held in the matter to allow said person to submit proof of his compliance with such prior court obligation. No such order shall be granted, or hearing held, unless both parties to the intended marriage appear, and unless the person, agency, institution, welfare department or other entity having the legal or actual custody of such minor issue is given notice of such proceeding by personal service of a copy of the petition at least 5 days prior to the hearing, except that such appearance or notice may be waived by the court upon good cause shown, and, if the minor issue were of a prior marriage, unless a 5-day notice thereof is given to the family court com-' missioner of the county where such permission is sought, who shall attend such hearing, and to the family court commissioner of the court which granted such divorce judgment. If the divorce judgment was granted in a foreign court, service shall be made on the clerk of that court. Upon the hearing, if said person submits such proof and makes a showing that such children are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges, the court shall grant such order, a copy of which shall be filed in any prior proceeding... or divorce action of such person in this state affected thereby; otherwise permission for a license shall be withheld until such proof is submitted and such showing is made, but any court order withholding such permission is an appealable order. Any hearing under this section may be waived by the court if the court is satisfied from an examination of the court records in the case and the family support records in the office of the clerk of court as well as from disclosure by said person of his financial resources that the latter has complied with prior court orders or judgments affecting his minor children, and also has shown that such children are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges. No county clerk in this state shall issue such license to any person required to comply with this section unless a certified copy of a court order permitting such marriage is filed with said county clerk.
“ (4) If a Wisconsin resident having such support obligations of a minor, as stated in sub. (1), wishes to marry in another state, he must, prior to such marriage, obtain permission of the court under sub. (1), except that in a hearing ordered or held by the court, the other party to the proposed marriage, if domiciled in another state, need not be present at the hearing. If such other party is not present at the hearing, the judge shall within 5 days send a copy of the order of permission to marry, stating the obligations of support, to such party not present.
“(5) This section shall have extraterritorial effect outside the state; and s. 245.04 (1) and (2) [providing that out-of-state marriages to circumvent Wisconsin law are void] are applicable hereto. Any marriage contracted without compliance with this section, where such compliance is required, shall be void, whether entered into in this state or elsewhere.”
The criminal penalties for violation of § 245.10 are set forth in Wis. Stat. §245.30 (1) (f) (1973). See State v. Mueller, 44 Wis. 2d 387, 171 N. W. 2d 414 (1969) (upholding criminal prosecution for failure to comply with §245.10).
The record does not indicate whether appellee obtained employment subsequent to August 1974.
Under Wisconsin law, “[m]arriage may be validly solemnized and contracted [within the] state only after a license has been issued therefor,” Wis. Stat. § 245.16 (1973), and (with an exception not relevant here) the license must be obtained from “the county clerk of the county in which one of the parties has resided for at least 30 days immediately prior to making application therefor,” § 245.05.
The order defined the plaintiff class as follows:
“All Wisconsin residents who have minor issue not in their custody and who are under an obligation to support such minor issue by any court order or judgment and to whom the county clerk has refused to issue a marriage license without a court order, pursuant to §245.10 (1), Wis. Stats. (1971).”
The order also established a briefing schedule on appellee’s motion for certification of a defendant class. Although appellee thereafter filed a brief in support of the motion, appellant never submitted a brief in opposition.
418 F. Supp. 1061, 1064-1065. The possibility that abstention might be required under our decision in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., was raised by the District Court, sua sponte, at argument before that court. Appellee subsequently filed a memorandum contending that abstention was not required; appellant did not submit a response. Appellant now argues, on this appeal/ that the District Court failed to consider the “doctrine of federalism” set forth in Younger and Huffman. According to appellant, proper consideration of this doctrine would have led the District Court to require appellee to bring suit first in the state courts, in order to give those courts the initial opportunity to pass on his constitutional attack against § 245.10. We cannot agree.
First, the District Court was correct in finding Huffman and Younger inapplicable, since there was no pending state-court proceeding in which appellee could have challenged the statute. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 710-711 (1977). Second, there are no ambiguities in the statute for the state courts to resolve, and — absent issues of state law that might affect the posture of the federal constitutional claims — this Court has uniformly held that individuals seeking relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 need not present their federal constitutional claims in state court before coming to a federal forum. See, e. g., Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433, 437-439 (1971); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 245-252 (1967). See also Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S., at 609-610, n. 21.
Appellant also contends on this appeal, for the first time, that the District Court should have abstained out of “regard for the independence of state governments in carrying out their domestic policy.” Brief for Appellant 16, citing Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 317-318 (1943). Unlike Burford, however, this case does not involve complex issues of state law, resolution of which would be “disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 814-815 (1976). And there is, of course, no doctrine requiring abstention merely because resolution of a federal question may result in the overturning of a state policy.
418 F. Supp., at 1065-1068. Appellant has not appealed the District Court’s finding that the defendant class satisfied the requirements of Rules 23 (a) and (b)(2), the court’s definition of the class to include all county clerks in Wisconsin, or the requirement that appellant send a copy of the judgment to each of the county clerks, and those issues are therefore not before us. Appellant does claim on this appeal that due process required prejudgment notice to the members of the defendant class if the judgment was to be binding on them. As this issue has been framed, however, we cannot perceive appellant’s “personal stake in the outcome,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962), and we therefore hold that appellant lacks standing to raise the claim. Appellant would be bound, regardless of what we concluded as to the judgment’s binding effect on absent members of the defendant class, and appellant has not asserted that he was injured in any way by the maintenance of this suit as a defendant class action. Indeed, appellant never filed a brief in the District Court in opposition to the defendant class, despite being invited to do so, see n. 4, supra, and the notice issue was briefed for the first time on this appeal, after the Wisconsin Attorney General took over as lead counsel for appellant. In these circumstances, the absent class members must be content to assert their due process rights for themselves, through collateral attack or otherwise. See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32 (1940); Advisory Committee Notes on 1966 Amendment to Rule 23, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 7768, citing Restatement of Judgments §86, Comment (h), § 116 (1942). We note, in any event, that in light of our disposition of this case and the recent revision of Wisconsin’s Family Code, see n. 9, infra, the question of binding effect on the absent members may be wholly academic.
418 F. Supp., at 1068-1071. The court found an additional justification for applying strict scrutiny in the fact that the statute discriminates on the basis of wealth, absolutely denying individuals the opportunity to marry if they lack sufficient financial resources to make the showing required by the statute. Id., at 1070, citing San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 20 (1973).
418 F. Supp., at 1071-1073.
Counsel for appellee informed us at oral argument that appellee was married in Illinois some time after argument on the merits in the District Court, but prior to judgment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 23, 30-31. This development in no way moots the issues before us. First, appellee’s individual claim is unaffected, since he is still a Wisconsin resident and the Illinois marriage is consequently void under the provisions of §§245.10 (1), (4), (5). See State v. Mueller, 44 Wis. 2d 387, 171 N. W. 2d 414 (1969) (§245.10 has extraterritorial effect with respect to Wisconsin residents). Second, regardless of the current status of appellee’s individual claim, the dispute over the statute’s constitutionality remains live with respect to members of the class appellee represents, and the Illinois marriage took place well after the class was certified. See Franks v. Bowman Transp, Co., 424 U. S. 747, 752-757 (1976); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 397-403 (1975).
After argument in this Court, the Acting Governor of Wisconsin signed into law a comprehensive revision of the State’s marriage laws, effective February 1, 1978. 1977 Wis. Laws, ch. 105, Wis. Legis. Serv. (West 1977). The revision added a new section (§ 245.105) which appears to be a somewhat narrower version of § 245.10. Enactment of this new provision also does not moot our inquiry into the constitutionality of § 245.10. By its terms, the new section “shall be enforced only when the provisions of § 245.10 and utilization of the procedures thereunder are stayed or enjoined by the order of any court.” § 245.105 (8). As we read this somewhat unusual proviso, and as it was explained to us at argument by the representative of the Wisconsin Attorney General, Tr. of Oral Arg. 4^10, the new section is meant only to serve as a stopgap during such time as enforcement of § 245.10 is barred by court order. Were we to vacate the District Court’s injunction on this appeal, § 245.10 would go back into full force and effect; accordingly, the dispute over its validity is quite live. We express no judgment on the constitutionality of the new section.
Further support for the fundamental importance of marriage is found in our decisions dealing with rights of access to courts in civil cases. In Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971), we wrote that “marriage involves interests of basic importance in our society,” id., at 376, and held that filing fees for divorce actions violated the due process rights of indigents unable to pay the fees. Two years later, in United States v. Kras, 409 U. S. 434 (1973), the Court concluded that filing fees in bankruptcy actions did not deprive indigents of due process or equal protection. Boddie was distinguished on several grounds, including the following:
“The denial of access to the judicial forum in Boddie touched directly... on the marital relationship and on the associational interests that surround the establishment and dissolution of that relationship. On many occasions we have recognized the fundamental importance of these interests under our Constitution. See, for example, Loving v. Virginia... 409 U. S., at 444.
See also id., at 446 (“Bankruptcy is hardly akin to free speech or marriage...[,] rights!.. that the Court has come to regard as fundamental”).
Wisconsin punishes fornication as a criminal offense:
“Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse may be fined not more than $200 or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both.” Wis. Stat. §944.15 (1973).
The directness and substantiality of the interference with the freedom to marry distinguish the instant case from Califano v. Jobst, ante, p. 47. In Jobst, we upheld sections of the Social Security Act providing, inter alia, for termination of a dependent child's benefits upon marriage to an individual not entitled to benefits under the Act. As the opinion for the Court expressly noted, the rule terminating benefits upon marriage was not “an attempt to interfere with the individual’s freedom to make a decision as important as marriage.” Ante, at 54. The Social Security provisions placed no direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married, and — notwithstanding our Brother Rehnquist’s imaginative recasting of the case, see dissenting opinion, post, at 408 — there was no.evidence that the laws significantly discouraged, let alone made “practically impossible,” any marriages. Indeed, the provisions had not deterred the individual who challenged the statute from getting married, even though, he and his wife were both disabled. See Califano v. Jobst, ante, at 48. See also ante, at 57 n.. 17 (because of availability of other federal benefits, total.payments to the Jobsts after marriage were only $20 per month less than they would have been had Mr. Jobst’s child benefits not been terminated).
See Wisconsin Legislative Council Notes, 1959, reprinted following Wis. Stat. Ann. § 245.10 (Supp. 1977-1978); 5 Wisconsin Legislative Council, General Report 68 (1959).
See ibid.
Although the statute as originally enacted in 1959 did not provide for automatic granting of permission, it did allow the court to grant permission if it found “good cause” for doing so, even in the absence of a showing that support obligations were being met. 1959 Wis. Laws,, ch. 595, § 17. In 1961, the good-cause provision was deleted, and the requirement of a showing that the out-of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
One way or another, Medicare touches the lives of nearly all Americans. Recognizing this reality, Congress has told the government that, when it wishes to establish or change a "substantive legal standard" affecting Medicare benefits, it must first afford the public notice and a chance to comment. 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2). In 2014, the government revealed a new policy on its website that dramatically-and retroactively-reduced payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. Because affected members of the public received no advance warning and no chance to comment first, and because the government has not identified a lawful excuse for neglecting its statutory notice-and-comment obligations, we agree with the court of appeals that the new policy cannot stand.
I
Today, Medicare stands as the largest federal program after Social Security. It spends about $ 700 billion annually to provide health insurance for nearly 60 million aged or disabled Americans, nearly one-fifth of the Nation's population. Needless to say, even seemingly modest modifications to the program can affect the lives of millions.
As Medicare has grown, so has Congress's interest in ensuring that the public has a chance to be heard before changes are made to its administration. As originally enacted in 1965, the Medicare Act didn't address the possibility of public input. Nor did the notice-and-comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act apply. While the APA requires many other agencies to offer public notice and a comment period before adopting new regulations, it does not apply to public benefit programs like Medicare. 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2). Soon enough, though, the government volunteered to follow the informal notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures found in the APA when proceeding under the Medicare Act. See Clarian Health West, LLC v. Hargan , 878 F. 3d 346, 356-357 (CADC 2017).
This solution came under stress in the 1980s. By then, Medicare had grown exponentially and the burdens and benefits of public comment had come under new scrutiny. The government now took the view that following the APA's procedures had become too troublesome and proposed to relax its commitment to them. See 47 Fed. Reg. 26860-26861 (1982). But Congress formed a different judgment. It decided that, with the growing scope of Medicare, notice and comment should become a matter not merely of administrative grace, but of statutory duty. See § 9321(e)(1), 100 Stat. 2017; § 4035(b), 101 Stat. 1330-78.
Notably, Congress didn't just adopt the APA's notice-and-comment regime for the Medicare program. That, of course, it could have easily accomplished in just a few words. Instead, Congress chose to write a new, Medicare-specific statute. The new statute required the government to provide public notice and a 60-day comment period (twice the APA minimum of 30 days) for any "rule, requirement, or other statement of policy (other than a national coverage determination) that establishes or changes a substantive legal standard governing the scope of benefits, the payment for services, or the eligibility of individuals, entities, or organizations to furnish or receive services or benefits under [Medicare]." 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2).
Our case involves a dispute over this language. Since Medicare's creation and under what's called "Medicare Part A," the federal government has paid hospitals directly for providing covered patient care. To ensure hospitals have the resources and incentive to serve low-income patients, the government has also long offered additional payments to institutions that serve a "disproportionate number" of such persons. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(i)(I). These payments are calculated in part using a hospital's so-called "Medicare fraction," which asks how much of the care the hospital provided to Medicare patients in a given year was provided to low-income Medicare patients. The fraction's denominator is the time the hospital spent caring for patients who were "entitled to benefits under" Medicare Part A. The numerator is the time the hospital spent caring for Part-A-entitled patients who were also entitled to income support payments under the Social Security Act. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(I). The bigger the fraction, the bigger the payment.
Calculating Medicare fractions got more complicated in 1997. That year, Congress created "Medicare Part C," sometimes referred to as Medicare Advantage. Under Part C, beneficiaries may choose to have the government pay their private insurance premiums rather than pay for their hospital care directly. This development led to the question whether Part C patients should be counted as "entitled to benefits under" Part A when calculating a hospital's Medicare fraction. The question is important as a practical matter because Part C enrollees, we're told, tend to be wealthier than patients who opt for traditional Part A coverage. Allina Health Services v. Price , 863 F. 3d 937, 939 (CADC 2017). So counting them makes the fraction smaller and reduces hospitals' payments considerably-by between $ 3 and $ 4 billion over a 9-year period, according to the government. Pet. for Cert. 23.
The agency overseeing Medicare has gone back and forth on whether to count Part C participants in the Medicare fraction. At first, it did not include them. See Northeast Hospital Corp. v. Sebelius , 657 F. 3d 1, 15-16 (CADC 2011). In 2003, the agency even proposed codifying that practice in a formal rule. 68 Fed. Reg. 27208. But after the public comment period, the agency reversed field and issued a final rule in 2004 declaring that it would begin counting Part C patients. 69 Fed. Reg. 49099. This abrupt change prompted various legal challenges from hospitals. In one case, a court held that the agency couldn't apply the 2004 rule retroactively. Northeast Hospital , 657 F. 3d at 14. In another case, a court vacated the 2004 rule because the agency had " 'pull[ed] a surprise switcheroo' " by doing the opposite of what it had proposed. Allina Health Services v. Sebelius , 746 F. 3d 1102, 1108 (CADC 2014). Eventually, and in response to these developments, the agency in 2013 issued a new rule that prospectively "readopt[ed] the policy" of counting Part C patients. 78 Fed. Reg. 50620. Challenges to the 2013 rule are pending.
The case before us arose in 2014. That's when the agency got around to calculating hospitals' Medicare fractions for fiscal year 2012. When it did so, the agency still wanted to count Part C patients. But it couldn't rely on the 2004 rule, which had been vacated. And it couldn't rely on the 2013 rule, which bore only prospective effect. The agency's solution? It posted on a website a spreadsheet announcing the 2012 Medicare fractions for 3,500 hospitals nationwide and noting that the fractions included Part C patients.
That Internet posting led to this lawsuit. A group of hospitals who provided care to low-income Medicare patients in 2012 argued (among other things) that the government had violated the Medicare Act by skipping its statutory notice-and-comment obligations. In reply, the government admitted that it hadn't provided notice and comment but argued it wasn't required to do so in these circumstances. Ultimately, the court of appeals sided with the hospitals. 863 F. 3d at 938. But in doing so the court created a conflict with other circuits that had suggested, if only in passing, that notice and comment wasn't needed in cases like this. See, e.g. , Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Leavitt , 509 F. 3d 1259, 1271, n. 11 (CA10 2007) ; Baptist Health v. Thompson , 458 F. 3d 768, 776, n. 8 (CA8 2006). We granted the government's petition for certiorari to resolve the conflict. 585 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 51, 201 L.Ed.2d 1129 (2018).
II
This case hinges on the meaning of a single phrase in the notice-and-comment statute Congress drafted specially for Medicare in 1987. Recall that the law requires the government to provide the public with advance notice and a chance to comment on any "rule, requirement, or other statement of policy" that "establishes or changes a substantive legal standard governing ... the payment for services." § 1395hh(a)(2). Before us, everyone agrees that the government's 2014 announcement of the 2012 Medicare fractions governed "payment for services." It's clear, too, that the government's announcement was at least a "statement of policy" because it "le[t] the public know [the agency's] current ... adjudicatory approach" to a critical question involved in calculating payments for thousands of hospitals nationwide. Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Shalala , 127 F. 3d 90, 94 (CADC 1997). So whether the government had an obligation to provide notice and comment winds up turning on whether its 2014 announcement established or changed a "substantive legal standard." That phrase doesn't seem to appear anywhere else in the entire United States Code, and the parties offer at least two ways to read it.
The hospitals suggest the statute means to distinguish a substantive from a procedural legal standard. On this account, a substantive standard is one that "creates duties, rights and obligations," while a procedural standard specifies how those duties, rights, and obligations should be enforced. Black's Law Dictionary 1281 (5th ed. 1979) (defining "substantive law"). And everyone agrees that a policy of counting Part C patients in the Medicare fraction is substantive in this sense, because it affects a hospital's right to payment. From this it follows that the public had a right to notice and comment before the government could adopt the policy at hand. 863 F. 3d at 943.
Very differently, the government suggests the statute means to distinguish a substantive from an interpretive legal standard. Under the APA, "substantive rules" are those that have the "force and effect of law," while "interpretive rules" are those that merely " 'advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.' " Perezv.Mortgage Bankers Assn. , 575 U.S. 92, ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 1204, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015). On the government's view, the 1987 Medicare notice-and-comment statute meant to track the APA's usage in this respect. And the government submits that, because the policy of counting Part C patients in the Medicare fractions would be treated as interpretive rather than substantive under the APA, it had no statutory obligation to provide notice and comment before adopting its new policy.
Who has the better reading? Several statutory clues persuade us of at least one thing: The government's interpretation can't be right. Pretty clearly, the Medicare Act doesn't use the word "substantive" in the same way the APA does-to identify only those legal standards that have the "force and effect of law."
First , the Medicare Act contemplates that "statements of policy" like the one at issue here can establish or change a "substantive legal standard." 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2) (emphasis added). Yet, by definition under the APA, statements of policy are not substantive; instead they are grouped with and treated as interpretive rules. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). This strongly suggests the Medicare Act just isn't using the word "substantive" in the same way as the APA. Even the government acknowledges that its contrary reading leaves the Medicare Act's treatment of policy statements "incoherent." Tr. of Oral Arg. 19.
To be sure, the government suggests that the statutory incoherence produced by its reading turns out to serve a rational purpose: It clarifies that the agency overseeing Medicare can't evade its notice-and-comment obligations for new rules that bear the "force and effect" of law by the simple expedient of "call[ing]" them mere "statements of policy." Id. , at 19-20. The dissent echoes this argument, suggesting that Congress included "statements of policy" in § 1395hh(a)(2) in order to capture "substantive rules in disguise." Post , at ---- (opinion of BREYER, J.).
But the statute doesn't refer to things that are labeled or disguised as statements of policy; it just refers to "statements of policy." Everyone agrees that when Congress used that phrase in the APA and in other provisions of § 1395hh, it referred to things that really are statements of policy. See, e.g. , Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Federal Power Comm'n , 506 F. 2d 33, 38 (CADC 1974) ; post , at ---- - ---- (discussing § 1395hh(e)(1) ). Yet, to accept the government's view, we'd have to hold that when Congress used the very same phrase in § 1395hh(a)(2), it sought to refer to things an agency calls statements of policy but that in fact are nothing of the sort. The dissent admits this "may seem odd at first blush," post , at ----, but further blushes don't bring much improvement. This Court does not lightly assume that Congress silently attaches different meanings to the same term in the same or related statutes. See Law v. Siegel , 571 U.S. 415, 422, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146 (2014).
Besides, even if the statute's reference to "statements of policy" could bear such an odd construction, the government and the dissent fail to explain why Congress would have thought it necessary or appropriate. Agencies have never been able to avoid notice and comment simply by mislabeling their substantive pronouncements. On the contrary, courts have long looked to the contents of the agency's action, not the agency's self-serving label , when deciding whether statutory notice-and-comment demands apply. See, e.g. , General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 742 F. 2d 1561, 1565 (CADC 1984) (en banc) ("[T]he agency's own label, while relevant, is not dispositive"); Guardian Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. , 589 F. 2d 658, 666-667 (CADC 1978) (if "a so-called policy statement is in purpose or likely effect ... a binding rule of substantive law," it "will be taken for what it is"). Nor is there any evidence before us suggesting that Congress thought it important to underscore this prosaic point in the Medicare Act (and yet not in the APA)-let alone any reason to think Congress would have sought to make the point in such an admittedly incoherent way.
Second , the government's reading would introduce another incoherence into the Medicare statute. Subsection (e)(1) of § 1395hh gives the government limited authority to make retroactive "substantive change[s]" in, among other things, "interpretative rules" and "statements of policy." But this statutory authority would make no sense if the Medicare Act used the term "substantive" as the APA does. It wouldn't because, again, interpretive rules and statements of policy-and any changes to them-are not substantive under the APA by definition.
Here, too, the government offers no satisfactory reply. It concedes, as it must, that the term "substantive" in subsection (e)(1) can't carry the meaning it wishes to ascribe to the same word in subsection (a)(2). Tr. of Oral Arg. 16-18. So that leaves the government to suggest (again) that the same word should mean two different things in the same statute. In (e)(1), the government says, it may bear the meaning the hospitals propose, but in (a)(2) it means the same thing it does in the APA. But, once more, the government fails to offer any good reason or evidence to unseat our normal presumption that, when Congress uses a term in multiple places within a single statute, the term bears a consistent meaning throughout. See Law , 571 U.S. at 422, 134 S.Ct. 1188.
Third , the government suggests Congress used the phrase "substantive legal standard" in the Medicare Act as a way to exempt interpretive rules and policy statements from notice and comment. But Congress had before it-and rejected-a much more direct path to that destination. In a single sentence the APA sets forth two exemptions from the government's usual notice-and-comment obligations:
"Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection [requiring notice and comment] does not apply-
"(A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or
"(B) when the agency for good cause finds ... that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).
In the Medicare Act, Congress expressly borrowed one of the APA's exemptions, the good cause exemption, by cross-referencing it in § 1395hh(b)(2)(C). If, as the government supposes, Congress had also wanted to borrow the other APA exemption, for interpretive rules and policy statements, it could have easily cross-referenced that exemption in exactly the same way. Congress had recently done just that, cross-referencing both of the APA's exceptions in the Clean Air Act. See § 305(a), 91 Stat. 772, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(1). Yet it didn't do the same thing in the Medicare Act, and Congress's choice to include a cross-reference to one but not the other of the APA's neighboring exemptions strongly suggests it acted " 'intentionally and purposefully in the disparate' " decisions. Russello v. United States , 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983).
The government's response asks us to favor a most unlikely reading over this obvious one. The government submits that Congress simply preferred to mimic the APA's interpretive-rule exemption in the Medicare Act by using the novel and enigmatic phrase "substantive legal standard" instead of a simple cross-reference. But the government supplies no persuasive account why Congress would have thought it necessary or wise to proceed in this convoluted way. The dissent suggests that a cross-reference could not have taken the place of other language in § 1395hh(a)(2) limiting the notice-and-comment requirement to rules governing benefits, payment, or eligibility, post , at ----; but we can't see why this would have made a cross-reference less desirable than the phrase "substantive legal standard" as a means of incorporating the APA's interpretive-rule exemption. So we're left with nothing but the doubtful proposition that Congress sought to accomplish in a "surpassingly strange manner" what it could have accomplished in a much more straightforward way. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank , 566 U.S. 639, 647, 132 S.Ct. 2065, 182 L.Ed.2d 967 (2012) ; see Advocate Health Care Networkv.Stapleton , 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1652, 1659, 198 L.Ed.2d 96 (2017) ("When legislators did not adopt 'obvious alternative' language, 'the natural implication is that they did not intend' the alternative").
The dissent would have us disregard all of the textual clues we've found significant because the word "substantive" carried "a special meaning in the context of administrative law" in the 1980s, making it "almost a certainty" that Congress had that meaning in mind when it used the word "substantive" in § 1395hh(a)(2). Post , at ----, ----. But it was the phrase "substantive rule " that was a term of art in administrative law, and Congress chose not to use that term in the Medicare Act. Instead, it introduced a seemingly new phrase to the statute books when it spoke of "substantive legal standards ." And, for all the reasons we have already explored, the term "substantive legal standard" in the Medicare Act appears to carry a more expansive scope than that borne by the term "substantive rule" under the APA.
In reply, the dissent stresses that § 1395hh refers to agency actions requiring notice and comment as "regulations." This is significant, the dissent says, because "courts had sometimes treated [the term 'regulations'] as interchangeable with the term 'substantive rules' " around the time of the 1987 Medicare Act amendments. Post , at ----. So if only "regulations" must proceed through notice and comment, the dissent reasons, that necessarily encompasses only things that qualify as substantive rules under the APA. In fact, however, by 1987 courts had commonly referred to both substantive and interpretive rules as "regulations," so the dissent's logical syllogism fails on its own terms. To see this, one need look no further than Chrysler Corp. v. Brown , 441 U.S. 281, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979), which described the substantive-interpretive divide as "the central distinction among agency regulations found in the APA." Id. , at 301, 99 S.Ct. 1705 (emphasis added); see also, e.g. , Batterton v. Francis , 432 U.S. 416, 425, n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 2399, 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977) (distinguishing between "[l]egislative, or substantive, regulations" and "interpretative regulation[s]"); United Technologies Corp. v. EPA , 821 F. 2d 714, 719 (CADC 1987) ("most of the regulations at issue are ... interpretative").
In the end, all of the available evidence persuades us that the phrase "substantive legal standard," which appears in § 13955hh(a)(2) and apparently nowhere else in the U.S. Code, cannot bear the same construction as the term "substantive rule" in the APA. We need not, however, go so far as to say that the hospitals' interpretation, adopted by the court of appeals, is correct in every particular. To affirm the judgment before us, it is enough to say the government's arguments for reversal fail to withstand scrutiny. Other questions about the statute's meaning can await other cases. The dissent would like us to provide more guidance, post , at ---- - ----, but the briefing before us focused on the issue whether the Medicare Act borrows the APA's interpretive-rule exception, and we limit our holding accordingly. In doing so, we follow the well-worn path of declining "to issue a sweeping ruling when a narrow one will do." McWilliams v. Dunn , 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1790, 1800, 198 L.Ed.2d 341 (2017).
III
Unable to muster support for its position in the statutory text or structure, the government encourages us to look elsewhere. It begins by inviting us to follow it into the legislative history lurking behind the Medicare Act. "But legislative history is not the law." Epic Systems Corp.v.Lewis , 584 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1612, 1631, 200 L.Ed.2d 889 (2018). And even those of us who believe that clear legislative history can "illuminate ambiguous text" won't allow "ambiguous legislative history to muddy clear statutory language." Milner v. Department of Navy , 562 U.S. 562, 572, 131 S.Ct. 1259, 179 L.Ed.2d 268 (2011). Yet the text before us clearly forecloses the government's position in this case, and the legislative history presented to us is ambiguous at best.
The government points us first to a conference report on the 1986 bill that adopted § 1395hh(b). The 1986 report opined that the bill adopted at that time wouldn't require notice and comment for interpretive rules. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 99-1012, p. 311 (1986). But the 1986 bill didn't include the statutory language at issue here. Congress added that language only the following year, when it enacted § 1395hh(a)(2). Nor does the government try to explain how a report on a 1986 bill sheds light on the meaning of statutory terms first introduced in 1987. If anything, the fact that Congress revisited the statute in 1987 may suggest it wasn't satisfied with the 1986 notice-and-comment requirements and wished to enhance them. Some legislative history even says as much. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-391(I), p. 430 (1987) (expressing concern that, despite the 1986 legislation, the agency was still announcing "important policies" without notice and comment).
The conference report on the 1987 bill that did adopt the statutory language before us today doesn't offer much help to the government either. The House version of the bill would have required notice and comment for rules with a "significant effect" on payments, a condition no doubt present here. H.R. 3545, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 133 Cong. Rec. 30019. Later, the conference committee replaced the House's language with the current language of subsection (a)(2), which the report said "reflect[ed] recent court rulings." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100-495, p. 566 (1987). The government contends that this was an oblique reference to a then-recent decision discussing the APA's interpretive-rule exception and an implicit suggestion that interpretive rules shouldn't be subject to notice and comment. See American Hospital Assn. v. Bowen , 834 F. 2d 1037, 1045-1046 (CADC 1987). But, as the hospitals point out, Bowen was mostly about the APA's treatment of procedural rules. See id. , at 1047-1057. So it seems at least equally plausible that the conference committee revised the House's language because it feared that language would have subjected procedural rules to notice-and-comment obligations.
The hospitals call our attention to other indications, too, that Members of Congress didn't understand the conference's language to track the APA. For example, the relevant provision in the final bill was titled "Publication as Regulations of Significant Policies ." § 4035(b), 101 Stat. 1330-78 (emphasis added). And, as we've seen, "significant policies" don't always amount to substantive rules under the APA. The House Ways and Means Committee likewise described the final bill as requiring notice and comment for "[s]ignificant policy changes," not just substantive rules. Summary of Conference Agreement on Reconciliation Provisions Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 12-13 (Comm. Print 1987). So in the end and at most, we are left with exactly the kind of murky legislative history that we all agree can't overcome a statute's clear text and structure.
That leads us to the government's final redoubt: a policy argument. But as the government knows well, courts aren't free to rewrite clear statutes under the banner of our own policy concerns. If the government doesn't like Congress's notice-and-comment policy choices, it must take its complaints there. See, e.g. , Hensonv.Santander Consumer USA Inc. , 582 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 1718, 1724-1725, 198 L.Ed.2d 177 (2017) ; Sebelius v. Cloer , 569 U.S. 369, 381, 133 S.Ct. 1886, 185 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2013). Besides, the government's policy arguments don't carry much force even on their own terms. The government warns that providing the public with notice and a chance to comment on all Medicare interpretive rules, like those in its roughly 6,000-page "Provider Reimbursement Manual," would take " 'many years' " to complete. Brief for Petitioner 18, 42. But the dissent points to only eight manual provisions that courts have deemed interpretive over the last four decades, see post , at ---- - ----, and the government hasn't suggested that providing notice and comment for these or any other specific manual provisions would prove excessively burdensome. Nor has the government identified any court decision invalidating a manual provision under § 1395hh(a)(2) in the nearly two years since the court of appeals issued its opinion in this case. For their part, the hospitals claim that only a few dozen pages of the Provider Reimbursement Manual might even arguably require notice and comment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 49-51. And they tell us that the agency regularly and without much difficulty undertakes notice-and-comment rulemaking for many other decisions affecting the Medicare program. See Brief for Respondents 58; App. to Brief in Opposition 1a-3a. The government hasn't rebutted any of these points.
Not only has the government failed to document any draconian costs associated with notice and comment, it also has neglected to acknowledge the potential countervailing benefits. Notice and comment gives affected parties fair warning of potential changes in the law and an opportunity to be heard on those changes-and it affords the agency a chance to avoid errors and make a more informed decision. See 1 K. Hickman & R. Pierce, Administrative Law § 4.8 (6th ed. 2019). Surely a rational Congress could have thought those benefits especially valuable when it comes to a program where even minor changes to the agency's approach can impact millions of people and billions of dollars in ways that are not always easy for regulators to anticipate. None of this is to say Congress had to proceed as it did. It is only to say that Congress reasonably could have believed that the policy decision reflected in the statute would yield benefits sufficient to outweigh the speculative burdens the government has suggested. And if notice and comment really does threaten to "become a major roadblock to the implementation of" Medicare, post , at ----, the agency can seek relief from Congress, which-unlike the courts-is both qualified and constitutionally entitled to weigh the costs and benefits of different approaches and make the necessary policy judgment.
IV
There are two more lines of argument that deserve brief acknowledgment. One concerns § 1395hh(a)(4), which provides that a Medicare regulation struck down for not being a logical outgrowth of the government's proposal can't "take effect" until the agency provides a "further opportunity for public comment." The hospitals claim, and the court of appeals held, that subsection (a)(4) also and independently required notice and comment here. But given our holding affirming the court of appeals' judgment under § 1395hh(a)(2), we have no need to reach this question.
Separately, we can imagine that the government might have sought to argue that the policy at issue here didn't "establis[h] or chang[e]" a substantive legal standard-and so didn't require notice and comment under § 1395hh(a)(2) -because the statute itself required it to count Part C patients in the Medicare fraction. But we need not consider this argument either, this time because the government hasn't pursued it and we normally have no obligation to entertain grounds for reversal that a party hasn't presented. Far from suggesting that the Medicare Act supplies the controlling legal standard for determining whether to count Part C patients, the government has insisted that the statute "does not speak directly to the issue," Brief for Appellant in Northeast Hospital Corp. v. Sebelius , No. 10-5163 (CADC), p. 22, and thus leaves a " 'gap' " for the agency to fill, Brief for Appellee in Allina v. Price , No. 16-5255 (CADC), p. 50 (quoting Northeast Hospital Corp. , 657 F. 3d at 13 ). The courts below accepted the government's submission, and the government hasn't sought to take a different position in this Court. So we express no opinion on whether the statute in fact contains such a "gap." We hold simply that, when the government establishes or changes an avowedly "gap"-filling policy, it can't evade its notice-and-comment obligations under § 1395hh(a)(2) on the strength of the arguments it has advanced in this case.
*
The judgment of the court of appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Nor does § 1395hh(e)(1) imply that the statute is using "regulations" and "interpretative rules" to mean different things. Post , at ---- - ----. True, that provision refers to "regulations, manual instructions, interpretative rules, statements of policy, or guidelines of general applicability." But contrary to the dissent's suggestion that each item in the list "refers to something different," post , at ----, the items appear to have substantial overlap. For example, many manual instructions surely qualify as guidelines of general applicability; and, as explained above, the statute explicitly requires some statements of policy to be issued as regulations.
Nor is it obvious that the dissent's approach would provide significantly clearer guidance. Lower courts have often observed "that it is quite difficult to distinguish between substantive and interpretative rules," Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Shalala , 127 F. 3d 90, 93 (CADC 1997), and precisely where to draw the boundary has been a subject "of much scholarly and judicial debate," Perezv.Mortgage Bankers Assn. , 575 U.S. 92, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 1204, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The question for decision here is whether the courts of Connecticut gave to a Nevada divorce decree the full faith and credit required by Art. IV, § 1 of the Constitution. Respondent brought the action in a Connecticut Superior Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that a decree of divorce entered against her and in favor of her husband, the late Herbert N. Rice, by a Nevada court is not entitled to full faith and credit because he was not domiciled in that state at the time the decree was entered. Petitioner, who had married Herbert N. Rice following his divorce, and the administrator of his estate were joined as defendants. The purpose of the action was to determine the widowhood status of the parties and to decide questions concerning the inheritance of the property of the decedent, who died intestate.
After a full trial, judgment was entered in favor of respondent, and the court’s finding that Herbert N. Rice had never established a bona fide domicile in Nevada was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. 134 Conn. 440, 58 A. 2d 523. We granted the petition for certiorari, 335 U. S. 842, to consider petitioner’s contention that the Connecticut courts did not fairly discharge the duty of respect owed the Nevada decree under this Court’s decisions in Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U. S. 226, and Esenwein v. Commonwealth, 325 U. S. 279.
Upon full consideration of the record, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Errors, and the argument of counsel, we have concluded that the Connecticut courts gave proper weight to the claims of power by the Nevada court, that the burden of proving that the decedent had not acquired a domicile in Nevada was placed upon respondent, that this issue of fact was fairly tried according to appropriate procedure, and that the findings of the Connecticut courts are amply supported in evidence. Our statement in the Esenwein opinion, 325 U. S. at 281, that “It is not for us to retry the facts, and we cannot say that in reaching their conclusion the [Connecticut] courts did not have warrant in evidence and did not fairly weigh the facts,” is appropriate here.
Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U. S. 343, and Coe v. Coe, 334 U. S. 378, decided by this Court last term, are not in point. No personal service was made upon respondent, nor did she in any way participate in the Nevada proceedings. She was not, therefore, precluded in the present action from challenging the finding of the Nevada court that Herbert N. Rice was, at the time of the divorce, domiciled in that state.
, , Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
K
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA or Act), 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), requires a district court to enjoin immediately all discharges of pollutants that do not comply with the Act’s permit requirements or whether the district court retains discretion to order other relief to achieve compliance. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Act withdrew the courts’ equitable discretion. Romero-Barcelo v. Brown, 643 F. 2d 835 (1981). We reverse.
I
For many years, the Navy has used Vieques Island, a small island off the Puerto Rico coast, for weapons training. Currently all Atlantic Fleet vessels assigned to the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean are required to complete their training at Vieques because it permits a full range of exercises under conditions similar to combat. During air-to-ground training, however, pilots sometimes miss land-based targets, and ordnance falls into the sea. That is, accidental bombings of the navigable waters and, occasionally, intentional bombings of water targets occur. The District Court found that these discharges have not harmed the quality of the water.
In 1978, respondents, who include the Governor of Puerto Rico and residents of the island, sued to enjoin the Navy’s operations on the island. Their complaint alleged violations of numerous federal environmental statutes and various other Acts. After an extensive hearing, the District Court found that under the explicit terms of the Act, the Navy had violated the Act by discharging ordnance into the waters surrounding the island without first obtaining a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Romero-Barcelo v. Brown, 478 F. Supp. 646 (PR 1979).
Under the FWPCA, the “discharge of any pollutant” requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 38 U. S. C. §§ 1311(a), 1323(a) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). The term “discharge of any pollutant” is defined as
“any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(12) (emphasis added).
Pollutant, in turn, 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. . . 33 U. S. C. § 1362(6) (emphasis added).
And, under the Act, a “point source” is
“any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. . . .” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(14) (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added).
Under the FWPCA, the EPA may not issue an NPDES permit without state certification that the permit conforms to state water quality standards. A State has the authority to deny certification of the permit application or attach conditions to the final permit. 33 U. S. C. § 1341.
As the District Court construed the FWPCA, the release of ordnance from aircraft or from ships into navigable waters is a discharge of pollutants, even though the EPA, which administers the Act, had not promulgated any regulations setting effluent levels or providing for the issuance of an NPDES permit for this category of pollutants. Recognizing that violations of the Act “must be cured,” 478 F. Supp., at 707, the District Court ordered the Navy to apply for an NPDES permit. It refused, however, to enjoin Navy operations pending consideration of the permit application. It explained that the Navy’s “technical violations” were not causing any “appreciable harm” to the environment. Id., at 706. Moreover, because of the importance of the island as a training center, “the granting of the injunctive relief sought would cause grievous, and perhaps irreparable harm, not only to Defendant Navy, but to the general welfare of this Nation.” Id., at 707. The District Court concluded that an injunction was not necessary to ensure suitably prompt compliance by the Navy. To support this conclusion, it emphasized an equity court’s traditionally broad discretion in deciding appropriate relief and quoted from the classic description of injunc-tive relief in Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329-330 (1944): “The historic injunctive process was designed to deter, not to punish.”
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded with instructions that the court order the Navy to cease the violation until it obtained a permit. 643 F. 2d 835 (1981). Relying on TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 (1978), in which this Court held that an imminent violation of the Endangered Species Act required injunctive relief, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred in undertaking a traditional balancing of the parties’ competing interests. “Whether or not the Navy’s activities in fact harm the coastal waters, it has an absolute statutory obligation to stop any discharges of pollutants until the permit procedure has been followed and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, upon review of the evidence, has granted a permit.” 643 F. 2d, at 861. The court suggested that if the order would interfere significantly with military preparedness, the Navy should request that the President grant it an exemption from the requirements in the interest of national security.”
“In fact, if anything, these waters are as aesthetically acceptable as any to be found anywhere, and Plaintiff's witnesses unanimously testified as to their being the best fishing grounds in Vieques.” 478 F. Supp., at 667. “[I]f the truth be said, the control of large areas of Vieques [by the Navy] probably constitutes a positive factor in its over all ecology. The very fact that there are in the Navy zones modest numbers of various marine species which are practically non-existent in the civilian sector of Vieques or in the main island of Puerto Rico, is an eloquent example of res ipsa loquitur.” Id., at 682 (footnote omitted).
Because this case posed an important question regarding the power of the federal courts to grant or withhold equitable relief for violations of the FWPCA, we granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 813 (1981). We now reverse.
I-H I — I
It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy. It “is not a remedy which issues as of course,” Harrisonville v. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U. S. 334, 337-338 (1933), or “to restrain an act the injurious consequences of which are merely trifling.” Consolidated Canal Co. v. Mesa Canal Co., 177 U. S. 296, 302 (1900). An injunction should issue only where the intervention of a court of equity “is essential in order effectually to protect property rights against injuries otherwise irremediable.” Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U. S. 453, 456 (1919). The Court has repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies. Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U. S. 49, 61 (1975); Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 88 (1974); Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U. S. 500, 506-507 (1959); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329.
Where plaintiff and defendant present competing claims of injury, the traditional function of equity has been to arrive at a “nice adjustment and reconciliation” between the competing claims, Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329. In such cases, the court “balances the conveniences of the parties and possible injuries to them according as they may be affected by the granting or withholding of the injunction.” Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 440 (1944). “The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it.” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329.
In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 500 (1941). Thus, the Court has noted that “[t]he award of an interlocutory injunction by courts of equity has never been regarded as strictly a matter of right, even though irreparable injury may otherwise result to the plaintiff,” and that “where an injunction is asked which will adversely affect a public interest for whose impairment, even temporarily, an injunction bond cannot compensate, the court may in the public interest withhold relief until a final determination of the rights of the parties, though the postponement may be burdensome to the plaintiff.” Yakus v. United States, supra, at 440 (footnote omitted). The grant of jurisdiction to ensure compliance with a statute hardly suggests an absolute duty to do so under any and all circumstances, and a federal judge sitting as chancellor is not mechanically obligated to grant an injunction for every violation of law. TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S., at 193; Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S., at 329.
These commonplace considerations applicable to cases in which injunctions are sought in the federal courts reflect a “practice with a background of several hundred years of history,” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329, a practice of which Congress is assuredly well aware. Of course, Congress may intervene and guide or control the exercise of the courts’ discretion, but we do not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329. As the Court said in Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395, 398 (1946):
“Moreover, the comprehensiveness of this equitable jurisdiction is not to be denied or limited in the absence of a clear and valid legislative command. Unless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court’s jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied. ‘The great principles of equity, securing complete justice, should not be yielded to light inferences, or doubtful construction.’ Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497, 503 . . . .”
In TVA v. Hill, we held that Congress had foreclosed the exercise of the usual discretion possessed by a court of equity. There, we thought that “[o]ne would be hard pressed to find a statutory provision whose terms were any plainer” than that before us. 437 U. S., at 173. The statute involved, the Endangered Species Act, 87 Stat. 884, 16 U. S. C. § 1531 et seq., required the District Court to enjoin completion of the Tellico Dam in order to preserve the snail darter, a species of perch. The purpose and language of the statute under consideration in Hill, not the bare fact of a statutory violation, compelled that conclusion. Section 7 of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 1536, requires federal agencies to “insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of [any] endangered species ... or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined ... to be critical.” The statute thus contains a flat ban on the destruction of critical habitats.
It was conceded in Hill that completion of the dam would eliminate an endangered species by destroying its critical habitat. Refusal to enjoin the action would have ignored the “explicit provisions of the Endangered Species Act.” 437 U. S., at 173. Congress, it appeared to us, had chosen the snail darter over the dam. The purpose and language of the statute limited the remedies available to the District Court; only an injunction could vindicate the objectives of the Act.
That is not the case here. An injunction is not the only means of ensuring compliance. The FWPCA itself, for example, provides for fines and criminal penalties. 33 U. S. C. §§ 1319(c) and (d). Respondents suggest that failure to enjoin the Navy will undermine the integrity of the permit process by allowing the statutory violation to continue. The integrity of the Nation’s waters, however, not the permit process, is the purpose of the FWPCA. As Congress explained, the objective of the FWPCA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U. S. C. § 1251(a).
This purpose is to be achieved by compliance with the Act, including compliance with the permit requirements. Here, however, the discharge of ordnance had not polluted the waters, and, although the District Court declined to enjoin the discharges, it neither ignored the statutory violation nor undercut the purpose and function of the permit system. The court ordered the Navy to apply for a permit. It temporarily, not permanently, allowed the Navy to continue its activities without a permit.
In Hill, we also noted that none of the limited “hardship exemptions” of the Endangered Species Act would “even remotely apply to the Tellico Project.” 437 U. S., at 188. The prohibition of the FWPCA against discharge of pollutants, in contrast, can be overcome by the very permit the Navy was ordered to seek. The Senate Report to the 1972 Amendments explains that the permit program would be enacted because “the Committee recognizes the impracticality of any effort to halt all pollution immediately.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 43 (1971). That the scheme as a whole contemplates the exercise of discretion and balancing of equities militates against the conclusion that Congress intended to deny courts their traditional equitable discretion in enforcing the statute.
Other aspects of the statutory scheme also suggest that Congress did not intend to deny courts the discretion to rely on remedies other than an immediate prohibitory injunction. Although the ultimate objective of the FWPCA is to eliminate all discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters by 1985, the statute sets forth a scheme of phased compliance. As enacted, it called for the achievement 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). This scheme of phased compliance further suggests that this is a statute in which Congress envisioned, rather than curtailed, the exercise of discretion.
The FWPCA directs the Administrator of the EPA to seek an injunction to restrain immediately discharges of pollutants he finds to be presenting “an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons or to the welfare of persons.” 33 U. S. C. § 1364(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). This rule of immediate cessation, however, is limited to the indicated class of violations. For other kinds of violations, the FWPCA authorizes the Administrator of the EPA “to commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, for any violation for which he is authorized to issue a compliance order . . . .” 33 U. S. C. § 1319(b). The provision makes clear that Congress did not anticipate that all discharges would be immediately enjoined. Consistent with this view, the administrative practice has not been to request immediate cessation orders. “Rather, enforcement actions typically result, by consent or otherwise, in a remedial order setting out a detailed schedule of compliance designed to cure the identified violation of the Act.” Brief for Petitioners 17. See Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304, 320-322 (1981). Here, again, the statutory scheme contemplates equitable consideration.
Both the Court of Appeals and respondents attach particular weight to the provision of the FWPCA permitting the President to exempt federal facilities from compliance with the permit requirements. 33 U. S. C. § 1323(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). They suggest that this provision indicates congressional intent to limit the court’s discretion. According to respondents, the exemption provision evidences Congress’ determination that only paramount national interests justify failure to comply and that only the President should make this judgment.
We do not construe the provision so broadly. We read the FWPCA as permitting the exercise of a court’s equitable discretion, whether the source of pollution is a private party or a federal agency, to order relief that will achieve compliance with the Act. The exemption serves a different and complementary purpose, that of permitting noncompliance by federal agencies in extraordinary circumstances. Executive Order No. 12088, 3 CFR 243 (1979), which implements the exemption authority, requires the federal agency requesting such an exemption to certify that it cannot meet the applicable pollution standards. “Exemptions are granted by the President only if the conflict between pollution control standards and crucial federal activities cannot be resolved through the development of a practicable remedial program.” Brief for Petitioners 26, n. 30.
Should the Navy receive a permit here, there would be no need to invoke the machinery of the Presidential exemption. If not, this course remains open. The exemption provision would enable the President, believing paramount national interests so require, to authorize discharges which the District Court has enjoined. Reading the statute to permit the exercise of a court’s equitable discretion in no way eliminates the role of the exemption provision in the statutory scheme.
Like the language and structure of the Act, the legislative history does not suggest that Congress intended to deny courts their traditional equitable discretion. Congress passed the 1972 Amendments because it recognized that “the national effort to abate and control water pollution has been inadequate in every vital aspect.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 7 (1971). The past failings included enforcement efforts under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (Refuse Act), 33 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. The “major purpose” of the 1972 Amendments was “to establish a comprehensive long-range policy for the elimination of water pollution.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, supra, at 95. The permit system was the key to that policy. “The Amendments established a new system of regulation under which it is illegal for anyone to discharge pollutants into the Nation’s waters except pursuant to a permit.” Milwaukee v. Illinois, supra, at 310-311; see generally EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U. S. 200 (1976). Nonetheless, “[i]n writing the enforcement procedures involving the Federal Government the Committee drew extensively . . . upon the existing enforcement provisions of the Refuse Act of 1899.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, supra, at 63. Violations of the Refuse Act have not automatically led courts to issue injunctions. See Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA, 514 F. 2d 492, 535-538 (CA8 1975); United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 500 F. 2d 167, 175 (CA5 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 962 (1975); United States v. Kennebec Log Driving Co., 491 F. 2d 562, 571 (CA1 1973), on remand, 399 F. Supp. 754, 759-760 (Me. 1975).
III
This Court explained in Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321 (1944), that a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied. As we did there, we construe the statute at issue “in favor of that interpretation which affords a full opportunity for equity courts to treat enforcement proceedings ... in accordance with their traditional practices, as conditioned by the necessities of the public interest which Congress has sought to protect.” Id,., at 330. We do not read the FWPCA as foreclosing completely the exercise of the court’s discretion. Rather than requiring a district court to issue an injunction for any and all statutory violations, the FWPCA permits the district court to order that relief it considers necessary to secure prompt compliance with the Act. That relief can include, but is not limited to, an order of immediate cessation.
The exercise of equitable discretion, which must include the ability to deny as well as grant injunctive relief, can fully protect the range of public interests at issue at this stage in the proceedings. The District Court did not face a situation in which a permit would very likely not issue, and the requirements and objective of the statute could therefore not be vindicated if discharges were permitted to continue. Should it become clear that no permit will be issued and that compliance with the FWPCA will not be forthcoming, the statutory scheme and purpose would require the court to reconsider the balance it has struck.
Because Congress, in enacting the FWPCA, has not foreclosed the exercise of equitable discretion, the proper standard for appellate review is whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying an immediate cessation order while the Navy applied for a permit. We reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The complaint charged the Navy with violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U. S. C. § 4321 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV); the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV); the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 7401 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV); the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U. S. C. § 4901 et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. § 6901 et seq.; the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U. S. C. § 1531 et seq.; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U. S. C. § 470 et seq.; the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U. S. C. § 1451 et seq.; the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U. S. C. § 1361 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV); the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U. S. C. § 401 et seq.; various Amendments to the United States Constitution, congressional and Presidential directives concerning cessation of Navy operations on the neighboring island of Culebra, and Puerto Rico law.
The District Court also found that the Navy had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a reviewable environmental record to support a decision not to file such a statement, Romero-Barcelo v. Brown, 478 F. Supp. 646, 705 (PR 1979), and had failed to nominate historic sites to the National Register as required under the National Historic Preservation Act. Ibid. It ordered the Navy to nominate such sites and to file an EIS. Id., at 708. The Court of Appeals remanded issues under the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act to the District Court for further consideration. Romero-Barcelo v. Brown, 643 F. 2d 835, 858, 860, 862 (1981). It vacated the order involving NEPA and remanded with orders to dismiss because the Navy had filed an EIS in the interim. Id., at 862. Only the issue involving the FWPCA is before this Court.
The EPA issues effluent limitations for categories and classes of point sources. See generally E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112 (1977); 40 CFR part 400 et seq. (1981). In a situation somewhat similar to that before us, the Secretary of the Interior has, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U. S. C. § 703 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), regulated deposit of shot into water by duck hunters who miss their targets. National Rifle Assn. v. Kleppe, 425 F. Supp. 1101 (DC 1976), affirmance order, 187 U. S. App. D. C. 240, 571 F. 2d 674 (1978).
The District Court wrote:
The District Court also took into consideration the delay by plaintiffs in asserting their claims. It concluded that although laches should not totally bar the claims, it did strongly militate against the granting of injunc-tive relief. Id., at 707.
Title 33 U. S. C. § 1323(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV) provides, in relevant part:
“The President may exempt any effluent source of any department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with any such a requirement if he determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so ... . No such exemptions shall be granted due to lack of appropriation unless the President shall have specifically requested such appropriation as part of the budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to make available such requested appropriation. Any exemption shall be for a period not in excess of one year, but additional exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed one year upon the President’s making a new determination. The President shall report each January to the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of this section granted during the preceding calendar year, together with his reason for granting such exemption.”
The objective of this statute is in some respects similar to that sought in nuisance suits, where courts have fully exercised their equitable discretion and ingenuity in ordering remedies. E. g., Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972); Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 N. Y. 2d 219, 257 N. E. 2d 870 (1970).
Federal agencies must comply with the water pollution abatement requirements “in the same manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity . . . .” 33 U. S. C. § 1323(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 80 (1971), pointed to “[f]ederal agencies such as the Department of Defense” for failing to abate pollution.
The Navy applied for an NPDES permit in December 1979. In May 1981, the EPA issued a draft NPDES permit and a notice of intent to issue that permit. The FWPCA requires a certification of compliance with state water quality standards before the EPA may issue an NPDES permit. 33 U. S. C. § 1341(a). The Environmental Quality Board of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico denied the Navy a water quality certificate in connection with this application for an NPDES in June 1981. In February 1982, the Environmental Quality Board denied the Navy’s reconsideration request and announced it was adhering to its original ruling. In a letter dated April 9, 1982, the Solicitor General informed the Clerk of the Court that the Navy has filed an action challenging the denial of the water quality certificate. United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Civ. Action No. 82-0726 (Dist. Ct. PR).
As we have explained, the 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA established the NPDES as
“a means of achieving and enforcing the effluent limitations. Under the NPDES, it is unlawful for any person to discharge a pollutant without obtaining a permit and complying with its terms. An NPDES permit serves to transform generally applicable effluent limitations and other standards — including those based on water quality — into the obligations (including a timetable for compliance) of the individual discharger, and the Amendments provide for direct administrative and judicial enforcement of permits. . . . With few exceptions, for enforcement purposes a discharger in compliance with the terms and conditions of an NPDES permit is deemed to be in compliance with those sections of the Amendments on which the permit conditions are based. ... In short, the permit defines, and facilitates compliance with, and enforcement of, a preponderance of a discharger’s obligations under the Amendments.” EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U. S. 200, 205 (1976) (footnote omitted).
We have, however, held some standards related to phased compliance to be absolute. See EPA v. National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U. S. 64 (1980). In Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U. S. 1 (1981), we concluded that the federal common law of nuisance was pre-empted by the FWPCA and other similar Acts: “In the absence of strong indicia of a contrary congressional intent, we are compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate.” Id,., at 15; see Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304 (1981). But, as we have also observed in construing this Act: “The question... is not what a court thinks is generally appropriate to the regulatory process, it is what Congress intended . . . .” E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S., at 138. Here we do not read the FWPCA as intending to abolish the courts’ equitable discretion in ordering remedies.
The statute at issue in Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321 (1944), contained language very similar to that in § 1319(b). It directed the Price Administrator to seek “a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order” to halt violations. Id., at 322. The Court determined that such statutory language did not require the court to issue an injunction even when the Administrator had sued for injunctive relief. In Hecht Co., the court’s equitable discretion overrode that of the Administrator. If a court can properly refuse an injunction in the circumstances of Hecht Co., the exercise of its discretion seems clearly appropriate in a case such as this, where the EPA Administrator was not a party and had not yet expressed his judgment. The action of the District Court permitted it to obtain the benefit of the EPA’s recommendation before deciding to enjoin the discharge.
In Hecht Co., unlike here, the violations had ceased by the time the injunction was sought. The Court, however, explained that “the cessation of violations, whether before or after the institution of a suit by the Administrator, is no bar to the issuance of an injunction.” Id., at 327. Thus, contrary to the dissent’s characterization, post, at 327-328, the Court did not base its decision on the fact that violations had ceased.
See n. 6, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Virginia may subject persons, including newspapers, to criminal sanctions for divulging information regarding proceedings before a state judicial review commission which is authorized to hear complaints as to judges’ disability or misconduct, when such proceedings are declared confidential by the State Constitution and statutes.
I
On October 4, 1975, the Virginian Pilot, a Landmark newspaper, published an article which accurately reported on a pending inquiry by the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission and identified the state judge whose conduct was being investigated. The article reported that “[n]o formal complaint has been filed by the commission against '[the judge], indicating either that the five-man panel found insufficient cause for action or that the case is still under review.” App. 47a. A month later, on November 5, a grand jury indicted Landmark for violating Va. Code § 2.1-37.13 (1973) by “unlawfully divulg[ing] the identification of a Judge of a Court not of record, which said Judge was the subject of an investigation and hearing” by the Commission.
The trial commenced on December 16, 1975, after the court had denied Landmark’s motion to quash or dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the statutory provision did not in terms apply to the article in question, and that it could not be so applied consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The essential facts were stipulated, and revealed that at the time the article was published the Commission had not filed a formal complaint with the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning the judge under investigation. The only witness at the trial, Joseph W. Dunn, Jr., Managing Editor of the Virginian Pilot, testified that he decided to print the information about the Commission proceedings because he felt that the subject was a matter of public importance which should be brought to the attention of the Pilot’s readers. Mr. Dunn acknowledged he was aware that it was a misdemeanor for anyone participating in Commission proceedings to divulge information about those proceedings, but testified that he did not understand the statute to apply to newspaper reports about the proceedings. He further testified that no reporter, employee, or representative of Landmark had been subpoenaed by or had appeared before the Commission in connection with the proceedings described in the October 4 article.
The case was tried without a jury, and Landmark was found guilty and fined $500 plus the costs of prosecution. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction, with one dissent. That court characterized the case as involving “a confrontation between the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of the press and a Virginia statute which imposes criminal sanctions for breach of the confidentiality of proceedings before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.” At the outset it rejected Landmark’s claim that Va. Code § 2.1-37.13 (1973) applied only to the participants in a Commission proceeding or to the initial disclosure of confidential information. “Clearly, Landmark’s actions violated [the statute] and rendered it liable to imposition of the sanctions prescribed... 217 Va. 699, 703, 233 S. E. 2d 120, 123.
Turning then to the constitutional question, the court noted that it was one of first impression and of broad significance because of the large number of other States in addition to Virginia which have comparable statutes requiring confidentiality with respect to judicial inquiry commissions. The court emphasized that the issue was not one of prior restraint but instead involved a sanction subsequent to publication. Accordingly, it concluded that the “clear and present danger test” was the appropriate constitutional benchmark. It identified three functions served by the requirement of confidentiality in Commission proceedings: (a) protection of a judge’s reputation from the adverse publicity which might flow from frivolous complaints, (b) maintenance of confidence in the judicial system by preventing the premature disclosure of a complaint before the Commission has determined that the charge is well founded, and (c) protection of complainants and witnesses from possible recrimination by prohibiting disclosure until the validity of the complaint has been ascertained. The court concluded:
“Considering these matters, we believe it can be said safely, without need of hard in-court evidence, that, absent a requirement of confidentiality, the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission could not function properly or discharge effectively its intended purpose. Thus, sanctions are indispensable to the suppression of a clear and present danger posed by the premature disclosure of the Commission’s sensitive proceedings — the imminent impairment of the effectiveness of the Commission and the accompanying immediate threat to the orderly administration of justice.” Id., at 712, 233 S. E. 2d, at 129.
In dissent, Justice Poff took the position that as applied to Landmark the statute violated the First Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 431 TJ. S. 964, and we now reverse.
II
At the present time it appears that 47 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have established, by constitution, statute, or court rule, some type of judicial inquiry and disciplinary procedures. All of these jurisdictions, with the apparent exception of Puerto Rico, provide for the confidentiality of judicial disciplinary proceedings, although in most the guarantee of confidentiality extends only to the point when a formal complaint is filed with the State Supreme Court or equivalent body. Cf. ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Function of the Trial Judge § 9.1 (App. Draft 1972).
The substantial uniformity of the existing state plans suggests that confidentiality is perceived as tending to insure the ultimate effectiveness of the judicial review commissions. First, confidentiality is thought to encourage the filing of complaints and the willing participation of relevant witnesses by providing protection against possible retaliation or recrimination. Second, at least until the time when the meritorious can be separated from the frivolous complaints, the confidentiality of the proceedings protects judges from the injury which might result from publication of unexamined and unwarranted complaints. And finally, it is argued, confidence in the judiciary as an institution is maintained by avoiding premature announcement of groundless claims of judicial misconduct or disability since it can be assumed that some frivolous complaints will be made against judicial officers who rarely can satisfy all contending litigants. See generally W. Braithwaite, Who Judges the Judges? 161-162 (1971); Buckley, The Commission on Judicial Qualifications: An Attempt to Deal with Judicial Misconduct, 3 U. San Fran. L. Rev. 244, 255-256 (1969).
In addition to advancing these general interests, the confidentiality requirement can be said to facilitate the work of the commissions in several practical respects. When removal or retirement is justified by the charges, judges are more likely to resign voluntarily or retire without the necessity of a formal proceeding if the publicity that would accompany such a proceeding can thereby be avoided. Of course, if the charges become public at an early stage of the investigation, little would be lost — at least from the judge’s perspective — by the commencement of formal proceedings. In the more common situation, where the alleged misconduct is not of the magnitude to warrant removal or even censure, the confidentiality of the proceedings allows the judge to be made aware of minor complaints which may appropriately be called to his attention without public notice. See Braithwaite, supra, at 162-163.
Acceptance of the collective judgment that confidentiality promotes the effectiveness of this mode of scrutinizing judicial conduct and integrity, however, marks only the beginning of the inquiry. Indeed, Landmark does not challenge the requirement of confidentiality, but instead focuses its attack on the determination of the Virginia Legislature, as construed by the Supreme Court, that the “divulging” or “publishing” of information concerning the work of the Commission by third parties, not themselves involved in the proceedings, should be criminally punishable. Unlike the generalized mandate of confidentiality, the imposition of criminal sanctions for its breach is not a common characteristic of the state plans; indeed only Virginia and Hawaii appear to provide criminal sanctions for disclosure.
Ill
The narrow and limited question presented, then, is whether the First Amendment permits the criminal punishment of third persons who are strangers to the inquiry, including the news media, for divulging or publishing truthful information regarding confidential proceedings of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. We are not here concerned with the possible applicability of the statute to one who secures the information by illegal means and thereafter divulges it. We do not have before us any constitutional challenge to a State’s power to keep the Commission’s proceedings confidential or to punish participants for breach of this mandate. Cf. Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 564 (1976); id., at 601 n. 27 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 393-394 (1962). Nor does Landmark argue for any constitutionally compelled right of access for the press to those proceedings. Cf. Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843 (1974); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817 (1974). Finally as the Supreme Court of Virginia held, and appellant does not dispute, the challenged statute does not constitute a prior restraint or attempt by the State to censor the news media.
Landmark urges as the dispositive answer to the question presented that truthful reporting about public officials in connection with their public duties is always insulated from the imposition of criminal sanctions by the First Amendment. It points to the solicitude accorded even untruthful speech when public officials are its subjects, see, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), and the extension of First Amendment protection to the dissemination of truthful commercial information, see, e. g., Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976); Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977), to support its contention. We find it unnecessary to adopt this categorical approach to resolve the issue before us. We conclude that the publication Virginia seeks to punish under its statute lies near the core of the First Amendment, and the Commonwealth’s interests advanced by the imposition of criminal sanctions are insufficient to justify the actual and potential encroachments on freedom of speech and of the press which follow therefrom. See, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 64-65 (1976).
A
In Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218 (1966), this Court observed: “Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Although it is assumed that judges will ignore the public clamor or media reports and editorials in reaching their decisions and by tradition will not respond to public commentary, the law gives “[jjudges as persons, or courts as institutions... no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions.” Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 289 (1941) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.
“A responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration.... Its function in this regard is documented by an impressive record of service over several centuries. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 350 (1966).
Cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 492 (1975).
The operation of the Virginia Commission, no less than the operation of the judicial system itself, is a matter of public interest, necessarily engaging the attention of the news media. The article published by Landmark provided accurate factual information about a legislatively authorized inquiry pending before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, and in so doing clearly served those interests in public scrutiny and discussion of governmental affairs which the First Amendment was adopted to protect. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 269-270.
B
The Commonwealth concedes that “[w]ithout question the First Amendment seeks to protect the freedom of the press to report and to criticize judicial conduct,” Brief for Appellee 17, but it argues that such protection does not extend to the publication of information “which by Constitutional mandate is to be confidential.” Ibid. Our recent decision in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, supra, is relied upon to support this interpretation of the scope of the freedom of speech and press guarantees. As we read Cox, it does not provide the answer to the question now confronting us. Our holding there was that a civil action against a television station for breach of privacy could not be maintained consistently with the First Amendment when the station had broadcast only information which was already hi the public domain. “At the very least, the First and Fourteenth Amendments will not allow exposing the press to liability for truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court records.” 420 U. S., at 496. The broader question — whether the publcation of truthful information withheld by law from the public domain is similarly privileged — was not reached and indeed was explicitly reserved in Cox. Id., at 497 n. 27. We need not address all the implications of that question here, but only whether in the circumstances of this case Landmark’s publication is protected by the First Amendment.
The Commonwealth also focuses on what it perceives to be the pernicious effects of public discussion of Commission proceedings to support its argument. It contends that the public interest is not served by discussion of unfounded allegations of misconduct which defames honest judges and serves only to demean the administration of justice. The functioning of the Commission itself is also claimed to be impeded by premature disclosure of the complainant, witnesses, and the judge under investigation. Criminal sanctions minimize these harmful consequences, according to the Commonwealth, by ensuring that the guarantee of confidentiality is more than an empty promise.
It can be assumed for purposes of decision that confidentiality of Commission proceedings serves legitimate state interests. The question, however, is whether these interests are sufficient to justify the encroachment on First Amendment guarantees which the imposition of criminal sanctions entails with respect to nonparticipants such as Landmark. The Commonwealth has offered little more than assertion and conjecture to support its claim that without criminal sanctions the objectives of the statutory scheme would be seriously undermined. While not dispositive, we note that more than 40 States having similar commissions have not found, it necessary to- enforce confidentiality by use of criminal sanctions against nonparticipants.
Moreover, neither the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the reputation of its judges, nor its interest in maintaining the' institutional integrity of its courts is sufficient to justify the subsequent punishment of speech at issue here, even on the assumption that criminal sanctions do in fact enhance the guarantee of confidentiality. Admittedly, the Commonwealth has an interest in protecting the good repute of its judges, like that of all other public officials. Our prior cases have firmly established, however, that injury to official reputation is an insufficient reason “for repressing speech that would otherwise be free.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 272-273. See also Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 67 (1964). The remaining interest sought to be protected, the institutional reputation of the courts, is entitled to no greater weight in the constitutional scales. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra. As Mr. Justice Black observed in Bridges v. California, 314 U. S., at 270-271:
“The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion.... [A]n enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.”
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, in his dissent in Bridges, agreed that speech cannot be punished when the purpose is simply “to protect the court as a mystical entity or the judges as individuals or as anointed priests set apart from the community and spared the criticism to which in a democracy other public servants are exposed.” Id., at 291-292.
The Commonwealth has provided no' sufficient reason for disregarding these well-established principles. We find them controlling and, on this record, dispositive.
IV
The Supreme Court of Virginia relied on the clear-and-present-danger test in rejecting Landmark’s claim. We question the relevance of that standard here; moreover we cannot accept the mechanical application of the test which led that court to its conclusion. Mr. Justice Holmes’ test was never intended “to express a technical legal doctrine or to convey a formula for adjudicating eases.” Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 353 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Properly applied, the test requires a court to make its own inquiry into the imminence and magnitude of the danger said to flow from the particular utterance and then to balance the character of the evil, as well as its likelihood, against the need for free and unfettered expression. The possibility that other measures will serve the State’s interests should also be weighed.
Landmark argued in the Supreme Court of Virginia that “before a state may punish expression, it must prove by 'actual facts’ the existence of a clear and present danger to the orderly administration of justice.” 217 Va., at 706, 233 S. E. 2d, at 125. The court acknowledged that the record before it was devoid of such “actual facts,” but went on to hold that such proof was not required when the legislature itself had made the requisite finding “that a clear and present danger to the orderly administration of justice would be created by divulgence of the confidential proceedings of the Commission.” Id., at 708, 233 S. E. 2d, at 126. This legislative declaration coupled with the stipulated fact that Landmark published the disputed article was regarded by the court as sufficient to justify imposition of criminal sanctions.
Deference to a legislative finding cannot limit judicial inquiry when First Amendment rights are at stake. In Pennekamp v. Florida, supra, at 335, Mr. Justice Reed observed that this Court is
“compelled to examine for [itself] the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see whether or not they do carry a threat of clear and. present danger to the impartiality and good order of the courts or whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.”
Mr. Justice Brandeis was even more pointed in his concurrence in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 378-379 (1927):
“[A legislative declaration] does not preclude enquiry into the question whether, at the time and under the circumstances, the conditions existed which are essential to validity under the Federal Constitution.... Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech and assembly are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to a defendant to present the issue whether there actually did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent; and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restriction interposed by the legislature.”
A legislature appropriately inquires into and may declare the reasons impelling legislative action but the judicial function commands analysis of whether the specific conduct charged falls within the reach of the statute and if so whether the legislation is consonant with the Constitution. Were it otherwise, the scope of freedom of speech and of the press would be subject to legislative definition and the function of the First Amendment as a check on legislative power would be nullified.
It was thus incumbent upon the Supreme Court of Virginia to go behind the legislative determination and examine for itself “the particular utteranc[e] here in question and the circumstances of [its] publication to determine to what extent the substantive evil of unfair administration of justice was a likely consequence, and whether the degree of likelihood was sufficient to justify [subsequent] punishment.” Bridges v. California, 314 U. S., at 271. Our precedents leave little doubt as to the proper outcome of such an inquiry.
In a series of cases raising the question of whether the contempt power could be used to punish out-of-court comments concerning pending cases or grand jury investigations, this Court has consistently rejected the argument that such commentary constituted a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. See Bridges v. California, supra; Penne kamp v. Florida, supra; Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375 (1962). What emerges from these cases is the “working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished,” Bridges v. California, supra, at 263, and that a “solidity of evidence,” Pennekamp v. Florida, supra, at 347, is necessary to make the requisite showing of imminence. “The danger must not be remote or even probable; it must immediately imperil.” Craig v. Harney, supra, at 376.
The efforts of the Supreme Court of Virginia to distinguish those cases from this case are unpersuasive. The threat to the administration of justice posed by the speech and publications in Bridges, Pennekamp, Craig, and Wood was, if anything, more direct and substantial than the threat posed by Landmark’s article. If the clear-and-present-danger test could not be satisfied in the more extreme circumstances of those cases, it would seem to follow that the test cannot be met here. It is true that some risk of injury to the judge under inquiry, to the system of justice, or to the operation of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission may be posed by premature disclosure, but the test requires that the danger be “clear and present” and in our view the risk here falls far short of that requirement. Moreover, much of the risk can be eliminated through careful internal procedures to protect the confidentiality of Commission proceedings. Cf. Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S., at 564; id., at 601 n. 27 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). In any event, we must conclude as we did in Wood v. Georgia, that “[t]he type of ‘danger’ evidenced by the record is precisely one of the types of activity envisioned by the Founders in presenting the First Amendment for ratification.” 370 U. S., at 388.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
A total of 49 jurisdictions now have some mechanism for inquiring into judicial disability and conduct. With the one exception of Puerto Rico, all of the remaining jurisdictions impose some requirement of confidentiality through constitutional, statutory, or administrative provisions. The relevant provisions are listed below:
Alabama: Const. Arndt. No. 328, § 6.17 (1977), Rule 5 of Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Inquiry Commission; Alaska: Stat. Ann. § 22.30.060 (1977), Rule 2 of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Arizona: Const., Art. 6.1, § 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure for the Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Arkansas: Stat. Ann. §§ 22-145 (f) and 22-1004 (b) (Supp. 1977); California: Const., Art. 6, § 18 (f), Rule 902 of Title III (Miscellaneous Rules) Div. I (Rules for Censure, Removal, Retirement or Private Admonishment of Judges); Colorado: Const., Art. 6, § 23 (3) (d), Rule 3 of Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Connecticut: Gen. Stat. §§ 51c, 51d (1977), and § 6 of 1977 Pub. Act 77-494; Delaware: Const., Art. 4, § 37, Rule 10 (d) of Rules of Procedure of the Court on the Judiciary; District of Columbia: Code § 11-1528 (1973), Rule 1.4 (b) of the Rules and Regulations of the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure; Florida: Const., Art. 5, § 12 (d), Rule 25 of the Judicial Qualifications Commission; Georgia: Const., Art. 6, § 13, ¶[ 3, Rule 18 of Rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission; Hawaii: Rev. Stat. §§ 610-3 (a), 610-12 (b) (1976), Rule 15 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission for Judicial Qualification; Idaho: Code § 1-2103 (Supp. 1977), Rule 24 of the Judicial Council; Illinois: Const., Art. 6, § 15 (c), Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Inquiry Board; Indiana: Const., Art. 7, § 11, Code § 33-2.1-5-3 (1976), Rule 5 of the Rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission; Iowa: Code § 605.28 (1977); Kansas: Stat. Ann. § 20-175 (1974), Rule No. 607 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Judicial Conduct; Kentucky: Rule 4.130 of the Rules of Court; Louisiana: Const., Art. 5, § 25 (C), Rule 10 of the Judiciary Commission; Maryland: Const., Art. 4, § 4B (a), Rule 1227 §§ e, r, of the Rules of Procedure; Massachusetts: Rule 3 of the Committee on Judicial Responsibility; Michigan: Const., Art. 6, § 30 (2), Rule 932.22 of the Supreme Court Administrative Rules; Minnesota: Stat. § 490.16 (5) (1976); Rule S of the Commission on Judicial Standards; Missouri: Rule 12.23 of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline; Montana: Rev. Codes Ann. § 93-723 (Supp. 1977), Rule 7 of the Judicial Standards Commission; Nebraska: Const., Art. 5, § 30 (3), Rev. Stat. § 24.726 (1975), Rule 2 of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications; Nevada: Const., Art. 6, § 21 (3), Rule 4 of the Revised Interim Procedural Rules of the Commission on Judicial Discipline; New Hampshire: Rev. Stat. Ann. § 490:4 (Supp. 1975), Rule 28 of the Supreme Court Rules; New Jersey: Rule 2:15-11 (e) of the Rules Governing Appellate Practice in the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court; New Mexico: Const., Art. 6, § 32, Rule 7 of Procedural Rules and Regulations of the Judicial Standards Commission; New York: Jud. Law §44 (McKinney Supp. 1977); North Carolina: Gen. Stat. § 7A-377 (a) (Supp. 1977), Rule 4 of the Judicial Standards Commission; North Dakota: Cent. Code § 27-23-03 (5) (Supp. 1977), Rule 4 of the Judicial Qualifications Commission; Ohio. Rule 5 (21) of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice; Oklahoma: Stat., Tit. 20, § 1658 (Supp. 1976), Rule 5 (C) of the Council on Judicial Complaints; Oregon: Rev. Stat. §§ 1.420 (2), 1.440 (1977), Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Judicial Fitness; Pennsylvania: Const., Art. 5, § 18 (h), Rules 1, 20 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board; Rhode Island: Rule 21 of the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline; South Carolina: Rule 34, Items 11 and 33, of the Rules of the Supreme Court; South Dakota: Const., Art. 5, § 9, Comp. Laws Ann. § 16-1A-4 (Supp. 1977), Rule 4 of the Judicial Qualifications Commission; Tennessee: Code Ann. §§ 17-811 (2), 17-813 (2) (Supp. 1977); Texas: Const., Art. 5, § P-a (10), Rule 19 of Rules for the Removal or Retirement of Judges; Utah: Code Ann. § 78,-7-30 (3) (1977); Vermont: Rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court for Disciplinary Control; Virginia: Const., Art. 6, § 10, Code § 2.1-37.13 (1973), Rule 10 of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission; West Virginia: Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules of Procedure for the Handling of Complaints Against Justices, Judges, and Magistrates; Wisconsin: Item 21 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Rules 2 and 3 (4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Commission; Wyoming: Rule 7 of the Judicial Supervisory Commission.
Article 6, § 10, of the Constitution of Virginia provides in relevant part: “The General Assembly shall create a Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission consisting of members of the judiciary, the bar, and the public and vested with the power to investigate charges which would be the basis for retirement, censure, or removal of a judge. The Commission shall be authorized to conduct hearings and to subpoena witnesses and documents. Proceedings before the Commission shall be confidential.”
Virginia Code §2.1-37.13 (1973) implements the constitutional mandate of confidentiality. It provides in relevant part:
“All papers filed with and proceedings before the Commission, and under the two preceding sections (§§ 2.1-37.11, 2.1-37.12), including the identification of the subject judge as well as all testimony and other evidence and any transcript thereof made by a reporter, shall be confidential and shall not be divulged by any person to anyone except the Commission, except that the record of any proceeding filed with the Supreme Court shall lose its confidential character.
“Any person who shall divulge information in violation of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Rule 10 of the Rules of the Commission is to the same effect:
“All papers filed with and all proceedings before the Commission are confidential pursuant to § 2.1-37.13, Code of Virginia (1950), that the same shall not be divulged, and a violation thereof is a misdemeanor and punishable as provided by law.”
Upon the filing of a complaint with the Supreme Court of Virginia, the records of the proceedings before the Commission lose their confidential character. Va. Code § 2.1-37.13 (1973).
Eight days after the decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary injunction restraining prosecution of Richmond television station WXEX for violation of the same Virginia law under which Landmark was prosecuted. Nationwide Communications, Inc. v. Backus, No. 77-0139-R (Mar. 15, 1977). Thereafter, Richmond Newspapers, Inc., the publisher of two Richmond, Va., newspapers, was also charged under § 2.1-37.13. On April 5, 1977, the District Court denied the publisher’s motion to enjoin the pending prosecution and a conviction for two violations of the statute resulted. Upon conclusion of the ease, the District Court enjoined further prosecution of the publisher under the statute. Appellant then secured a temporary restraining order against further prosecution under the statute for the limited purpose of allowing it to publish an Associated Press story about a current Commission investigation which the Richmond newspapers were free to publish because of the court order shielding them from prosecution. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Campbell, No. 77-404-N (ED Va., June 17, 1977). The temporary restraining order expired on June 20,1977.
Several bills are also pending in Congress providing for somewhat similar inquiry into the conduct of federal judges. See, e. g., H. R. 1850, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977); H. R. 9042, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977); S. 1423, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).
The relevant state constitutional provisions, statutes, and court rules are listed as an appendix to this opinion. Confidentiality of proceedings is also an integral aspect of the proposals currently pending in Congress. See H. R. 1850, supra, § 382; H. R. 9042, supra, § 382; S. 1423, supra, § 381. None of these bills impose criminal sanctions for a breach of the confidentiality requirement.
According to appellee, under the Virginia plan, the name of the complainant as such is never revealed to the judge under investigation even when a complaint is filed with the Supreme Court. All complaints other than the original are filed in the name of the Commission; the original complaint is not made a part of any public record. The identity of the witnesses heard by the Commission, however, would presumably be a part of the Commission’s records which are made public if a complaint is filed with the Supreme Court.
“The experience in California has been that not less than two' or three judges a year have either retired or resigned voluntarily, rather than to confront the particular charges that are made.... The important thing is that [these cases] are closed without any public furor, or without any harm done to the judiciary, because the existence and the procedures of the commission has caused the judge himself to recognize the situation that exists and to avail himself of retirement.” Hearings on S. 1110 before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 120 (1976) (testimony of Jack E. Frankel, Executive Officer of the California Commission on Judicial Qualifications).
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 610-3 (b) (1976) provides in relevant part:
“Any commission member or individual... who divulges information concerning the charge prior to the certification of the charge by the commission... shall be guilty of a felony which shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $5000 or imprisonment of not more than five years, or both.”
Landmark argued below that the statute was unclear with regard to whether the proscription against divulging information concerning a Commission proceeding applied to third parties as well as those who actually participated in the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Virginia, over the dissent of Justice Poff, construed the statutory language so as to encompass appellant. Although a contrary construction might well save the statute from constitutional invalidity, “it is not our function to construe a state statute contrary to the construction given it by the highest court of a State.” O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U. S. 524, 531 (1974).
At least two categories of “participants” come to mind: Commission members and staff employees, and witnesses or putative witnesses not officers or employees of the Commonwealth. No issue as to either of these categories is presented by this case.
The interdependence of the press and the judiciary has frequently been acknowledged. “The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary through which
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice White.
The Penn-Central Transportation Co. is in bankruptcy reorganization under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 205. Petitioners are its trustees authorized to collect its assets, one of which is a claim for freight charges against respondent owed the bankrupt debtor. The claim on which this suit was brought was $8,256.61 and the amount is undisputed. Respondent filed a counterclaim for $19,319.42 for loss and damage to shipments over the debtor’s lines. Its amount is also not disputed.
The trustees filed a motion for summary judgment asking the District Court to enter one judgment covering the amount of freight charges admittedly due and another for the amount claimed by respondent.
Previously the Reorganization Court in the Third Circuit had prohibited the various bank creditors from offsetting their claims against the trustees of the debtor. 315 F. Supp. 1281. Prior to the decision of the instant case that bank setoff case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 453 F. 2d 520. Also prior to the ruling of the Court of Appeals in the instant case the Reorganization Court prohibited some shippers from setting off freight loss and damage claims against amounts owed for transportation claims. That order, 339 F. Supp. 603, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 477 F. 2d 841, and by this Court, sub nom. United States Steel Corp. v. Trustees of Penn Central Transp. Co., 414 U. S. 885.
The District Court in the instant case granted the trustees’ motion for summary judgment but set off one judgment against the other, which resulted in a net judgment in favor of respondent against the trustees in the amount of $11,017.01. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 484 F. 2d 950, and we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
We reverse.
Ordinarily where a court has primary jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter, the power to resolve the amount of the claim and the counterclaim is clear. Indeed, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the counterclaim may be compulsory. Rule 13 (a). That is the procedure under § 68 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11U. S. C. § 108.
The problem of the bankruptcy Reorganization Court is somewhat different. Liquidation is not the objective. Rather, the aim is by financial restructuring to put back into operation a going concern. That entails two basic considerations:
First is the collection of amounts owed the bankrupt to keep its cash inflow sufficient for operating purposes, at least at the survival levels. The second is to design a plan which creditors and other claimants will approve, which will pass scrutiny of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which will meet the fair-and-equitable standards required by the Act for court approval, and which will preserve an ongoing railroad in the public interest.
Section 77a gives the Reorganization Court “exclusive jurisdiction of the debtor and its property wherever located.” 11 U. S. C. §205 (a). In furtherance of its long-range responsibilities the Reorganization Court enjoined secured creditors from selling collateral to reduce their claims. It then went on to bar enforcement of liens against the debtor, taking possession of its property, or obtaining judgments against the debtor, except for specified purposes. One court seized upon the last provision in the order which says “that suits or claims for damages caused by the operation of trains, buses, or other means of transportation may be filed and prosecuted to judgment in any Court of competent jurisdiction,” to adjudicate the merits of a counterclaim, but declined to allow the setoff. But proof of the claim against the debtor is a distinct preliminary stage to a determination of what priority, if any, the claim that is proved receives in a reorganization plan.
There is a hierarchy of claims, the owner of the equity coming last. Wages owing workers running the trains have a high current priority. Secured creditors have by law a priority in the hierarchy. Unsecured creditors usually are pooled together. They may receive new securities, perhaps stock. Allowance of a setoff that reduces all or part of the debtor’s claim against them is a form of priority. The guiding principle governing priorities is stated in § 77e (1), 11 U. S. C. § 205 (e) (1): the Reorganization Court shall approve a plan if it “is fair and equitable, affords due recognition to the rights of each class of creditors and stockholders, does not discriminate unfairly in favor of any class of creditors or stockholders, and will conform to the requirements of the law of the land regarding the participation of the various classes of creditors and stockholders.”
The term “fair and equitable” has a long history going back at least to Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Boyd, 228 U. S. 482, and Kansas City Terminal R. Co. v. Central Union Trust Co., 271 U. S. 445, whose fixed principle has been carried over into § 77e by our decisions. The plan is by the terms of § 77 a product of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Reorganization Court working cooperatively together, New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S. 392, 431. The public interest, as well as the interests of creditors and stockholders, is at issue. RFC v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 328 U. S. 495, 535.
The allowance or disallowance of setoff may seem but a minor part of the architectural problem. But to the extent that it is allowed, it grants a preference to the claim of one creditor over the others by the happenstance that it owes freight charges that the others do not. That is a form of discrimination to which the policy of § 77 is opposed. As a general rule of administration for § 77 Reorganization Courts, the setoff should not be allowed.
Reversed.
Rule 13 (a), the compulsory-counterclaim rule, requires a defendant to plead any counterclaim which “arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.” The claim is not compulsory if it was the subject of another pending action at the time the action was commenced, or if the opposing party brought his suit by attachment or other process not resulting in personal jurisdiction but only in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction. A counterclaim which is compulsory but is not brought is thereafter barred, e. g., Mesker Bros. Iron Co. v. Donata Corp., 401 F. 2d 275, 279.
If a counterclaim is compulsory, the federal court will have ancillary jurisdiction over it even though ordinarily it would be a matter for a state court, e. g., Great Lakes Rubber Corp. v. Herbert Cooper Co., 286 F. 2d 631. Under Rule 13 (a)’s predecessor this Court held that “transaction” is a word of flexible meaning which may comprehend a series of occurrences if they have logical connection, Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U. S. 593, and this is the rule generally followed by the lower courts in construing Rule 13 (a), e. g., Great Lakes, supra; United Artists Corp. v. Masterpiece Productions, 221 F. 2d 213, 216.
Rule 13 (b) permits as counterclaims, although not compulsory, “any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.” Thus the court may dispose of all claims between the parties in one proceeding whether or not they arose in the “same transaction.”
Title 11 U. S. C. § 108 provides:
“(a) In all cases of mutual debts or mutual credits between the estate of a bankrupt and a creditor the account shall be stated and one debt shall be set off against the other, and the balance only shall be allowed or paid.
“ (b) A set-off or counterclaim shall not be allowed in favor of any debtor of the bankrupt which (1) is not provable against the estate and allowable under subdivision (g) of section 93 of this title; or (2) was purchased by or transferred to him after the filing of the petition or within four months before such filing with a view to such use and with knowledge or notice that such bankrupt was insolvent or had committed an act of bankruptcy.”
If the trustee in ordinary bankruptcy goes into a court that has jurisdiction and asserts a claim, the debtor of the bankrupt may raise as a setoff any claim he has against the bankrupt and the court ordinarily issues only one judgment for the difference.
In a straight bankruptcy case, Cumberland Glass Co. v. De Witt, 237 U. S. 447, the Court construed § 68 as “permissive rather than mandatory” and as to which the bankruptcy court “exercises its discretion . . . upon the general principles of equity.” Id., at 455. And see Susquehanna Chemical Corp. v. Producers Bank & Trust Co., 174 F. 2d 783.
The. dissent places mistaken reliance on subsection l of § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 205 (l), to argue that the setoff provision of § 68, 11 U. S. C. § 108, necessarily applies to all reorganization proceedings under § 77. No authority is cited for this novel construction of subsection l, and indeed the very wording of the subsection itself makes clear that it applies only when “consistent with the provisions” of § 77. We have long held that the distinctive purposes of § 77 may require different procedures than would be followed in ordinary bankruptcy. For example, in holding that under § 77 the Reorganization Court had authority to enjoin the sale of collateral if it would hinder or obstruct the preparation of a reorganization plan, we stated: “It may be that in an ordinary bankruptcy proceeding the issue of an injunction in the circumstances here presented would not be sustained. As to that it is not necessary to express an opinion. But a proceeding under § 77 is not an ordinary proceeding in bankruptcy. It is a special proceeding which seeks only to bring about a reorganization, if a satisfactory plan to that end can be devised. And to prevent the attainment of that object is to defeat the very end the accomplishment of which was the sole aim of the section, and thereby to render its provisions futile.” Continental Bank v. Rock Island R. Co., 294 U. S. 648, 676. And see New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S. 392, 420.
Ordinary bankruptcy aims at liquidation of a business. Reorganization under § 77 aims at a continuation of the old business under a new capital structure that respects the relative priorities of the various claimants.
Section 77b, 11 U. S. C. §205 (b), defines a “plan of reorganization.” The provisions for filing a “plan” with the court and with the Interstate Commerce Commission are governed by § 77d, 11 U. S. C. §205 (d).
Unsecured creditors have the priority they would have had “if a receiver in equity of the property of the debtor had been appointed by a Federal court on the day of the approval” of the bankruptcy petition and shall be treated as a separate class or classes. 11 U. S. C. § 205 (b). As to that priority see Gregg v. Metropolitan Trust Co., 197 U. S. 183. In St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Spiller, 274 U. S. 304, 311, the Court said: “[B]y long established practice, the doctrine has been applied only to unpaid expenses incurred within six months prior to the appointment of the receivers. . . . The cases in which this time limit was not observed, are few in number and exceptional in character.”
New Haven Inclusion Cases, supra, at 420.
Section 77a provides in relevant part: “If the petition is so approved, the court in which the order is entered shall, during the pendency of the proceedings under this section and for the purposes thereof, have exclusive jurisdiction of the debtor and its property wherever located, and shall have and may exercise in addition to the powers conferred by this section all the powers, not inconsistent with this section, which a court of the United States would have had if it had appointed a receiver in equity of the property of the debtor for any purpose. Process of the court shall extend to and be valid when served in any judicial district.”
As Mr. Justice Stewart correctly notes, infra, at 476, it is settled that “property” within the meaning of this section includes intangibles such as choses in action.
The order provided in part: “All persons, firms and corporations, holding collateral heretofore pledged by the Debtor as security for its notes or obligations or holding for the account of the Debtor deposit balances or credits be and each of them hereby are [sic] restrained and enjoined from selling, converting or otherwise disposing of such collateral, deposit balances or other credits, or any part thereof, or from offsetting the same, or any [sic] thereof, against any obligation of the Debtor, until further order of this Court.”
“All persons and all firms and corporations, whatsoever and wheresoever situated, located or domiciled, hereby are restrained and enjoined from interfering with, seizing, converting, appropriating, attaching, gamisheeing, levying upon, or enforcing liens upon, or in any manner whatsoever disturbing any portion of the assets, goods, money, deposit balances, credits, choses in action, interests, railroads, properties or premises belonging to, or in the possession of the Debtor as owner, lessee or otherwise, or from taking possession of or from entering upon, or in any way interfering with the same, or any part thereof, or from interfering in any manner with the operation of said railroads, properties or premises or the carrying on of its business by the Debtor under the order of this Court and from commencing or continuing any proceeding against the Debtor, whether for obtaining or for the enforcement of any judgment or decree or for any other purpose, provided that suits or claims for damages caused by the operation of trains, buses, or other means of transportation may be filed and prosecuted to judgment in any Court of competent jurisdiction . . . .”
Baker v. Southeastern Michigan Shippers Assn., 376 F. Supp. 149.
Ecker v. Western Pacific R. Corp., 318 U. S. 448, 477-483; Group of Investors v. Milwaukee R. Co., 318 U. S. 523, 539-541; RFC v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 328 U. S. 495, 516-520. The same is true under § 101 et seq. (now c. X) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 501 et seq. Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Du Bois, 312 U. S. 510.
And see New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S., at 420.
Lowden v. Northwestern National Bank & Trust Co., 298 U. S. 160, is not to the contrary. The Court there refused to answer the certified question because it did not know the factual setting in which the question had been raised. Much law has been fashioned in the reorganization field since 1936, the date of that decision. The contours of plans have emerged which have given new meaning and insight into the statutory words “fair and equitable.” The preference sought here shows no exceptional circumstances which in equity justify the discrimination.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These three consolidated appeals present the question whether a state can constitutionally prohibit the exportation of hydroelectric energy produced within its borders by a federally licensed facility, or otherwise reserve for its own citizens the “economic benefit” of such hydroelectric power.
I
Appellant New England Power Co. is a public utility which generates and transmits electricity at wholesale. It sells 75% of its power in Massachusetts and much of the remainder in Rhode Island; less than 6% of New Hampshire’s population is serviced by New England Power’s wholesale customers. New England Power owns and operates six hydroelectric generating stations on the Connecticut River, consisting of 27 generating units. Twenty-one of these units—with a capacity of 419.8 megawatts, or about 10% of New England Power’s total generating capacity—are located within the State of New Hampshire. The units are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U. S. C. §§ 791a-823 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Since hydroelectric facilities operate without significant fuel consumption, these units can produce electricity at substantially lower cost than most other generating sources.
New England Power is a member of the New England Power Pool, whose utility-members own over 98% of the total generation capacity, and virtually all of the transmission facilities, in the six-state region. The objectives of the Power Pool, as described in the agreement among its members, are to assure the reliability of the region’s bulk power supply and to attain “maximum practicable economy” through, inter alia, “joint planning, central dispatching . . . and coordinated construction, operation and maintenance of electric generation and transmission facilities owned or controlled by the Participants . . . .” New England Power Pool Agreement §4.1, App. 31a. All member-owned generating facilities are placed under the control of the Power Pool’s Dispatch Center. A computer calculates the cost of generation for each generating unit and assigns each unit an operating schedule that will minimize the cost of the region’s total power supply. Power generated at the various units, including New England Power’s Connecticut River hydroelectric stations, flows freely through the Pool’s regional transmission network, or “grid.” The energy is dispatched to members’ customers as their power needs arise, without regard to generating source. The Pool bills each member the amount it would have cost the utility to meet its customers’ load using only its own generating sources, minus that member’s share of the savings resulting from the centralized dispatch system.
A New Hampshire statute, enacted in 1913, provides:
“No corporation engaged in the generation of electrical energy by water power shall engage in the business of transmitting or conveying the same beyond the confines of the state, unless it shall first file notice of its intention so to do with the public utilities commission and obtain an order of said commission permitting it to engage in such business.” N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §374:35 (1966).
The statute empowers the New Hampshire Commission to prohibit the exportation of such electrical energy when it determines that the energy “is reasonably required for use within this state and that the public good requires that it be delivered for such use.” Ibid.
Since 1926, New England Power or a predecessor company periodically applied for and obtained approval from the New Hampshire Commission to transmit electricity produced at the Connecticut River plants to points outside New Hampshire. However, on September 19, 1980, after an investigation and hearings, the Commission withdrew the authority formerly granted New England Power to export its hydroelectric energy, and ordered the company to “make arrangements to sell the previously exported hydroelectric energy to persons, utilities and municipalities within the State of New Hampshire . . . .” In its report accompanying the order, the Commission found that New Hampshire’s population and energy needs were increasing rapidly; that, primarily because of its low “generating mix” of hydroelectric energy, the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the State’s largest electric utility, had generating costs about 25% higher than those of New England Power; and that if New England Power’s hydroelectric energy were sold exclusively in New Hampshire, New Hampshire customers could save approximately $25 million a year. The Commission therefore concluded that New England Power’s hydroelectric energy was “required for use within the State” of New Hampshire, and that discontinuation of its exportation would serve the “public good.” App. to Juris. Statement in No. 80-1208, pp. 25-39.
The Commission did not, however, order New England Power to sever its connections with the Power Pool. So long as the electricity produced at New England Power’s hydroelectric plants continues to flow through the Pool’s regional transmission network, it will be impossible to contain that electricity within the State of New Hampshire in any physical sense. Although the precise contours of the Commission’s order are unclear, it appears to require that New England Power sell electricity to New Hampshire utilities in an amount equal to the output of its in-state hydroelectric facilities, at special rates adjusted to reflect the entire savings attributable to the low-cost hydroelectric generation.
New England Power, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General of Rhode Island, appealed the Commission’s order to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. They contended that the order was pre-empted by Parts I and II of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §§791a-824k (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), and imposed impermissible burdens on interstate commerce. The court rejected these arguments, concluding that the “saving clause” of § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §824(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), granted New Hampshire authority to restrict the interstate transportation of hydroelectric power generated within the State. Appeal of New England Power Co., 120 N. H. 866, 870-877, 424 A. 2d 807, 814 (1980). The court further held that the New Hampshire Commission’s order did not interfere with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s exclusive regulatory authority over rates charged for interstate sales of electricity at wholesale. It thus remanded the case to permit the parties to “develop the mechanics of implemention” of the New Hampshire Commission’s order, and mandated that New England Power “make appropriate adjustments and filings with the appropriate federal and State administrative agencies to enable New Hampshire to regain the benefit of its hydroelectric power.” Id., at 878-879, 424 A. 2d, at 815.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 451 U. S. 981 (1981), and we reverse.
M h-H
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire recognized that, absent authorizing federal legislation, it would be “questionable” whether a state could constitutionally restrict interstate trade in hydroelectric power. 120 N. H., at 876, 424 A. 2d, at 814. Our cases consistently have held that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, precludes a state from mandating that its residents be given a preferred right of access, over out-of-state consumers, to natural resources located within its borders or to the products derived therefrom. E. g., Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322 (1979); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911). Only recently, in Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 627 (1978), we reiterated that “[tjhese cases stand for the basic principle that a ‘State is without power to prevent privately owned articles of trade from being shipped and sold in interstate commerce on the ground that they are required to satisfy local demands or because they are needed by the people of the State’ ” (quoting Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1, 10 (1928)).
The order of the New Hampshire Commission, prohibiting New England Power from selling its hydroelectric energy outside the State of New Hampshire, is precisely the sort of protectionist regulation that the Commerce Clause declares off-limits to the states. The Commission has made clear that its order is designed to gain an economic advantage for New Hampshire citizens at the expense of New England Power’s customers in neighboring states. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the Commission’s “exportation ban” places direct and substantial burdens on transactions in interstate commerce. See Public Utilities Comm’n v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., 273 U. S. 83 (1927). Such state-imposed burdens cannot be squared with the Commerce Clause when they serve only to advance “simple economic protectionism.” Philadelphia v. New Jersey, supra, at 624.
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire nevertheless upheld the order of the New Hampshire Commission on the ground that § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act expressly permits the State to prohibit the exportation of hydroelectric power produced within its borders. It is indeed well settled that Congress may use its powers under the Commerce Clause to “[confer] upon the States an ability to restrict the flow of interstate commerce that they would not otherwise enjoy.” Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U. S. 27, 44 (1980). See Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U. S. 761, 769 (1945). The dispositive question, however, is whether Congress in fact has authorized the states to impose restrictions of the sort at issue here.
Ill
The national concern for planning, development, and comprehensive utilization of the country’s water resources was very early expressed by Congress under its Commerce Clause powers. The Federal Water Power Act, now Part I of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §§791a-823 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), was enacted in 1920. The potential of water power as a source of electric energy led Congress to exercise its constitutional authority over navigable streams to regulate and encourage development of hydroelectric power generation “to meet the needs of an expanding economy.” FPC v. Union Electric Co., 381 U. S. 90. 99 (1965).
In 1935, Congress enacted Part II of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §§ 824-824k (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), which delegated to the Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, exclusive authority to regulate the transmission and sale at wholesale of electric energy in interstate commerce, without regard to the source of production. United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, 345 U. S. 295 (1953). The 1935 enactment was a “direct result” of this Court’s holding in Public Utilities Comm’n v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., supra, that the states lacked power to regulate the rates governing interstate sales of electricity for resale. United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, supra, at 311. Part II of the Act was intended to “fill the gap” created by Attleboro by establishing exclusive federal jurisdiction over such sales. 345 U. S., at 307-311.
Section 201(b) of the Act provides, inter alia, that the provisions of Part II “shall not. . . deprive a State or State commission of its lawful authority now exercised over the exportation of hydroelectric energy which is transmitted across a State line.” However, this provision is in no sense an affirmative grant of power to the states to burden interstate commerce “in a manner which would otherwise not be permissible.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, supra, at 769. In § 201(b), Congress did no more than leave standing whatever valid state laws then existed relating to the exportation of hydroelectric energy; by its plain terms, § 201(b) simply saves from pre-emption under Part II of the Federal Power Act such state authority as was otherwise “lawful.” The legislative history of the Act likewise indicates that Congress intended only that its legislation “tak[e] no authority from State commissions.” H. R. Rep. No. 1318, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1935) (emphasis added). Nothing in the legislative history or language of the statute evinces a congressional intent “to alter the limits of state power otherwise imposed by the Commerce Clause,” United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, supra, at 304, or to modify the earlier holdings of this Court concerning the limits of state authority to restrain interstate trade. E. g., Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911). Rather, Congress’ concern was simply “to define the extent of the federal legislation’s pre-emptive effect on state law.” Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., supra, at 49.
To support its argument to the contrary, New Hampshire relies on a single statement made on the floor of the House of Representatives during the debates preceding enactment of Part II. Congressman Rogers of New Hampshire stated:
“[T]he Senate bill as originally drawn would deprive certain States, I think five in all, of certain rights which they have over the exportation of hydroelectric energy which is transmitted across the State line. This situation has been taken care of by the House committee, and I hope when you come to it, section 201 of part II, that you will grant us the privilege to continue, as we have been for 22 years, to exercise our State right over the exportation of hydroelectric energy transmitted across State lines but produced up there in the granite hills of old New Hampshire.” 79 Cong. Rec. 10527 (1935).
From this expression of “hope,” New Hampshire concludes that Congress specifically intended to preserve the very statute at issue here.
Reliance on such isolated fragments of legislative history in divining the intent of Congress is an exercise fraught with hazards, and “a step to be taken cautiously. ” Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U. S. 1, 26 (1977); United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, supra, at 319-321 (Jackson, J., concurring). However, even were we to accord significant weight to Congressman Rogers’ statement, it would not support New Hampshire’s contention that § 201(b) was intended to permit states to regulate free from Commerce Clause restraint. Congressman Rogers simply urged his colleagues not to “deprive” the State of New Hampshire of “rights” it already possessed — i. e., to ensure that the Act itself would not be read as pre-empting otherwise valid state legislation.
To be sure, some Members of Congress may have thought that no further protection of state authority was needed. Indeed, given that the Commerce Clause — independently of the Federal Power Act — restricts the ability of the states to regulate matters affecting interstate trade in hydroelectric energy, § 201(b) may in fact save little in the way of “lawful” state authority. But when Congress has not “expressly stated its intent and policy” to sustain state legislation from attack under the Commerce Clause, Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408, 427, 431 (1946), we have no authority to rewrite its legislation based on mere speculation as to what Congress “probably had in mind.” See United States v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California, 345 U. S., at 319 (Jackson, J., concurring); see also id., at 311. We must construe § 201(b) as it is written, and as its legislative history indicates it was intended — as a standard “nonpre-emption” clause.
>
We conclude, therefore, that New Hampshire has sought to restrict the flow of privately owned and produced electricity in interstate commerce, in a manner inconsistent with the Commerce Clause. Section 201(b) of the Federal Power Act does not provide an affirmative grant of authority to the State to do so. For these reasons, the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Testimony before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission in these cases indicated that the savings have been substantial. For example, in 1979, the savings attributable to the Power Pool’s centralized dispatch system were reported at over $44 million. App. 35a, 56a. See generally Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Regulation, Power Pooling in the United States 15-23, 39-41, 69-79 (1981), for a description of efficiencies attributable to pooling arrangements.
The order reads:
“ORDERED, that the permission granted New England Power Company (NEPCO) to transmit hydroelectric energy from within the boundaries of the State to outside the State is hereby withdrawn as of thirty (30) days from the date of this Order; and it is
“FURTHER ORDERED, that NEPCO make arrangements to sell the previously exported hydroelectric energy to persons, utilities and municipalities within the State of New Hampshire within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order; and it is
“FURTHER ORDERED, that upon the completion of both units at Seabrook the Commission will again re-examine the issue of exportation.”
For example, the Commission’s staff economist testified at the hearings that New England Power could “allocate the benefits of low-cost hydroelectric power to New Hampshire through billing mechanisms” pursuant to which the power would be sold in New Hampshire at “economic cost”— i. e., the cost of producing the power, including depreciation, plus a return on invested capital. App. 38a-39a. The economist’s analysis of the benefits which would ensue from restricting the “exportation” of hydroelectric energy in this manner — upon which the New Hampshire Commission relied heavily in its report — was based on the assumption that New England Power would simply enter into new unit power contracts with New Hampshire utilities for an amount of kilowatt hours equal to New England Power’s average hydroelectric generation over the course of a number of years. 3 Tr. of Hearings before the N. H. Public Utilities Comm’n in DE 79-223, pp. 23-24, 1-35. Although the record is not entirely clear on this point, it appears that the “economic benefit,” or "savings,” attributable to New England Power's hydroelectric facilities is currently reflected in the company’s general wholesale rates, and thus shared pro rata by its customers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. App. 15a-18a. See also Brief for Appellant in No. 80-1208, p. 7.
The court also dismissed several arguments advanced only by appellants Massachusetts and Roberts — that § 201(b), as so interpreted, exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The parties inform us that the New Hampshire Commission has refrained from acting on remand pending this Court’s disposition of the appeals.
We find no merit in New Hampshire’s attempt to distinguish these cases on the ground that it “owns” the Connecticut River, the source of New England Power’s hydroelectricity. Whatever the extent of the State’s proprietary interest in the river, the pre-eminent authority to regulate the flow of navigable waters resides with the Federal Government, United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U. S. 222 (1956), which has licensed New England Power to operate its Connecticut River hydroelectric plants pursuant to a determination that those facilities are “best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce,” 16 U. S. C. § 803(a). New Hampshire’s purported “ownership” of the Connecticut River therefore provides no justification for restricting or conditioning the use of these federally licensed units. See First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328 U. S. 152 (1946). Moreover, New Hampshire has done more than regulate use of the resource it assertedly owns; it has restricted the sale of electric energy, a product entirely distinct from the river waters used to produce it. See Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U. S. 165, 179-181 (1932). This product is manufactured by a private corporation using privately owned facilities. Thus, New Hampshire’s reliance on Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429 (1980)—holding that a state may confine to its residents the sale of products it produces — is misplaced.
Indeed, had Congress intended § 201(b) to confer upon the states powers which they would have lacked in the absence of the federal legislation, it would have been anomalous to speak in terms of “authority now exercised.” This language plainly assumes the prior existence of valid state authority; in addition, it appears to limit the saving effect of the provision to those few States in which the authority was in fact “exercised” in 1935.
On the other hand, it would not have been at all unusual had Congress taken care that the 1935 enactment not displace state authority in the area, without consideration of the scope of that authority or the extent to which it might be constrained by other provisions of federal law. See Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304, 329, n. 22 (1981).
We need not speculate here as to the precise contours of § 201(b)’s saving effect.
Even were we to conclude that Congress intended §201(b) to override restraints placed on state regulatory power by the Commerce Clause, there would remain a substantial question whether the order of the New Hampshire Commission was entitled to protection under that provision. Section 201(b) seeks to protect only state regulation relating to the “exportation” of hydroelectric power. However, New England Power cannot terminate its out-of-state transmission of hydroelectricity without substantial alterations in the regional transmission- system to which its hydroelectric facilities are connected — alterations which the New Hampshire Commission did not appear to contemplate would be made. Appeal of New England Power Co., 120 N. H. 866, 876-877, 424 A. 2d 807, 814 (1980). The operative effect of the Commission’s order would be to compel New England Power to enter into new wholesale contracts with New Hampshire utilities, at rates fixed by the New Hampshire Commission to reflect the “economic cost” of the company’s hydroelectric production. See supra, at 336, and n. 3. Appellants argue that such state regulation is incompatible with Part II of the Federal Power Act — which vests in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive ratemaking jurisdiction over “the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce,” 16 U. S. C. §§ 824(b), 824d-824f (1976 ed. and Supp. IV) — and conflicts directly with § 205(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. § 824d(b), which prohibits utilities from maintaining “any unreasonable difference in rates ... as between localities” with respect to sales subject to federal jurisdiction. Given our holding that the New Hampshire Commission’s order violates the Commerce Clause, we need not decide 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:
|
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.
Petitioner Jae Lee was indicted on one count of possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute. Although he has lived in this country for most of his life, Lee is not a United States citizen, and he feared that a criminal conviction might affect his status as a lawful permanent resident. His attorney assured him there was nothing to worry about-the Government would not deport him if he pleaded guilty. So Lee, who had no real defense to the charge, opted to accept a plea that carried a lesser prison sentence than he would have faced at trial.
Lee's attorney was wrong: The conviction meant that Lee was subject to mandatory deportation from this country. Lee seeks to vacate his conviction on the ground that, in accepting the plea, he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Everyone agrees that Lee received objectively unreasonable representation. The question presented is whether he can show he was prejudiced as a result.
I
Jae Lee moved to the United States from South Korea in 1982. He was 13 at the time. His parents settled the family in New York City, where they opened a small coffee shop. After graduating from a business high school in Manhattan, Lee set out on his own to Memphis, Tennessee, where he started working at a restaurant. After three years, Lee decided to try his hand at running a business. With some assistance from his family, Lee opened the Mandarin Palace Chinese Restaurant in a Memphis suburb. The Mandarin was a success, and Lee eventually opened a second restaurant nearby. In the 35 years he has spent in the country, Lee has never returned to South Korea. He did not become a United States citizen, living instead as a lawful permanent resident.
At the same time he was running his lawful businesses, Lee also engaged in some illegitimate activity. In 2008, a confidential informant told federal officials that Lee had sold the informant approximately 200 ecstasy pills and two ounces of hydroponic marijuana over the course of eight years. The officials obtained a search warrant for Lee's house, where they found 88 ecstasy pills, three Valium tablets, $32,432 in cash, and a loaded rifle. Lee admitted that the drugs were his and that he had given ecstasy to his friends.
A grand jury indicted Lee on one count of possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Lee retained an attorney and entered into plea discussions with the Government. The attorney advised Lee that going to trial was "very risky" and that, if he pleaded guilty, he would receive a lighter sentence than he would if convicted at trial. App. 167. Lee informed his attorney of his noncitizen status and repeatedly asked him whether he would face deportation as a result of the criminal proceedings. The attorney told Lee that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty. Lee v. United States, 825 F.3d 311, 313 (C.A.6 2016). Based on that assurance, Lee accepted the plea and the District Court sentenced him to a year and a day in prison, though it deferred commencement of Lee's sentence for two months so that Lee could manage his restaurants over the holiday season.
Lee quickly learned, however, that a prison term was not the only consequence of his plea. Lee had pleaded guilty to what qualifies as an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a noncitizen convicted of such an offense is subject to mandatory deportation. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) ; Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348, 350, n. 1, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001). Upon learning that he would be deported after serving his sentence, Lee filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence, arguing that his attorney had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.
At an evidentiary hearing on Lee's motion, both Lee and his plea-stage counsel testified that "deportation was the determinative issue in Lee's decision whether to accept the plea." Report and Recommendation in No. 2:10-cv-02698 (WD Tenn.), pp. 6-7 (Report and Recommendation). In fact, Lee explained, his attorney became "pretty upset because every time something comes up I always ask about immigration status," and the lawyer "always said why [are you] worrying about something that you don't need to worry about." App. 170. According to Lee, the lawyer assured him that if deportation was not in the plea agreement, "the government cannot deport you." Ibid. Lee's attorney testified that he thought Lee's case was a "bad case to try" because Lee's defense to the charge was weak. Id., at 218-219. The attorney nonetheless acknowledged that if he had known Lee would be deported upon pleading guilty, he would have advised him to go to trial. Id., at 236, 244. Based on the hearing testimony, a Magistrate Judge recommended that Lee's plea be set aside and his conviction vacated because he had received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The District Court, however, denied relief. Applying our two-part test for ineffective assistance claims from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the District Court concluded that Lee's counsel had performed deficiently by giving improper advice about the deportation consequences of the plea. But, "[i]n light of the overwhelming evidence of Lee's guilt," Lee "would have almost certainly" been found guilty and received "a significantly longer prison sentence, and subsequent deportation," had he gone to trial. Order in No. 2:10-cv-02698 (WD Tenn.), p. 24 (Order). Lee therefore could not show he was prejudiced by his attorney's erroneous advice. Viewing its resolution of the issue as debatable among jurists of reason, the District Court granted a certificate of appealability.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. On appeal, the Government conceded that the performance of Lee's attorney had been deficient. To establish that he was prejudiced by that deficient performance, the court explained, Lee was required to show "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." 825 F.3d, at 313 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) ; internal quotation marks omitted). Lee had "no bona fide defense, not even a weak one," so he "stood to gain nothing from going to trial but more prison time." 825 F.3d, at 313, 316. Relying on Circuit precedent holding that "no rational defendant charged with a deportable offense and facing overwhelming evidence of guilt would proceed to trial rather than take a plea deal with a shorter prison sentence," the Court of Appeals concluded that Lee could not show prejudice. Id., at 314 (internal quotation marks omitted). We granted certiorari. 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 614, 196 L.Ed.2d 490 (2016).
II
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the effective assistance of counsel at "critical stages of a criminal proceeding," including when he enters a guilty plea. Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 165, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) ; Hill, 474 U.S., at 58, 106 S.Ct. 366. To demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, a defendant must show that counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland, 466 U.S., at 688, 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The first requirement is not at issue in today's case: The Government concedes that Lee's plea-stage counsel provided inadequate representation when he assured Lee that he would not be deported if he pleaded guilty. Brief for United States 15. The question is whether Lee can show he was prejudiced by that erroneous advice.
A
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will often involve a claim of attorney error "during the course of a legal proceeding"-for example, that counsel failed to raise an objection at trial or to present an argument on appeal. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 481, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). A defendant raising such a claim can demonstrate prejudice by showing "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 482, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S., at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; internal quotation marks omitted).
But in this case counsel's "deficient performance arguably led not to a judicial proceeding of disputed reliability, but rather to the forfeiture of a proceeding itself." Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S., at 483, 120 S.Ct. 1029. When a defendant alleges his counsel's deficient performance led him to accept a guilty plea rather than go to trial, we do not ask whether, had he gone to trial, the result of that trial "would have been different" than the result of the plea bargain. That is because, while we ordinarily "apply a strong presumption of reliability to judicial proceedings," "we cannot accord" any such presumption "to judicial proceedings that never took place." Id., at 482-483, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We instead consider whether the defendant was prejudiced by the "denial of the entire judicial proceeding... to which he had a right." Id., at 483, 120 S.Ct. 1029. As we held in Hill v. Lockhart, when a defendant claims that his counsel's deficient performance deprived him of a trial by causing him to accept a plea, the defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." 474 U.S., at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366.
The dissent contends that a defendant must also show that he would have been better off going to trial. That is true when the defendant's decision about going to trial turns on his prospects of success and those are affected by the attorney's error-for instance, where a defendant alleges that his lawyer should have but did not seek to suppress an improperly obtained confession. Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 118, 131 S.Ct. 733, 178 L.Ed.2d 649 (2011) ; cf., e.g., Hill, 474 U.S., at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 (discussing failure to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence).
Not all errors, however, are of that sort. Here Lee knew, correctly, that his prospects of acquittal at trial were grim, and his attorney's error had nothing to do with that. The error was instead one that affected Lee's understanding of the consequences of pleading guilty. The Court confronted precisely this kind of error in Hill. See id., at 60, 106 S.Ct. 366 ("the claimed error of counsel is erroneous advice as to eligibility for parole"). Rather than asking how a hypothetical trial would have played out absent the error, the Court considered whether there was an adequate showing that the defendant, properly advised, would have opted to go to trial. The Court rejected the defendant's claim because he had "alleged no special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether or not to plead guilty." Ibid.
Lee, on the other hand, argues he can establish prejudice under Hill because he never would have accepted a guilty plea had he known that he would be deported as a result. Lee insists he would have gambled on trial, risking more jail time for whatever small chance there might be of an acquittal that would let him remain in the United States. The Government responds that, since Lee had no viable defense at trial, he would almost certainly have lost and found himself still subject to deportation, with a lengthier prison sentence to boot. Lee, the Government contends, cannot show prejudice from accepting a plea where his only hope at trial was that something unexpected and unpredictable might occur that would lead to an acquittal.
B
The Government asks that we, like the Court of Appeals below, adopt a per se rule that a defendant with no viable defense cannot show prejudice from the denial of his right to trial. Brief for United States 26. As a general matter, it makes sense that a defendant who has no realistic defense to a charge supported by sufficient evidence will be unable to carry his burden of showing prejudice from accepting a guilty plea. But in elevating this general proposition to a per se rule, the Government makes two errors. First, it forgets that categorical rules are ill suited to an inquiry that we have emphasized demands a "case-by-case examination" of the "totality of the evidence." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); Strickland, 466 U.S., at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. And, more fundamentally, the Government overlooks that the inquiry we prescribed in Hill v. Lockhart focuses on a defendant's decisionmaking, which may not turn solely on the likelihood of conviction after trial.
A defendant without any viable defense will be highly likely to lose at trial. And a defendant facing such long odds will rarely be able to show prejudice from accepting a guilty plea that offers him a better resolution than would be likely after trial. But that is not because the prejudice inquiry in this context looks to the probability of a conviction for its own sake. It is instead because defendants obviously weigh their prospects at trial in deciding whether to accept a plea. See Hill, 474 U.S., at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366. Where a defendant has no plausible chance of an acquittal at trial, it is highly likely that he will accept a plea if the Government offers one.
But common sense (not to mention our precedent) recognizes that there is more to consider than simply the likelihood of success at trial. The decision whether to plead guilty also involves assessing the respective consequences of a conviction after trial and by plea. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 322-323, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). When those consequences are, from the defendant's perspective, similarly dire, even the smallest chance of success at trial may look attractive. For example, a defendant with no realistic defense to a charge carrying a 20-year sentence may nevertheless choose trial, if the prosecution's plea offer is 18 years. Here Lee alleges that avoiding deportation was the determinative factor for him; deportation after some time in prison was not meaningfully different from deportation after somewhat less time. He says he accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to deportation-even if it shaved off prison time-in favor of throwing a "Hail Mary" at trial.
The Government urges that, in such circumstances, the possibility of an acquittal after trial is "irrelevant to the prejudice inquiry," pointing to our statement in Strickland that "[a] defendant has no entitlement to the luck of a lawless decisionmaker." 466 U.S., at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. That statement, however, was made in the context of discussing the presumption of reliability we apply to judicial proceedings. As we have explained, that presumption has no place where, as here, a defendant was deprived of a proceeding altogether. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S., at 483, 120 S.Ct. 1029. In a presumptively reliable proceeding, "the possibility of arbitrariness, whimsy, caprice, 'nullification,' and the like" must by definition be ignored. Strickland, 466 U.S., at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. But where we are instead asking what an individual defendant would have done, the possibility of even a highly improbable result may be pertinent to the extent it would have affected his decisionmaking.
C
"Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task," Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 371, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), and the strong societal interest in finality has "special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas." United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979). Courts should not upset a plea solely because of post hoc assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney's deficiencies. Judges should instead look to contemporaneous evidence to substantiate a defendant's expressed preferences.
In the unusual circumstances of this case, we conclude that Lee has adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation. There is no question that "deportation was the determinative issue in Lee's decision whether to accept the plea deal." Report and Recommendation, at 6-7; see also Order, at 14 (noting Government did not dispute testimony to this effect). Lee asked his attorney repeatedly whether there was any risk of deportation from the proceedings, and both Lee and his attorney testified at the evidentiary hearing below that Lee would have gone to trial if he had known about the deportation consequences. See Report and Recommendation, at 12 (noting "the undisputed fact that had Lee at all been aware that deportation was possible as a result of his guilty plea, he would... not have pled guilty"), adopted in relevant part in Order, at 15.
Lee demonstrated as much at his plea colloquy: When the judge warned him that a conviction "could result in your being deported," and asked "[d]oes that at all affect your decision about whether you want to plead guilty or not," Lee answered "Yes, Your Honor." App. 103. When the judge inquired "[h]ow does it affect your decision," Lee responded "I don't understand," and turned to his attorney for advice. Ibid. Only when Lee's counsel assured him that the judge's statement was a "standard warning" was Lee willing to proceed to plead guilty. Id., at 210.
There is no reason to doubt the paramount importance Lee placed on avoiding deportation. Deportation is always "a particularly severe penalty," Padilla, 559 U.S., at 365, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (internal quotation marks omitted), and we have "recognized that 'preserving the client's right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence,' " id., at 368, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (quoting St. Cyr, 533 U.S., at 322, 121 S.Ct. 2271 ; alteration and some internal quotation marks omitted); see also Padilla, 559 U.S., at 364, 130 S.Ct. 1473 ("[D]eportation is an integral part-indeed, sometimes the most important part-of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes." (footnote omitted)). At the time of his plea, Lee had lived in the United States for nearly three decades, had established two businesses in Tennessee, and was the only family member in the United States who could care for his elderly parents-both naturalized American citizens. In contrast to these strong connections to the United States, there is no indication that he had any ties to South Korea; he had never returned there since leaving as a child.
The Government argues, however, that under Padilla v. Kentucky, a defendant "must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances." Id., at 372, 130 S.Ct. 1473. The Government contends that Lee cannot make that showing because he was going to be deported either way; going to trial would only result in a longer sentence before that inevitable consequence. See Brief for United States 13, 21-23.
We cannot agree that it would be irrational for a defendant in Lee's position to reject the plea offer in favor of trial. But for his attorney's incompetence, Lee would have known that accepting the plea agreement would certainly lead to deportation. Going to trial? Almost certainly. If deportation were the "determinative issue" for an individual in plea discussions, as it was for Lee; if that individual had strong connections to this country and no other, as did Lee; and if the consequences of taking a chance at trial were not markedly harsher than pleading, as in this case, that "almost" could make all the difference. Balanced against holding on to some chance of avoiding deportation was a year or two more of prison time. See id., at 6. Not everyone in Lee's position would make the choice to reject the plea. But we cannot say it would be irrational to do so.
Lee's claim that he would not have accepted a plea had he known it would lead to deportation is backed by substantial and uncontroverted evidence. Accordingly we conclude Lee has demonstrated a "reasonable probability that, but for [his] counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Hill, 474 U.S., at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366.
* * *
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice ALITO joins except for Part I, dissenting.
The Court today holds that a defendant can undo a guilty plea, well after sentencing and in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, because he would have chosen to pursue a defense at trial with no reasonable chance of success if his attorney had properly advised him of the immigration consequences of his plea. Neither the Sixth Amendment nor this Court's precedents support that conclusion. I respectfully dissent.
I
As an initial matter, I remain of the view that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution does not "requir[e] counsel to provide accurate advice concerning the potential removal consequences of a guilty plea." Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 388, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) (Scalia, J., joined by THOMAS, J., dissenting). I would therefore affirm the Court of Appeals on the ground that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the allegedly ineffective assistance in this case.
II
Because the Court today announces a novel standard for prejudice at the plea stage, I further dissent on the separate ground that its standard does not follow from our precedents.
A
The Court and both of the parties agree that the prejudice inquiry in this context is governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See ante, at 1964 - 1965; Brief for Petitioner 16; Brief for United States 15. The Court in Strickland held that a defendant may establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by showing that his "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and, as relevant here, that the representation prejudiced the defendant by "actually ha[ving] an adverse effect on the defense." 466 U.S., at 688, 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
To establish prejudice under Strickland, a defendant must show a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Strickland made clear that the "result of the proceeding" refers to the outcome of the defendant's criminal prosecution as a whole. It defined "reasonable probability" as "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Ibid. (emphasis added). And it explained that "[a]n error by counsel... does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. " Id., at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added).
The parties agree that this inquiry assumes an "objective" decisionmaker. Brief for Petitioner 17; Brief for United States 17. That conclusion also follows directly from Strickland. According to Strickland, the "assessment of the likelihood of a result more favorable to the defendant must exclude the possibility of arbitrariness, whimsy, caprice, 'nullification,' and the like." 466 U.S., at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. It does not depend on subjective factors such as "the idiosyncrasies of the particular decisionmaker," including the decisionmaker's "unusual propensities toward harshness or leniency." Ibid. These factors are flatly "irrelevant to the prejudice inquiry." Ibid. In other words, "[a] defendant has no entitlement to the luck of a lawless decisionmaker." Ibid. Instead, "[t]he assessment of prejudice should proceed on the assumption that the decisionmaker is reasonably, conscientiously, and impartially applying the standards that govern the decision." Ibid.
When the Court extended the right to effective counsel to the plea stage, see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), it held that "the same two-part standard" from Strickland applies. 474 U.S., at 57, 106 S.Ct. 366 (repeating Strickland's teaching that even an unreasonable error by counsel " 'does not warrant setting aside the judgment' " so long as the error " 'had no effect on the judgment' " (quoting 466 U.S., at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 )). To be sure, the Court said-and the majority today emphasizes-that a defendant asserting an ineffectiveness claim at the plea stage "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." 474 U.S., at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366. But that requirement merely reflects the reality that a defendant cannot show that the outcome of his case would have been different if he would have accepted his current plea anyway. In other words, the defendant's ability to show that he would have gone to trial is necessary, but not sufficient, to establish prejudice.
The Hill Court went on to explain that Strickland's two-part test applies the same way in the plea context as in other contexts. In particular, the "assessment" will primarily turn on "a prediction whether," in the absence of counsel's error, "the evidence" of the defendant's innocence or guilt "likely would have changed the outcome" of the proceeding. 474 U.S., at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366. Thus, a defendant cannot show prejudice where it is " 'inconceivable' " not only that he would have gone to trial, but also " 'that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received.' " Ibid. (quoting Evans v. Meyer, 742 F.2d 371, 375 (C.A.7 1984) (emphasis added)). In sum, the proper inquiry requires a defendant to show both that he would have rejected his plea and gone to trial and that he would likely have obtained a more favorable result in the end.
To the extent Hill was ambiguous about the standard, our precedents applying it confirm this interpretation. In Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 131 S.Ct. 733, 178 L.Ed.2d 649 (2011), the Court emphasized that "strict adherence to the Strickland standard" is "essential" when reviewing claims about attorney error "at the plea bargain stage." Id., at 125, 131 S.Ct. 733. In that case, the defendant argued that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he had failed to seek suppression of his confession before he pleaded no contest. In analyzing the prejudice issue, the Court did not focus solely on whether the suppression hearing would have turned out differently, or whether the defendant would have chosen to go to trial. It focused as well on the weight of the evidence against the defendant and the fact that he likely would not have obtained a more favorable result at trial, regardless of whether he succeeded at the suppression hearing. See id., at 129, 131 S.Ct. 733 (describing the State's case as "formidable" and observing that "[t]he bargain counsel struck" in the plea agreement was "a favorable one" to the defendant compared to what might have happened at trial).
The Court in Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), took a similar approach. In that case, the Court extended Hill to hold that counsel could be constitutionally ineffective for failing to communicate a plea deal to a defendant. 566 U.S., at 145, 132 S.Ct. 1399. The Court emphasized that, in addition to showing a reasonable probability that the defendant "would have accepted the earlier plea offer," it is also "necessary" to show a "reasonable probability that the end result of the criminal process would have been more favorable by reason of a plea to a lesser charge or a sentence of less prison time." Id., at 147, 132 S.Ct. 1399 ; see also id., at 150, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (the defendant "must show not only a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the lapsed plea but also a reasonable probability that the prosecution would have adhered to the agreement and that it would have been accepted by the trial court" (emphasis added)). In short, the Court did not focus solely on whether the defendant would have accepted the plea. It instead required the defendant to show that the ultimate outcome would have been different.
Finally, the Court's decision in Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012), is to the same effect. In that case, the Court concluded that counsel may be constitutionally ineffective by causing a defendant to reject a plea deal he should have accepted. Id., at 164, 132 S.Ct. 1376. The Court again emphasized that the prejudice inquiry requires a showing that the criminal prosecution would ultimately have ended differently for the defendant-not merely that the defendant would have accepted the deal. The Court stated that the defendant in those circumstances "must show" a reasonable probability that "the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer's terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed."Ibid.
These precedents are consistent with our cases governing the right to effective assistance of counsel in other contexts. This Court has held that the right to effective counsel applies to all "critical stages of the criminal proceedings." Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 786, 129 S.Ct. 2079, 173 L.Ed.2d 955 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Those stages include not only "the entry of a guilty plea," but also "arraignments, postindictment interrogation, [and] postindictment lineups." Frye, supra, at 140, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (citing cases). In those circumstances, the Court has not held that the prejudice inquiry focuses on whether that stage of the proceeding would have ended differently. It instead has made clear that the prejudice inquiry is the same as in Strickland, which requires a defendant to establish that he would have been better off in the end had his counsel not erred. See 466 U.S., at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
B
The majority misapplies this Court's precedents when it concludes that a defendant may establish prejudice by showing only that "he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial," without showing that "the result of that trial would have been different than the result of the plea bargain." Ante, at 1965, 1965 (internal quotation marks omitted). In reaching this conclusion, the Court relies almost exclusively on the single line from Hill that "the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." 474 U.S., at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366. For the reasons explained above, that sentence prescribes the threshold showing a defendant must make to establish Strickland prejudice where a defendant has accepted a guilty plea. In Hill, the Court concluded that the defendant had not made that showing, so it rejected his claim. The Court did not, however, further hold that a defendant can establish prejudice by making that showing alone.
The majority also relies on a case that arises in a completely different context, Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). There, the Court considered a defendant's claim that his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal. See id., at 474, 120 S.Ct. 1029. The Court observed that the lawyer's failure to file the notice of appeal "arguably led not to a judicial proceeding of disputed reliability," but instead to "the forfeiture of a proceeding itself." Id., at 483, 120 S.Ct. 1029. The Court today observes that petitioner's guilty plea meant that he did not go to trial. Ante, at 1964 - 1965. Because that trial " 'never took place,' " the Court reasons, we cannot " 'apply a strong presumption of reliability' " to it. Ante, at 1964 - 1965 (quoting Flores-Ortega, supra, at 482-483, 120 S.Ct. 1029 ). And because the presumption of reliability does not apply, we may not depend on Strickland's statement "that '[a] defendant has no entitlement to the luck of a lawless decisionmaker.' " Ante, at 1967 (quoting 466 U.S., at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). This point is key to the majority's conclusion that petitioner would have chosen to gamble on a trial even though he had no viable defense.
The majority's analysis, however, is directly contrary to Hill, which instructed a court undertaking a prejudice analysis to apply a presumption of reliability to the hypothetical trial that would have occurred had the defendant not pleaded guilty. After explaining that a court should engage in a predictive inquiry about the likelihood of a defendant securing a better result at trial, the Court said: "As we explained in Strickland v. Washington, supra, these predictions of the outcome at a possible trial, where necessary, should be made objectively, without
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
There are two issues in this case: whether the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission extends to the California Dental Association (CDA), a nonprofit professional association, and whether a “quick look” sufficed to justify finding that certain advertising restrictions adopted by the CDA violated the antitrust laws. We hold that the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) extends to an association that, like the CDA, provides substantial economic benefit to its for-profit members, but that where, as here, any anticompetitive effects of given restraints are far from intuitively obvious, the rule of reason demands a more thorough enquiry into the consequences of those restraints than the Court of Appeals performed.
HH
The CDA is a voluntary nonprofit association of local dental societies to which some 19,000 dentists belong, including about three-quarters of those practicing in the State. In re California Dental Assn., 121 P. T. C. 190, 196-197 (1996). The CDA is exempt from federal income tax under 26 U. S. C. § 501(c)(6), covering “[bjusiness leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, [and] boards of trade,” although it has for-profit subsidiaries that give its members advantageous access to various sorts of insurance, including liability coverage, and to financing for their real estate, equipment, cars, and patients’ bills. The CDA lobbies and litigates in its members’ interests, and conducts marketing and public relations campaigns for their benefit. 128 F. 3d 720, 723 (CA9 1997).
The dentists who belong to the CDA through these associations agree to abide by a Code of Ethics (Code) including the following § 10:
“Although any dentist may advertise, no dentist shall advertise or solicit patients in any form of communication in a manner that is false or misleading in any material respect. In order to properly serve the public, dentists should represent themselves in a manner that contributes to the esteem of the public. Dentists should not misrepresent their training and competence in any way that would be false or misleading in any material respect.” App. 33.
The CDA has issued a number of advisory opinions interpreting this section, and through separate advertising guidelines intended to help members comply with the Code and with state law the CDA has advised its dentists of disclosures they must make under state law when engaging in discount advertising.
Responsibility for enforcing the Code rests in the first instance with the local dental societies, to which applicants for CDA membership must submit copies of their own advertisements and those of their employers or referral services to assure compliance with the Code. The local societies also actively seek information about potential Code violations by applicants or CDA members. Applicants who refuse to withdraw or revise objectionable advertisements may be denied membership; and members who, after a hearing, remain similarly recalcitrant are subject to censure, suspension, or expulsion from the CDA. 128 F. 3d, at 724.
The Commission brought a leging that it applied its guidelines so as to restrict truthful, nondeceptive advertising, and so violated § 5 of the FTC Act, 38 Stat. 717, 15 U. S. C. § 45. The complaint alleged that the CDA had unreasonably restricted two types of advertising: price advertising, particularly discounted fees, and advertising relating to the quality of dental services. Complaint ¶ 7. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held the Commission to have jurisdiction over the CDA, which, the ALJ noted, had itself “stated that a selection of its programs and services has a potential value to members of between $22,739 and $65,127,” 121 F. T. C., at 207. He found that, although there had been no proof that the CDA exerted market power, no such proof was required to establish an antitrust violation under In re Mass. Bd. of Registration in Optometry, 110 F. T. C. 549 (1988), since the CDA had unreasonably prevented members and potential members from using truthful, nondeceptive advertising, all to the detriment of both dentists and consumers of dental services. He accordingly found a violation of § 5 of the FTC Act. 121 F. T. C., at 272-273.
The Commission except for his conclusion that the CDA lacked market power, with which the Commission disagreed. The Commission treated the CDA’s restrictions on discount advertising as illegal per se. 128 F. 3d, at 725. In the alternative, the Commission held the price advertising (as well as the nonprice) restrictions to be violations of the Sherman and FTC Acts under an abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis. One Commissioner concurred separately, arguing that the Commission should have applied the Mass. i3d. standard, not the per se analysis, to the limitations on price advertising. Another Commissioner dissented, finding the evidence insufficient to show either that the restrictions had an anticompetitive effect under the rule of reason, or that the CDA had market power. 128 F. 3d, at 725.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, sustaining the Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction over the CDA and its ultimate conclusion on the merits. Id., at 730. The court thought it error for the Commission to have applied per se analysis to the price advertising restrictions, finding analysis under the rule of reason required for all the restrictions. But the Court of Appeals went on to explain that the Commission had properly
“applied an abbreviated, or 'quick look,’ rule of reason analysis designed for restraints that are not per se un-lawffil but are sufficiently anticompetitive on their face that they do not require a full-blown rule of reason inquiry. See [National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85, 109-110, and n. 39 (1984)] ('The essential point is that the rule of reason can sometimes be applied in the twinkling of an eye.’ [Ibid, (citing P. Areeda, The “Rule of Reason” in Antitrust Analysis: General Issues 37-38 (Federal Judicial Center, June 1981) (parenthetical omitted)).] It allows the condemnation of a 'naked restraint’ on price or output without an 'elaborate industry analysis.’ Id., at 109.” Id., at 727.
The Court of Appeals thought truncated rule-of-reason analysis to be in order for several reasons. As for the restrictions on discount advertising, they “amounted in practice to a fairly 'naked’ restraint on price competition itself,” ibid. The CDA’s procompetitive justification, that the restrictions encouraged disclosure and prevented false and misleading advertising, carried little weight because “it is simply infeasible to disclose all of the information that is required,” id., at 728, and “the record provides no evidence that the rule has in fact led to increased disclosure and transparency of dental pricing,” ibid. As to nonpriee advertising restrictions, the court said that
“[t]hese restrictions are in effect a form of output limitation, as they restrict the supply of information about individual dentists’ services. See Areeda & Hoven-kamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1505 at 693-94 (Supp. 1997).... The restrictions may also affect output more directly, as quality and comfort advertising may induce some customers to obtain nonemergeney care when they might not otherwise do so.... Under these circumstances, we think that the restriction is a sufficiently naked restraint on output to justify quick look analysis.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals went on to hold that the Commission’s findings with respect to the CDA’s agreement and intent to restrain trade, as well as on the effect of the restrictions and the existence of market power, were all supported by substantial evidence. Id., at 728-730. In dissent, Judge Real took the position that the Commission’s jurisdiction did not cover the CDA as a nonprofit professional association engaging in no commercial operations. Id., at 730. But even assuming jurisdiction, he argued, full-bore rule-of-reason analysis was called for, since the disclosure requirements were not naked restraints and neither fixed prices nor banned nondeceptive advertising. Id., at 730-731.
We granted certiorari to resolve conflicts among the Circuits on the Commission’s jurisdiction over a nonprofit professional association and the occasions for abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis. 524 U. S. 980 (1998). We now vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand.
W
The FTC Act gives the Commission authority over “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” 15 U. S. C. § 45(a)(2), and defines “corporation” to include “any company... or association, incorporated or unincorporated, without shares of capital or capital stock or certificates of interest, except partnerships, which is organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members,” §44. Although the Circuits have not agreed on the precise extent of this definition, see n. 4, supra, the Commission has long held that some circumstances give it jurisdiction over an entity that seeks no profit for itself. While the Commission has claimed to have jurisdiction over a nonprofit entity if a substantial part of its total activities provides pecuniary benefits to its members, see In re American Medical Assn., 94 F. T. C. 701, 983-984 (1980), respondent now advances the slightly different formulation that the Commission has jurisdiction “over anti-competitive practices by nonprofit associations whose activities provid[e] substantial economic benefits to their for-profit members’ businesses.” Brief for Respondent 20.
urges deference to this interpretation of the Commission’s jurisdiction as reasonable. Id., at 25-26 (citing Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U. S. 354, 380-382 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring) (Chevron deference applies to agency's interpretation of its own statutory jurisdiction)). But we have no occasion to review the call for deference here, the interpretation urged in respondent’s brief being clearly the better reading of the statute under ordinary principles of construction.
The FTC Act is at pains to an ganized to carry on business for its own profit,” 15 U. S. C. §44, but also one that carries on business for the profit “of its members,” ibid. While such a supportive organization may be devoted to helping its members in ways beyond immediate enhancement of profit, no one here has claimed that such an entity must devote itself single-mindedly to the profit of others. It could, indeed, hardly be supposed that Congress intended such a restricted notion of covered supporting organizations, with the opportunity this would bring with it for avoiding jurisdiction where the purposes of the FTC Act would obviously call for asserting it.
Just as the FTC Act does not require that a organization must devote itself entirely to its members' profits, neither does the Act say anything about how much of the entity’s activities must go to raising the members’ bottom lines. There is accordingly no apparent reason to let the statute’s application turn on meeting some threshold percentage of activity for this purpose, or even satisfying a softer formulation calling for a substantial part of the nonprofit entity’s total activities to be aimed at its members’ pecuniary benefit. To be sure, proximate relation to lucre must appear; the FTC Act does not cover all membership organizations of profit-making corporations without more, and an organization devoted solely to professional education may lie outside the FTC Act’s jurisdictional reach, even though the quality of professional services ultimately affects the profits of those who deliver them.
There is no line drawing exercise in this case, however, where the CDA’s contributions to the profits of its individual members are proximate and apparent. Through for-profit subsidiaries, the CDA provides advantageous insurance and preferential financing arrangements for its members, and it engages in lobbying, litigation, marketing, and public relations for the benefit of its members’ interests. This congeries of activities confers far more than de minimis or merely presumed economic benefits on CDA members; the economic benefits conferred upon the CDA’s profit-seeking professionals plainly fall within the object of enhancing its members’ “profit,” which the FTC Act makes the jurisdictional toueh-stone. There is no difficulty in concluding that the Commission has jurisdiction over the CDA.
The logic and purpose result. The FTC Act directs the Commission to “prevent” the broad set of entities under its jurisdiction “from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 15 U. S. C. § 45(a)(2). Nonprofit entities organized on behalf of for-profit members have the same capacity and derivatively, at least, the same incentives as for-profit organizations to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair and deceptive acts. It may even be possible that a nonprofit entity up to no good would have certain advantages, not only over a for-profit member but over a for-profit membership organization as well; it would enjoy the screen of superficial disinterest while devoting itself to serving the interests of its members without concern for doing more than breaking even.
Nor, contrary to petitioner’s argument, history inconsistent with this interpretation of the Commission’s jurisdiction. Although the versions of the FTC Act first passed by the House and the Senate defined “corporation” to refer only to incorporated, joint stock, and share-capital companies organized to carry on business for profit, see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1142, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 11, 14 (1914), the Conference Committee subsequently revised the definition to its present form, an alteration that indicates an intention to include nonprofit entities. And the legislative history, like the text of the FTC Act, is devoid of any hint at an exemption for professional associations as such.
Commission had jurisdiction to pursue the claim here, and turn to the question whether the Court of Appeals devoted sufficient analysis to sustain the claim that the advertising restrictions promulgated by the CDA violated the FTC Act.
The Court of Appeals treated as distinct questions the sufficiency of the analysis of anticompetitive effects and the substantiality of the evidence supporting the Commission’s conclusions. Because we decide that the Court of Appeals erred when it held as a matter of law that quick-look analysis was appropriate (with the consequence that the Commission’s abbreviated analysis and conclusion were sustainable), we do not reach the question of the substantiality of the evidence supporting the Commission’s conclusion.
In National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), we held that a “naked restraint on price and output requires some competitive jus-tifieation even in the absence of a detailed market analysis.” Id., at 110. Elsewhere, we held that “no elaborate industry analysis is required to demonstrate the anticompetitive character of” horizontal agreements among competitors to refuse to discuss prices, National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679, 692 (1978), or to withhold a particular desired service, FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U. S. 447, 459 (1986) (quoting National Soc. of Professional Engineers, supra, at 692). In each of these eases, which have formed the basis for what has come to be called abbreviated or “quick-look” analysis under the rule of reason, an observer with even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangements in question would have an anticompetitive effect on customers and markets. In National Collegiate Athletic Assn., the league's television plan expressly limited output (the number of games that could be televised) and fixed a minimum price. 468 U. S., at 99-100. In National Soc. of Professional Engineers, the restraint was “an absolute ban on competitive bidding.” 435 U. S., at 692. In Indiana Federation of Dentists, the restraint was “a horizontal agreement among the participating dentists to withhold from their customers a particular service that they desire.” 476 U. S., at 459. As in such cases, quick-look analysis carries the day when the great likelihood of anticompetitive effects can easily be ascertained. See Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 134 F. 3d 1010, 1020 (CA10 1998) (explaining that quick-look analysis applies “where a practice has obvious anticompeti-tive effects”); Chicago Professional Sports Limited Partnership v. National Basketball Assn., 961 F. 2d 667, 674-676 (CA7 1992) (finding quick-look analysis adequate after assessing and rejecting logic of proffered procompetitive justifications); cf. United States v. Brown University, 5 F. 3d 658, 677-678 (CA3 1993) (finding full rule-of-reason analysis required where universities sought to provide financial aid to needy students and noting by way of contrast that the agree-merits in National Soc. of Professional Engineers and Indiana Federation of Dentists “embodied a strong economic self-interest of the parties to them”).
case us, however, fails to present a situation in which the likelihood of anticompetitive effects is comparably obvious. Even on Justice Breyer’s view that bars on truthful and verifiable price and quality advertising are prima facie anticompetitive, see post, at 784-785 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), and place the burden of procompetitive justification on those who agree to adopt them, the very issue at the threshold of this case is whether professional price and quality advertising is sufficiently verifiable in theory and in fact to fall within such a general rule. Ultimately our disagreement with Justice Breyer turns on our different responses to this issue. Whereas he accepts, as the Ninth Circuit seems to have done, that the restrictions here were like restrictions on advertisement of price and quality generally, see, e. g., post, at 785, 787, 790, it seems to us that the CDA’s advertising restrictions might plausibly be thought to have a net procom-petitive effect, or possibly no effect at all on competition. The restrictions on both discount and nondiscount advertising are, at least on their face, designed to avoid false or deceptive advertising in a market characterized by striking disparities between the information available to the professional and the patient. Cf. Carr & Mathewson, The Economics of Law Firms: A Study in the Legal Organization of the Firm, 33 J. Law & Econ. 307,309 (1990) (explaining that in a market for complex professional services, “inherent asymmetry of knowledge about the product” arises because “professionals supplying the good are knowledgeable [whereas] consumers demanding the good are uninformed”); Akerlof, The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, 84 Q. J. Econ. 488 (1970) (pointing out quality problems in market characterized by asymmetrical information). In a market for professional services, in which advertising is relatively rare and the comparability of service packages not easily established, the difficulty for customers or potential competitors to get and verify information about the price and availability of services magnifies the dangers to competition associated with misleading advertising. What is more, the quality of professional services tends to resist either calibration or monitoring by individual patients or clients, partly because of the specialized knowledge required to evaluate the services, and partly because of the difficulty in determining whether, and the degree to which, an outcome is attributable to the quality of services (like a poor job of tooth filling) or to something else (like a very tough walnut). See Leland, Quacks, Lemons, and Licensing: A Theory of Minimum Quality Standards, 87 J. Pol. Econ. 1328,1330 (1979); 1 B. Furrow, T. Greaney, S. Johnson, T. Jost, & R. Schwartz, Health Law §3-1, p. 86 (1995) (describing the common view that “the lay public is incapable of adequately evaluating the quality of medical services”). Patients’ attachments to particular professionals, the rationality of which is difficult to assess, complicate the picture even further. Cf. Evans, Professionals and the Production Function: Can Competition Policy Improve Efficiency in the Licensed Professions?, in Occupational Licensure and Regulation 235-236 (S. Rotten-berg ed. 1980) (describing long-term relationship between professional and client not as “a series of spot contracts” but rather as “a long-term agreement, often implicit, to deal with each other in a set of future unspecified or incompletely specified circumstances according to certain rules,” and adding that "CQt is not clear how or if these [implicit contracts] can be reconciled with the promotion of effective price competition in individual spot markets for particular services”). The existence of such significant challenges to informed deci-sionmaking by the customer for professional services immediately suggests that advertising restrictions arguably protecting patients from misleading or irrelevant advertising call for more than cursory treatment as obviously comparable to classic horizontal agreements to limit output or price competition.
The explanation proffered by the Court of Appeals for the likely anticompetitive effect of the CDAs restrictions on discount advertising began with the unexceptionable statements that “price advertising is fundamental to price competition,” 128 F. 3d, at 727, and that “[r]estrictions on the ability to advertise prices normally make it more difficult for consumers to find a lower price and for dentists to compete on the basis of price,” ibid, (citing Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U. S. 350, 364 (1977); Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 388 (1992)). The court then acknowledged that, according to the CDA, the restrictions nonetheless furthered the “legitimate, indeed proeompetitive, goal of preventing false and misleading price advertising.” 128 F. 3d, at 728. The Court of Appeals might, at this juncture, have recognized that the restrictions at issue here are very far from a total ban on price or discount advertising, and might have considered the possibility that the particular restrictions on professional advertising could have different effects from those “normally5’ found in the commercial world, even to the point of promoting competition by reducing the occurrence of unverifiable and misleading across-the-board discount advertising. Instead, the Court of Appeals confined itself to the brief assertion that the “CDA’s disclosure requirements appear to prohibit aeross-the-board discounts because it is simply infeasible to disclose all of the information that is required,” ibid., followed by the observation that “the record provides no evidence that the rule has in fact led to increased disclosure and transparency of dental pricing,” ibid.
But these text and describe no anticompetitive effects. Assuming that the record in fact supports the conclusion that the CDA disclosure rules essentially bar advertisement of across-the-board discounts, it does not obviously follow that such a ban would have a net anticompetitive effect here. Whether advertisements that announced discounts for, say, first-time customers, would be less effective at conveying information relevant to competition if they listed the original and discounted prices for checkups, X-rays, and fillings, than they would be if they simply specified a percentage discount across the board, seems to us a question susceptible to empirical but not a priori analysis. In a suspicious world, the discipline of specific example may well be a necessary condition of plausibility for professional claims that for all practical purposes defy comparison shopping. It is also possible in principle that, even if aeross-the-board discount advertisements were more effective in drawing customers in the short run, the recurrence of some measure of intentional or accidental misstatement due to the breadth of their claims might leak out over time to make potential patients skeptical of any such across-the-board advertising, so undercutting the method’s effectiveness. Cf. Akerlof, 84 Q. J. Eeon., at 495 (explaining that “dishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market”). It might be, too, that across-the-board discount advertisements would continue to attract business indefinitely, but might work precisely because they were misleading customers, and thus just because their effect would be anticompetitive, not procompetitive. Put another way, the CDA’s rule appears to reflect the prediction that any costs to competition associated with the elimination of across-the-board advertising will be outweighed by gains to consumer information (and hence competition) created by discount advertising that is exact, accurate, and more easily verifiable (at least by regulators). As a matter of economics this view may or may not be correct, but it is not implausible, and neither a court nor the Commission may initially dismiss it as presumptively wrong.
In theory, it is true, the Court of Appeals neither ruled out the plausibility of some procompetitive support for the CDA’s requirements nor foreclosed the utility of an eviden-tiary discussion on the point. The court indirectly acknowledged the plausibility of procompetitive justifications for the CDA’s position when it stated that “the record provides no evidence that the rule has in fact led to increased disclosure and transparency of dental pricing,” 128 F. 3d, at 728. But because petitioner alone would have had the incentive to introduce such evidence, the statement sounds as though the Court cf Appeals may have thought it was justified without further analysis to shift a burden to the CDA to adduce hard evidence of the proeompetitive nature of its policy; the court’s adversión to empirical evidence at the moment of this implicit burden shifting underscores the leniency of its enquiry into evidence of the restrictions’ anticompetitive effects.
The Court of Appeals was comparably ing the sufficiency of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis as to the nonpriee advertising restrictions. The court began with the argument that “[t]hese restrictions are in effect a form of output limitation, as they restrict the supply of information about individual dentists’ services.” Ibid, (citing P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1505, pp. 693-694 (1997 Supp.)). Although this sentence does indeed appear as cited, it is puzzling, given that the relevant output for antitrust purposes here is presumably not information or advertising, but dental services themselves. The question is not whether the universe of possible advertisements has been limited (as assuredly it has), but whether the limitation on advertisements obviously tends to limit the total delivery of dental services. The court came closest to addressing this latter question when it went on to assert that limiting advertisements regarding quality and safety “prevents dentists from fully describing the package of services they offer,” 128 F. 3d, at 728, adding that “[t]he restrictions may also affect output more directly, as quality and comfort advertising may induce some customers to obtain nonemer-gency care when they might not otherwise do so,” ibid. This suggestion about output is also puzzling. If quality advertising actually induces some patients to obtain more care than they would in its absence, then restricting such advertising would reduce the demand for dental services, not the supply; and it is of course the producers’ supply of a good in relation to demand that is normally relevant in determining whether a producer-imposed output limitation has the anti-competitive effect of artificially raising prices, see General Leaseways, Inc. v. National Truck Leasing Assn., 744 P. 2d 588, 594-595 (CA7 1984) (“An agreement on output also equates to a price-fixing agreement. If firms raise price, the market’s demand for their product will fall, so the amount supplied will fall too — in other words, output will be restricted. If instead the firms restrict output directly, price will as mentioned rise in order to limit demand to the reduced supply. Thus, with exceptions not relevant here, raising price, reducing output, and dividing markets have the same anticompetitive effects”).
of Appeals acknowledged the CDA’s view that “claims about quality are inherently unverifiable and therefore misleading,” 128 F. 3d, at 728, it responded that this concern “does not justify banning all quality claims without regard to whether they are, in fact, false or misleading,” ibid. As a result, the court said, “the restriction is a sufficiently naked restraint on output to justify quick look analysis.” Ibid. The court assumed, in these words, that some dental quality claims may escape justifiable censure, because they are both verifiable and true. But its implicit assumption fails to explain why it gave no weight to the countervailing, and at least equally plausible, suggestion that restricting difficult-to-verify claims about quality or patient comfort would have a procompetitive effect by preventing misleading or false claims that distort the market. It is, indeed, entirely possible to understand the CDA’s restrictions on unverifiable quality and comfort advertising as nothing more than a procompetitive ban on puffery, ef. Bates, 438 U. S., at 366 (claims relating to the quality of legal services “probably are not susceptible of precise measurement or verification and, under some circumstances, might well be deceptive or misleading to the public, or even false”); id., at 383-384 (“[Advertising claims as to the quality of services... are not susceptible of measurement or verification; accordingly, such claims may be so likely to be misleading as to warrant restriction”), notwithstanding Justice Breyer’s citation (to a Commission discussion that never faces the issue of the unverifiability of professional quality claims, raised in Bates), post, at 785.
The point have the procompetitive effect claimed by the CD A; it is possible that banning quality claims might have no effect at all on competitiveness if, for example, many dentists made very much the same sort of claims. And it is also of course possible that the restrictions might in the final analysis be anti-competitive. The point, rather, is that the plausibility of competing claims about the effects of the professional advertising restrictions rules out the indulgently abbreviated review to which the Commission’s order was treated. The obvious anticompetitive effect that triggers abbreviated analysis has not been shown.
In light of our focus on the adequacy of the Court of Appeals’s analysis, Justice Breyer’s thorough-going, de novo antitrust analysis contains much to impress on its own merits but little to demonstrate the sufficiency of the Court of Appeals’s review. The obligation to give a more deliberate look than a quick one does not arise at the door of this Court and should not be satisfied here in the first instance. Had the Court of Appeals engaged in a painstaking discussion in a league with Justice Breyer’s (compare his 14 pages with the Ninth Circuit’s 8), and had it confronted the comparability of these restrictions to bars on clearly verifiable advertising, its reasoning might have sufficed to justify its conclusion. Certainly Justice Breyer’s treatment of the antitrust issues here is no “quick look,” Lingering is more like it, and indeed Justice Breyer, not surprisingly, stops short of endorsing the Court of Appeals’s discussion as adequate to the task at hand.
Saying here that the Court of Appeals’s conclusion at least required a more extended examination of the possible factual underpinnings than it received is not, of course, necessarily to call for the fullest market analysis. Although we have said that a challenge to a “naked restraint on price and output” need not be supported by “a detailed market analysis” in order to “requirfe] some competitive justification,” National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 468 U. S., at 110, it does not follow that every ease attacking a less obviously anticompeti-tive restraint (like this one) is a candidate for plenary market examination. The truth is that our categories of analysis of anticompetitive effect are less fixed than terms like “per se,” “quick look,” and “rule of reason” tend to make them appear. We have recognized, for example, that “there is often no bright line separating per se from Rule of Reason analysis,” since “considerable inquiry into market conditions” may be required before the application of any so-called “per se” condemnation is justified. Id., at 104, n. 26. “[Wjhether the ultimate finding is the product of a presumption or actual market analysis, the essential inquiry remains the same— whether or not the challenged restraint enhances competition.” Id., at 104. Indeed, the scholar who enriched antitrust law with the metaphor of “the twinkling of an eye” for the most condensed rule-of-reason analysis himself cautioned against the risk of misleading even in speaking of a “spectrum” of adequate reasonableness analysis for passing upon antitrust claims: “There is always something of a sliding scale in appraising reasonableness, but the sliding scale formula deceptively suggests greater precision than we can hope for.... Nevertheless, the quality of proof required should vary with the circumstances.” P. Areeda, Antitrust Law f 1507, p. 402 (1986). At the same time, Professor Areeda also emphasized the necessity, particularly great in the quasi-common law realm of antitrust, that courts explain the logic of their conclusions. “By exposing their reasoning, judges... are subjected to others’ critical analyses, which in turn can lead to better understanding for the future.” Id., ¶ 1500, at 364. As the circumstances here demonstrate, there is generally no categorical line to be drawn between restraints that give rise to an intuitively obvious inference of anticompetitive effect and those that call for more detailed treatment. What is required, rather, is an enquiry meet for the case, looking to the circumstances, details, and logic of a restraint. The object is to see whether the experience of the market has been so clear, or necessarily will be, that a confident conclusion about the principal tendency of a restriction will follow from a quick (or at least quicker) look, in place of a more sedulous one. And of course what we see may vary over time, if rule-of-reason analyses in case after ease reach identical conclusions. Por now, at least, a less quick look was required for the initial assessment of the tendency of these professional advertising restrictions. Because the Court of Appeals did not scrutinize the assumption of relative anticompetitive tendencies, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for a fuller consideration of the issue.
It is so ordered.
The advisory opinions, which substantially mirror parts of the California Business and Professions Code, see Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. §§ 651, 1680 (West 1999), include the following propositions:
“A statement or claim is false or misleading in any material respect when it:
“a. contains a misrepresentation of fact;
“b. is likely to mislead or deceive because in context it makes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts;
“e. is intended or is likely to create false or unjustified expectations of favorable results and/or costs;
"d. relates to fees for specific types of services without fully and specifically disclosing all variables and other relevant factors;
“e. contains other representations or implications that in reasonable probability will cause an ordinarily prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived.
“Any communication or advertisement which refers to the cost of dental services shall be exact, without omissions, and shall make each service clearly identifiable, without the use of such phrases as ‘as low as,’ ‘and up,’ ‘lowest prices,’ or words or phrases of similar import.
which refers to the cost of dental services and uses words of comparison or relativity — for example, ‘low fees’ — must be based on verifiable data substantiating the comparison or statement of relativity. The burden shall be on the dentist who advertises in such terms to establish the accuracy of the comparison or statement of relativity.”
as to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.