instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) imposes minimum wage and maximum hours requirements on employers, see 52 Stat. 1062-1063, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§206-207 (2006 ed. and Supp. IV), but those requirements do not apply to workers employed “in the capacity of outside salesman,” § 213(a)(1). This case requires us to decide whether the term “outside salesman,” as defined by Department of Labor (DOL or Department) regulations, encompasses pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs in appropriate cases. We conclude that these employees qualify as “outside salesm[e]n.”
I
A
Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 with the goal of “pro-teet[ing] all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.” Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U. S. 728, 739 (1981); see also 29 U. S. C. § 202(a). Among other requirements, the FLSA obligates employers to compensate employees for hours in excess of 40 per week at a rate of 1½ times the employees’ regular wages. See § 207(a). The overtime compensation requirement, however, does not apply with respect to all employees. See § 213. As relevant here, the statute exempts workers “employed... in the capacity of outside salesman.” § 213(a)(1).
Congress did not define the term “outside salesman,” but it delegated authority to the DOL to issue regulations “from time to time” to “defin[e] and delimi[t]” the term. Ibid. The DOL promulgated such regulations in 1938, 1940, and 1949. In 2004, following notice-and-comment procedures, the DOL reissued the regulations with minor amendments. See 69 Fed. Reg. 22122 (2004). The current regulations are nearly identical in substance to the regulations issued in the years immediately following the FLSA’s enactment. See 29 CFR §§ 541.500-541.504 (2011).
Three of the DOL’s regulations are directly relevant to this case: §§ 541.500, 541.501, and 541.503. We refer to these three regulations as the “general regulation,” the “sales regulation,” and the “promotion-work regulation,” respectively.
The general regulation sets out the definition of the statutory term “employee employed in the capacity of outside salesman.” It defines the term to mean “any employee... [w]hose primary duty is... making sales within the meaning of [29 U. S. C. § 203(k)]” and “[w]ho is customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business in performing such primary duty.” §§ 541.500(a) (1)-(2). The referenced statutory provision, 29 U. S. C. § 203(k), states that “‘[s]ale’ or ‘sell’ includes any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.” Thus, under the general regulation, an outside salesman is any employee whose primary duty is making any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.
The sales regulation restates the statutory definition of sale discussed above and clarifies that “[s]ales within the meaning of [29 U. S. C. § 203(k)] include the transfer of title to tangible property, and in certain cases, of tangible and valuable evidences of intangible property.” 29 CFR § 541.501(b).
Finally, the promotion-work regulation identifies “[pjromotion work” as “one type of activity often performed by persons who make sales, which may or may not be exempt outside sales work, depending upon the circumstances under which it is performed.” § 541.503(a). Promotion work that is “performed incidental to and in conjunction with an employee’s own outside sales or solicitations is exempt work,” whereas promotion work that is “incidental to sales made, or to be made, by someone else is not exempt outside sales work.” Ibid.
Additional guidance concerning the scope of the outside salesman exemption can be gleaned from reports issued in connection with the DOL’s promulgation of regulations in 1940 and 1949, and from the preamble to the 2004 regulations. See DOL, Wage and Hour Division, Report and Recommendations of the Presiding Officer at Hearings Preliminary to Redefinition (1940) (hereinafter 1940 Report); DOL, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divs., Report and Recommendations on Proposed Revisions of Regulations, Part 541 (1949) (hereinafter 1949 Report); 69 Fed. Reg. 22122-22163 (hereinafter Preamble). Although the DOL has rejected proposals to eliminate or dilute the requirement that outside salesmen make their own sales, the Department has stressed that this requirement is met whenever an employee “in some sense make[s] a sale.” 1940 Report 46; see also Preamble 22162 (reiterating that the exemption applies only to an employee who, “in some sense, has made sales”). And the DOL has made it clear that “[ejxempt status should not depend” on technicalities, such as “whether it is the sales employee or the customer who types the order into a computer system and hits the return button,” id., at 22163, or whether “the order is filled by [a] jobber rather than directly by [the employee’s] own employer,” 1949 Report 83.
B
Respondent SmithKline Beecham Corporation is in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling prescription drugs. The prescription drug industry is subject to extensive federal regulation, including the now-familiar requirement that prescription drugs be dispensed only upon a physician’s prescription. In light of this requirement, pharmaceutical companies have long focused their direct marketing efforts not on the retail pharmacies that dispense prescription drugs but rather on the medical practitioners who possess the authority to prescribe the drugs in the first place. Pharmaceutical companies promote their prescription drugs to physicians through a process called “detailing,” whereby employees known as “detailers” or “pharmaceutical sales representatives” provide information to physicians about the company’s products in hopes of persuading them to write prescriptions for the products in appropriate cases. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 558-559 (2011) (describing the process of “detailing”). The position of “de-tailer” has existed in the pharmaceutical industry in substantially its current form since at least the 1950’s, and in recent years the industry has employed more than 90,000 detailers nationwide. See 635 P. 3d 383, 387, and n. 5, 396 (CA9 2011).
Respondent hired petitioners Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan as pharmaceutical sales representatives in 2003. During the roughly four years when petitioners were employed in that capacity, they were responsible for calling on physicians in an assigned sales territory to discuss the features, benefits, and risks of an assigned portfolio of respondent’s prescription drfigs. Petitioners’ primary objective was to obtain a nonbinding commitment from the physician to prescribe those drugs in appropriate cases, and the training that petitioners received underscored the importance of that objective.
Petitioners spent about 40 hours each week in the field calling on physicians. These visits occurred during normal business hours, from about 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Outside of normal business hours, petitioners spent an additional 10 to 20 hours each week attending events, reviewing product information, returning phone calls, responding to e-mails, and performing other miscellaneous tasks. Petitioners were not required to punch a clock or report their hours, and they were subject to only minimal supervision.
Petitioners were well compensated for their efforts. On average, Christopher’s annual gross pay was just over $72,000, and Buchanan’s was just over $76,000. Petitioners’ gross pay included both a base salary and incentive pay. The amount of petitioners’ incentive pay was based on the sales volume or market share of their assigned drugs in their assigned sales territories, and this amount was uncapped. Christopher’s incentive pay exceeded 30 percent of his gross pay during each of his years of employment; Buchanan’s exceeded 25 percent. It is undisputed that respondent did not pay petitioners time-and-a-half wages when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
C
Petitioners brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under 29 U. S. C. § 216(b). Petitioners alleged that respondent violated the FLSA by failing to compensate them for overtime, and they sought both backpay and liquidated damages as relief. Respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing that petitioners were “employed... in the capacity of outside salesman,” § 213(a)(1), and therefore were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirement. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment to respondent. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a-47a.
After the District Court issued its order, petitioners filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, contending that the District Court had erred in failing to accord controlling deference to the DOL’s interpretation of the pertinent regulations. That interpretation had been announced in an uninvited amicus brief filed by the DOL in a similar action then pending in the Second Circuit. See Brief for Secretary of Labor as Amicus Curiae in In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, No. 09-0437 (hereinafter Secretary’s Novartis Brief). The District Court rejected this argument and denied the motion. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a-52a.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. See 635 F. 3d 383. The Court of Appeals agreed that the DOL’s interpretation was not entitled to controlling deference. See id., at 393-395. It held that, because the commitment that petitioners obtained from physicians was the maximum possible under the rules applicable to the pharmaceutical industry, petitioners made sales within the meaning of the regulations. See id., at 395-397. The court found it significant, moreover, that the DOL had previously interpreted the regulations as requiring only that an employee “‘in some sense’ ” make a sale, see id., at 395-396 (emphasis deleted), and had “acquiesce[d] in the sales practices of the drug industry for over seventy years,” id., at 399.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the Second Circuit’s decision in In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, 611 F. 3d 141, 153-155 (2010) (holding that the DOL’s interpretation is entitled to controlling deference). We granted certiorari to resolve this split, 565 U. S. 1057 (2011), and we now affirm the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.
H-l \-H
We must determine whether pharmaceutical detailers are outside salesmen as the DOL has defined that term in its regulations. The parties agree that the regulations themselves were validly promulgated and are therefore entitled to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). But the parties disagree sharply about whether the DOL’s interpretation of the regulations is owed deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997). It is to that question that we now turn.
A
The DOL first announced its view that pharmaceutical de-tailers are not exempt outside salesmen in an amicus brief filed in the Second Circuit in 2009, and the Department has subsequently filed similar amicus briefs in other cases, including the case now before us. While the DOL’s ultimate conclusion that detailers are not exempt has remained unchanged since 2009, the same cannot be said of its reasoning. In both the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, the DOL took the view that “a ‘sale’ for the purposes of the outside sales exemption requires a consummated transaction directly involving the employee for whom the exemption is sought.” Secretary’s Novartis Brief 11; see also Brief for Secretary of Labor as Amicus Curiae in No. 10-15257 (CA9), p. 12. Perhaps because of the nebulous nature of this “consummated transaction” test, the Department changed course after we granted certiorari in this case. The Department now takes the position that “[a]n employee does not make a ‘sale’ for purposes of the ‘outside salesman’ exemption unless he actually transfers title to the property at issue.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12-13 (hereinafter U. S. Brief). Petitioners and the DOL assert that this new interpretation of the regulations is entitled to controlling deference. See Brief for Petitioners 31-42; U. S. Brief 30-34.
Although Auer ordinarily calls for deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, even when that interpretation is advanced in a legal brief, see Chase Bank USA, N. A. v. McCoy, 562 U. S. 195, 210 (2011); Auer, 519 U. S., at 461-462, this general rule does not apply in all cases. Deference is undoubtedly inappropriate, for example, when the agency’s interpretation is “ ‘ “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”’” Id., at 461 (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U. S. 332, 359 (1989)). And deference is likewise unwarranted when there is reason to suspect that the agency’s interpretation “does not reflect the agency’s fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.” Auer, supra, at 462; see also, e. g., Chase Bank, supra, at 213. This might occur when the agency’s interpretation conflicts with a prior interpretation, see, e. g., Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 515 (1994), or when it appears that the interpretation is nothing more than a “convenient litigating position,” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U. S. 204, 213 (1988), or a “ ‘post hoc rationalization]’ advanced by an agency seeking to defend past agency action against attack,” Auer, supra, at 462 (quoting Bowen, supra, at 212; alteration in original).
In this case, there are strong reasons for withholding the deference that Auer generally requires. Petitioners invoke the DOL’s interpretation of ambiguous regulations to impose potentially massive liability on respondent for conduct that occurred well before that interpretation was announced. To defer to the agency’s interpretation in this circumstance would seriously undermine the principle that agencies should provide regulated parties “fair warning of the conduct [a regulation] prohibits or requires.” Gates & Fox Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 790 F. 2d 154, 156 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.). Indeed, it would result in precisely the kind of “unfair surprise” against which our cases have long warned. See Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U. S. 158, 170-171 (2007) (deferring to new interpretation that “create[d] no unfair surprise” because agency had proceeded through notice-and-comment rule-making); Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 144, 158 (1991) (identifying “adequacy of notice to regulated parties” as one factor relevant to the reasonableness of the agency’s interpretation); NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267, 295 (1974) (suggesting that an agency should not change an interpretation in an adjudicative proceeding where doing so would impose “new liability... on individuals for past actions which were taken in good-faith reliance on [agency] pronouncements” or in a ease involving “fines or damages”).
This case well illustrates the point. Until 2009, the pharmaceutical industry had little reason to suspect that its longstanding practice of treating detailers as exempt outside salesmen transgressed the FLSA. The statute and regulations certainly do not provide clear notice of this. The general regulation adopts the broad statutory definition of “sale,” and that definition, in turn, employs the broad catchall phrase “other disposition.” See 29 CFR § 541.500(a)(1). This catchall phrase could reasonably be construed to encompass a nonbinding commitment from a physician to prescribe a particular drug, and nothing in the statutory or regulatory text or the DOL’s prior guidance plainly requires a contrary reading. See Preamble 22162 (explaining that an employee must “in some sense” make a sale); 1940 Report 46 (same).
Even more important, despite the industry’s decades-long practice of classifying pharmaceutical detailers as exempt employees, the DOL never initiated any enforcement actions with respect to detailers or otherwise suggested that it thought the industry was acting unlawfully. We acknowledge that an agency’s enforcement decisions are informed by a host of factors, some bearing no relation to the agency’s views regarding whether a violation has occurred. See, e. g., Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 831 (1985) (noting that “an agency decision not to enforce often involves a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise”). But where, as here, an agency’s announcement of its interpretation is preceded by a very lengthy period of conspicuous inaction, the potential for unfair surprise is acute. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, while it may be “possible for an entire industry to be in violation of the [FLSA] for a long time without the Labor Department noticing,” the “more plausible hypothesis” is that the Department did not think the industry’s practice was unlawful. Dong Yi v. Sterling Collision Centers, Inc., 480 F. 3d 505, 510-511 (2007). There are now approximately 90,000 pharmaceutical sales representatives; the nature of their work has not materially changed for decades and is well known; these employees are well paid; and like quintessential outside salesmen, they do not punch a clock and often work more than 40 hours per week. Other than acquiescence, no explanation for the DOL’s inaction is plausible.
Our practice of deferring to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations undoubtedly has important advantages, but this practice also creates a risk that agencies will promulgate vague and open-ended regulations that they can later interpret as they see fit, thereby “frustrating] the notice and predictability purposes of rulemaking.” Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U. S. 50, 69 (2011) (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Stephenson & Pogoriler, Seminole Rock’s Domain, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1449, 1461-1462 (2011); Manning, Constitutional Structure and Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretations of Agency Rules, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 612, 655-668 (1996). It is one thing to expect regulated parties to conform their conduct to an agency’s interpretations once the agency announces them; it is quite another to require regulated parties to divine the agency’s interpretations in advance or else be held liable when the agency announces its interpretations for the first time in an enforcement proceeding and demands deference.
Accordingly, whatever the general merits of Auer deference, it is unwarranted here. We instead accord the Department’s interpretation a measure of deference proportional to the “ ‘thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade.’ ” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 228 (2001) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944)).
B
We find the DOL’s interpretation of its regulations quite unpersuasive. The interpretation to which we are now asked to defer—that a sale demands a transfer of title— plainly lacks the hallmarks of thorough consideration. Because the DOL first announced its view that pharmaceutical sales representatives do not qualify as outside salesmen in a series of amicus briefs, there was no opportunity for public comment, and the interpretation that initially emerged from the Department’s internal decisionmaking process proved to be untenable. After arguing successfully in the Second Circuit and then unsucessfully in the Ninth Circuit that a sale for present purposes simply requires a “consummated transaction,” the DOL advanced a different interpretation in this Court. Here, the DOL’s brief states unequivocally that “[a]n employee does not make a ‘sale’ for purposes of the ‘outside salesman’ exemption unless he actually transfers title to the property at issue.” U. S. Brief 12-13.
This new interpretation is flatly inconsistent with the FLSA, which defines “sale” to mean, inter alia, a “consignment for sale.” A “consignment for sale” does not involve the transfer of title. See, e. g., Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. 312, 330 (1893) (“The agency to sell and return the proceeds, or the specific goods if not sold... does not involve a change of title”); Hawkland, Consignment Selling Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 67 Com. L. J. 146, 147 (1962) (explaining that “‘[a] consignment of goods for sale does not pass the title at any time, nor does it contemplate that it should be passed’ ” (quoting Rio Grande Oil Co. v. Miller Rubber Co. of N. Y., 31 Ariz. 84, 87, 250 P. 564, 565 (1926))).
The DOL cannot salvage its interpretation by arguing that a “consignment for sale” may eventually result in the transfer of title (from the consignor to the ultimate purchaser if the consignee in fact sells the good). Much the same may be said about a physician’s nonbinding commitment to prescribe a particular product in an appropriate case. In that situation, too, agreement may eventually result in the transfer of title (from the manufacturer to a pharmacy and ultimately to the patient for whom the drug is prescribed).
In support of its new interpretation, the DOL relies heavily on its sales regulation, which states in part that “[s]ales [for present purposes] include the transfer of title to tangible property,” 29 CFR § 541.501(b) (emphasis added). This regulation, however, provides little support for the DOL’s position. The DOL reads the sales regulation to mean that a “sale” necessarily includes the transfer of title, but that is not what the regulation says. And it seems clear that that is not what the regulation means. The sentence just subsequent to the one on which the DOL relies, echoing the terms of the FLSA, makes clear that a “consignment for sale” qualifies as a sale. Since a consignment for sale does not involve a transfer of title, it is apparent that the sales regulation does not mean that a sale must include a transfer of title, only that transactions involving a transfer of title are included within the term “sale.”
Petitioners invite us to look past the DOL’s “determination that a sale must involve the transfer of title” and instead defer to the Department’s “explanation that obtaining a nonbinding commitment to prescribe a drug constitutes promotion, and not sales.” Reply Brief 17. The problem with the DOL’s interpretation of the promotion-work regulation, however, is that it depends almost entirely on the DOL’s flawed transfer-of-title interpretation. The promotion-work regulation does not distinguish between promotion work and sales; rather, it distinguishes between exempt promotion work and nonexempt promotion work. Since promotion work that is performed incidental to an employee’s own sales is exempt, the DOL’s conclusion that pharmaceutical detail-ers perform only nonexempt promotion work is only as strong as the reasoning underlying its conclusion that those employees do not make sales. For the reasons already discussed, we find this reasoning wholly unpersuasive.
In light of our conclusion that the DOL’s interpretation is neither entitled to Auer deference nor persuasive in its own right, we must employ traditional tools of interpretation to determine whether petitioners are exempt outside salesmen.
C
1
We begin with the text of.the FLSA. Although the provision that establishes the overtime salesman exemption does not furnish a clear answer to the question before us, it provides at least one interpretive clue: It exempts anyone “employed... in the capacity of [an] outside salesman.” 29 U. S. C. § 213(a)(1) (emphasis added). “Capacity,” used in this sense, means “[ojutward condition or circumstances; relation; character; position.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 396 (2d ed. 1934); see also 2 Oxford English Dictionary 89 (def. 9) (1933) (“[position, condition, character, relation”). The statute’s emphasis on the “capacity” of the employee counsels in favor of a functional, rather than a formal, inquiry, one that views an employee’s responsibilities in the context of the particular industry in which the employee works.
The DOL’s regulations provide additional guidance. The general regulation defines an outside salesman as an employee whose primary duty is “making sales,” and it adopts the statutory definition of “sale.” 29 CFR § 541.500(a)(1)(i). This definition contains at least three important textual clues. First, the definition is introduced with the verb “includes” instead of “means.” This word choice is significant because it makes clear that the examples enumerated in the text are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. See Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 131, n. 3 (2008) (explaining that “[a] term whose statutory definition declares what it ‘includes’ is more susceptible to extension of meaning... than where... the definition declares what a term ‘means’” (alteration in original; some internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, Congress used the narrower word “means” in other provisions of the FLSA when it wanted to cabin a definition to a specific list of enumerated items. See, e. g., 29 U. S. C. § 203(a) (“ ‘Person’ means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, or any organized group of persons” (emphasis added)).
Second, the list of transactions included in the statutory definition of sale is modified by the word “any.” We have recognized that the modifier “any” can mean “different things depending upon the setting,” Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U. S. 125, 132 (2004), but in the context of 29 U. S. C. § 203(k), it is best read to mean “ ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,’ ” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U. S. 1, 5 (1997) (quoting Webster’s Third 97 (1976)). That is so because Congress defined “sale” to include both the unmodified word “sale” and transactions that might not be considered sales in a technical sense, including exchanges and consignments for sale.
Third, Congress also included a broad catchall phrase: “other disposition.” Neither the statute nor the regulations define “disposition,” but dictionary definitions of the term range from “relinquishment or alienation” to “arrangement.” See Webster’s New International Dictionary 644 (def. 1(b)) (1927) (“[t]he getting rid, or making over, of anything; relinquishment or alienation”); ibid. (def. 1(a)) (“[t]he ordering, regulating, or administering of anything”); 3 Oxford English Dictionary, at 493 (def. 4) (“[t]he action of disposing of, putting away, getting rid of, making over, etc.”); ibid. (def. 1) (“[t]he action of setting in order, or condition of being set in order; arrangement, order”). We agree with the DOL that the rule of ejusdem generis should guide our interpretation of the catchall phrase, since it follows a list of specific items. But the limit the DOL posits, one that would confine the phrase to dispositions involving “eontract[s] for the exchange of goods or services in return for value,” see U. S. Brief 20, is much too narrow, as is petitioners’ view that a sale requires a “firm agreement” or “firm commitment” to buy, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 64, 66. These interpretations would defeat Congress’ intent to define “sale” in abroad manner and render the general statutory language meaningless. See United States v. Alpers, 338 U. S. 680, 682 (1950) (instructing that rule of ejusdem gene-ris cannot be employed to “obscure and defeat the intent and purpose of Congress” or “render general words meaningless”). Indeed, we are hard pressed to think of any contract for the exchange of goods or services in return for value or any firm agreement to buy that would not also fall within one of the specifically enumerated categories.
The specific list of transactions that precedes the phrase “other disposition” seems to us to represent an attempt to accommodate industry-by-industry variations in methods of selling commodities. Consequently, we think that the catchall phrase “other disposition” is most reasonably interpreted as including those arrangements that are tantamount, in a particular industry, to a paradigmatic sale of a commodity.
Nothing in the remaining regulations requires a narrower construction. As discussed above, the sales regulation instructs that sales within the meaning of 29 U. S. C. § 203(k) “include the transfer of title to tangible property,” 29 CFR § 541.501(b) (emphasis added), but this regulation in no way limits the broad statutory definition of “sale.” And although the promotion-work regulation distinguishes between promotion work that is incidental to an employee’s own sales and work that is incidental to sales made by someone else, see § 541.503(a), this distinction tells us nothing about the meaning of “sale.”
2
Given our interpretation of “other disposition,” it follows that petitioners made sales for purposes of the FLSA and therefore are exempt outside salesmen within the meaning of the DOL’s regulations. Obtaining a nonbinding commitment from a physician to prescribe one of respondent’s drugs is the most that petitioners were able to do to ensure the eventual disposition of the products that respondent sells. This kind of arrangement, in the unique regulatory environment within which pharmaceutical companies must operate, comfortably falls within the catchall category of “other disposition.”
That petitioners bear all of the external indicia of salesmen provides further support for our conclusion. Petitioners were hired for their sales experience. They were trained to close each sales call by obtaining the maximum commitment possible from the physician. They worked away from the office, with minimal supervision, and they were rewarded for their efforts with incentive compensation. It would be anomalous to require respondent to compensate petitioners for overtime, while at the same time exempting employees who function identically to petitioners in every respect except that they sell physician-administered drugs, such as vaccines and other injectable pharmaceuticals, that are ordered by the physician directly rather than purchased by the end user at a pharmacy with a prescription from the physician.
Our holding also comports with the apparent purpose of the FLSA’s exemption for outside salesmen. The exemption is premised on the belief that exempt employees “typically earned salaries well above the minimum wage” and enjoyed other benefits that “se[t] them apart from the nonexempt workers entitled to overtime pay.” Preamble 22124. It was also thought that exempt employees performed a kind of work that “was difficult to standardize to any time frame and could not be easily spread to other workers after 40 hours in a week, making compliance with the overtime provisions difficult and generally precluding the potential job expansion intended by the FLSA’s time-and-a-half overtime premium.” Ibid. Petitioners—each of whom earned an average of more than $70,000 per year and spent between 10 and 20 hours outside normal business hours each week performing work related to his assigned portfolio of drugs in his assigned sales territory—are hardly the kind of employees that the FLSA was intended to protect. And it would be challenging, to say the least, for pharmaceutical companies to compensate detailers for overtime going forward without significantly changing the nature of that position. See, e. g., Brief for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) as Amicus Curiae 14-20 (explaining that “key aspects of [detailers’] jobs as they are currently structured are fundamentally incompatible with treating [detailers] as hourly employees”).
3
The remaining arguments advanced by petitioners and the dissent are unavailing. Petitioners contend that detailers are more naturally classified as nonexempt promotional employees who merely stimulate sales made by others than as exempt outside salesmen. They point out that respondent’s prescription drugs are not actually sold until distributors and retail pharmacies order the drugs from other employees. See Reply Brief 7. Those employees, they reason, are the true salesmen in the industry, not detailers. This formalistic argument is inconsistent with the realistic approach that the outside salesman exemption is meant to reflect.
Petitioners’ theory seems to be that an employee is properly classified as a nonexempt promotional employee whenever there is another employee who actually makes the sale in a technical sense. But, taken to its extreme, petitioners’ theory would require that we treat as a nonexempt promotional employee a manufacturer’s representative who takes an order from a retailer but then transfers the order to a jobber’s employee to be filled, or a car salesman who receives a commitment to buy but then asks his or her assistant to enter the order into the computer. This formalistic approach would be difficult to reconcile with the broad language of the regulations and the statutory definition of “sale,” and it is in significant tension with the DOL’s past practice. See 1949 Report 83 (explaining that the manufacturer’s representative was clearly “performing sales work regardless of the fact that the order is filled by the jobber rather than directly by his own employer”); Preamble 22162 (noting that “technological changes in how orders are taken and processed should not preclude the exemption for employees who in some sense make the sales”).
Petitioners additionally argue that detailers are the functional equivalent of employees who sell a “concept,” and they point to Wage and Hour Division opinion letters, as well as lower court decisions, deeming such employees nonexempt. See Brief for Petitioners 47-48. Two of these opinions, however, concerned employees who were more analogous to buyers than to sellers. See Clements v. Serco, Inc., 530 F. 3d 1224, 1229-1230, n. 4 (CA10 2008) (explaining that, although military recruiters “[i]n a loose sense” were “selling the Army’s services,” it was the Army that would “pa[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:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents for review trespass convictions result-, ing from an attempt by Negroes to be served in a privately owned restaurant customarily patronized only by whites. However, unlike a number of the cases this day decided, no state statute or city ordinance here forbids desegregation of the races in all restaurant facilities. Nevertheless, we conclude that this case is governed by the principles announced in Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 244, and that the convictions for this reason must be revérsed.
Petitioners are three Negro and one white college students. On September 17, 1960, at about 10:30 in the morning they entered the McCrory Five and Ten Cent Store in New Orleans, Louisiana. They sat down at a refreshment counter at the back of the store and requested service, which was refused. Although no sign so indicated, the management operated the counter on a segregated basis, serving only white patrons. The counter was designed to accommodate 24 persons. Negroes were welcome to shop in other areas of the store. The restaurant manager, believing that the “unusual circumstance” of Negroes sitting at the counter created an “emergency,” asked petitioners to leave and, when they did not do so, ordered that the counter be closed. The restaurant manager then contacted the store manager and called the police.' He frankly testified that the petitioners did not cause any disturbance, that they were orderly, and that he asked them to leave because they were Negroes. Presumably he asked the white petitioner to leave because he was in the company of Negroes.
A number of police officers, including a captain and major of police, arrived at the store shortly after they were called. Three of the officers had a conference with the store manager. The store manager then went behind the counter, faced petitioners, and in a loud voice asked them to leave.’ He also testified that the petitioners were merely sitting quietly at the counter throughout these happenings. When petitioners remained seated, the police major spoke to petitioner Goldfinch, and asked him what they were doing there. Mr. Goldfinch .replied that petitioners “were going to sit there until they were going to be served.” When petitioners still declined to leave, they were arrested by the police, led out of the store, and taken away in a patrol wagon. They were later tried and convicted for violation of the Louisiana criminal mischief statute. This statute, in its application to’ this case, has all the elements of the usual trespass statute. Each petitioner was sentenced to serve 60 days in the Parish Prison and to pay a fine of $350. In default of payment of the fine, each was to serve 60 additional days in prison. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana the judgments of conviction were affirmed. 241 La. 958, 132 So. 2d 860. Because qf the substantial federal questions presented, we granted certiorari. 370 U. S. 935.
Prior to this occurrence New Orleans city officials, characterizing conduct such as petitioners were arrested for as “sit-in demonstrations,” had determined that such attempts to secure desegregated service, though orderly and possibly inoffensive to local merchants, would not be permitted.
Exactly one week earlier, on September 10, 1960, a like occurrence had taken place in a Woolworth store in the same city. In immediate reaction thereto the Superintendent of Police issued a highly publicized statement which discussed the incident and stated that “We wish to urge the parents of both white and Negro students who participated in today’s sit-in demonstration to urge upon these young people that such actions are not in the community interest. . . . [W]e want everyone to fully understand that .the police department and its personnel is ready and able to enforce the laws of the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana.” On September 13, four days before petitioners’ arrest, the Mayor of New Orleans issued an unequivocal statement condemning such conduct and demanding its cessation. This statement was also widely publicized; it read in part:
“I have today directed the superintendent of police that no additional sit-in demonstrations . . . will be permitted . . . regardless of the avowed purpose or intent of the participants ....
“It is my determination that the community interest, the public safety, and the economic welfare of this city require that such demonstrations cease and that henceforth they be prohibited by the police department.”
Botñ statements were publicized in the New Orleans Times-Picayune. The Mayor and the Superintendent of Police both testified that, to their knowledge, no eating establishment in New Orleans operated desegregated eating facilities.
Both the restaurant manager and the store manager asked the petitioners to leave. Petitioners were charged with failing to leave at the request of the store manager. There wás evidence to indicate that the restaurant manager asked petitioners to leave in obedience to the directive of the city officials. He told them that “I am not allowed to serve you here. . . . We have to sell to you at the rear of the store where we have a colored counter.” (Emphasis supplied.) And he called the police “[a]s a matter;of routine procedure.” The petitioners testified that when they did not leave, the restaurant manager whistled and the employees removed the stools, turned off the lights, and put up a sign saying that the counter was closed. One petitioner stated that “it appeared to be a very efficient thing, everyone knew what to do.” The store manager conceded that his decision to operate a segregated facility “conform [ed] to state policy and practice” as well as local custom. When asked whether “in the last 30 days to 60 days [he had], entered into any conference with other department store managers here in New Orleans relative to sit-in problems,” the store manager stated: “[w]e have spoken of it.” The above evidence all tended to indicate that the store officials’ actions were coerced by the city. But the evidence of coercion was hot fully developed because the trial judge forbade petitioners to ask questions directed to that very issue.
But we need not'pursue this inquiry further. A State; or a city, may act as authoritatively through its executive as through its legislative body. See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347. As we interpret the New Orleans city officials’ statements, they here determined that the city Tyould not permit Negroes to seek desegregated service in restaurants. Consequently, the city must be treated exactly as if it had an ordinance prohibiting such conduct. We have just held in Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 244, that where an ordinance makes it unlawful for owners or managers of restaurants to seat whites and Negroes together, a conviction under the State’s criminal processes employed in a way which enforces the discrimination mandated by that ordinance cannot stand. Equally the State cannot achieve the same result by an official command which has at least as much coercive effect as an ordinance. The official command here was to direct continuance of segregated service in restaurants, and to prohibit any conduct directed toward its discontinuance; it was not restricted solely to preserve the public peace in .a nondiscriminatory fashion in a situation where violence was present or imminent by reason of public demonstrations. Therefore here, as in Peterson, these convictions, commanded as they were by the voice of the State directing segregated service at the restaurant, cannot stand. Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U. S. 350.
Reversed.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see ante, p.-248.]
La. Rev. Stat., 1950 (Cum.'Supp. 1960), § 14:59 (6), provides in pertinent part:
“Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:
“(6) Taking temporary possession of any part or parts óf. a place of business, or remaining in a place of business after the person in charge of such business or portion of such business has ordered such person to leave the premises and to desist from the temporary possession of any part or parts of such business.”
The full text of the statement reads:
“The regrettable sit-in activity today at the lunch counter of a Canal st. chain store by several young white and Negro persons causes me to issue .this statement to the citizens of New Orleans.
“We urge every adult and juvenile to read this statement carefully, completely and calmly.
“First, it is important that all citizens of our community understand that this sit-in demonstration was initiated by a very small group.
“We firmly believe that they do not reflect the sentiments of the great majority of responsible citizens, both white and Negro, who make up our population.
“We believe it is most important that the mature responsible citizens of both races in this city understand that and that they continue the exercise of sound, individual judgment, goodwill and a sense of personal and community responsibility.
“Members of both the white and Negro groups in New Orleans for the most part are aware of the individual’s obligation for good conduct — an obligation both to himself-and to his community. With the exercise of continued, responsible law-abiding conduct by all persons, we see no reason for any change whatever in the normal, good race-relations that have traditionally existed in New Orleans.
“At the same time we wish-to say-to every adult and juvenile in this city that the police department intends to maintain peace and order.
“No one should have any concern or question over either the intent or the ability of this department to keep and preserve peace and order.
“As part of its regular operating program, the New Orleans police department is prepared to take prompt and effective action against any person or group who disturbs the peace or creates disorder on public or private property.
“We wish to urge the parents of both white and Negro students who participated in today’s sit-in demonstration to urge upon these young people that such actions are not in the community interest.
“Finally, we want everyone to fully understand that the police department and its personnel is ready and able to enforce the laws of the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana.”
The full text of the Mayor’s statements reads:
“I have today directed the superintendent of police that no additional sit-in demonstrations or so-called peaceful picketing outside retail stores by sit-in demonstrators or their sympathizers will be permitted.
• “The police department, in my judgment, -has handled the initial sit-in demonstration Friday and the follow-up picketing-' activity Saturday in an efficient and creditable manner. This is in keeping with the oft-announced policy of the New Orleans city government that peace and order in our city will be preserved.
“I have carefully reviewed the reports of these two initial demonstrations by a small group of misguided white and Negro students, or former students. It is my considered opinion that regardless of the avowed purpose or intent of the participants, the effect of such demonstrations is not in the public interest of this community.
“Act 70 of the 1960 Legislative session redefines disturbing the peace to include ‘the commission of any act as would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public.’
“Act 70 also provides that persons who seek to prevent prospective customers from entering private premises to transact business shall be guilty of disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.
“Act 80 — obstructing, public passages — provides that ‘no person shall wilfully obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of any public sidewalk, street, highway, road, bridge, alley or other passage way or the entrance, corridor or passage of any public building, structure, water craft or ferry by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding or restraining traffic or passage thereon or therein.’
“It is my determination that the community interest, the public safety, and the economic welfare of this city require that such demonstrations cease and that henceforth they be prohibited by the police department.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the merits, this case raises the same question as to the constitutionality of §§ 202 (d)(3) and 216 (h)(3) (C)(ii) of the Social Security Act, 64 Stat. 484, as amended, and 79 Stat. 410, 42 U. S. C. §§ 402 (d) (3) and 416 (h) (3) (C) (ii), as was presented in Mathews v. Lucas, ante, p. 495. The present litigation, however, also raises certain jurisdictional issues. It now has become apparent that the simultaneous submission of Lucas to the Court, and our decision in that case today, make it unnecessary for us specifically to decide the jurisdictional questions.
I
Appellant Gregory Norton, Jr., was born out of wedlock in February 1964. Both his father and his mother then were high school students, aged, respectively, 16 and 14, who lived separately at home with their parents. The two never married and, indeed, never lived together. Appellant always has resided with his maternal grandmother and has been cared for by her. When Gregory was born, his father contributed six dollars and some clothing and other habiliments for the baby, but, being so young and unemployed, he never assumed appellant’s actual support.
In February 1965 the father entered military service. He was killed in Vietnam on May 19, 1966, at age 19. Before his death, the father apparently took some initial steps (the procurement of a birth certificate and other items) necessary for the processing of a dependent child’s military allotment. The father failed, however, to complete the required procedures before he was killed.
In September 1969 appellant’s maternal grandmother filed on his behalf an application for a surviving child’s benefits under § 202 (d)(1) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (d)(1), based on the father’s earnings record. An administrative hearing followed. The Hearing Examiner concluded that appellant was not entitled to benefits as a dependent child because his father, at the time of his death, was neither living with appellant nor contributing to appellant’s support. App. 13-19. The subsequent administrative appeal was no more successful. Id., at 20-21.
The present action was then instituted on behalf of appellant against the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. By the complaint, relief was sought alternatively on statutory and constitutional grounds. First, it was asserted that, by his attempt to secure a military allotment for appellant, the father, at the time of his death, in fact was contributing to appellant's support, within the meaning of § 216 (h) (3) (C) (ii) of the Act, and that appellant therefore was a dependent of the father, under §§ 202 (d)(1) and (3) (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), and entitled to benefits. Second, it was asserted that, by creating a presumption of dependency, and consequent qualification for benefits, for legitimate children generally, and for illegitimate children under certain, circumstances, see n. 1, but denying the presumption to appellant and others similarly situated, the Act discriminated against appellant's class, in violation of the guarantee of equal protection implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Appellant’s statutory claim was initially considered and rejected by a single District Judge. Norton v. Richardson, 352 F. Supp. 596 (Md. 1972). In view of the complaint's request for certification of a class pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (c)(1), and for classwide injunc-tive relief against the alleged unconstitutional operation of the Act's presumptions of dependency, a three-judge court was convened under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282 and 2284 (1970 ed. and Supp. IV) to pass upon the constitutional claim. The three-judge court first agreed with, and reaffirmed, the single judge’s rejection of appellant’s statutory claim. Norton v. Weinberger, 364 F. Supp. 1117, 1120 (1973). The court went on to identify the plaintiff class, id., at 1120-1121, but on the merits of the constitutional claim it ruled in favor of the Secretary and granted summary judgment in his favor. Id., at 1121— 1131.
Appellant, taking the position that the three-judge court had denied his request for an order enjoining enforcement of provisions of the Act, lodged a direct appeal here pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253. While his jurisdictional statement was pending, Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U. S. 628 (1974), was decided. This Court thereafter vacated the three-judge court’s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in the light of Jimenez. Norton v. Weinberger, 418 U. S. 902 (1974).
On the remand, the same three-judge court, with one judge now dissenting, adhered to its earlier conclusion in favor of constitutionality. Norton v. Weinberger, 390 F. Supp. 1084 (1975). Appellant has again appealed. We postponed the question of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits, 422 U. S. 1054 (1975), and, in doing so, cited Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 763 n. 8 (1975), which just then had been decided. Subsequently, we set the case for oral argument with Mathews v. Lucas, ante, p. 495. 423 U. S. 819 (1975).
II
The question whether the three-judge court was properly convened upon appellant’s demand for injunctive relief is relevant, of course, to our appellate jurisdiction. If the court was not empowered to enjoin the operation of a federal statute, then three judges were not required to hear the case under 28 U. S. C. § 2282, and this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. Accordingly, appellant and the Secretary have debated whether the District Court possessed injunctive power under § 205 (g) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §405 (g), and whether, in the light of § 205 (h), 42 U. S. C. § 405 (h), relief was available under the mandamus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1361, or under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 II. S. C. § 701 et seg.
We think it unnecessary, however, to resolve the details of these difficult and perhaps close jurisdictional arguments. The substantive questions raised on this appeal now have been determined in Mathews v. Lucas, ante, p. 495. This disposition renders the merits in the present case a decided issue and thus one no longer substantial in the jurisdictional sense.
Assuming that the three-judge court was correctly convened, and that we have jurisdiction over the appeal, the appropriate disposition, in the light of Mathews v. Lucas, plainly would be to affirm the judgment entered in this case in favor of the Secretary. Assuming, on the other hand, that we lack jurisdiction because the three-judge court was needlessly convened, the appropriate disposition would be to dismiss the appeal. When an appeal to this Court is sought from an erroneously convened three-judge district court, we retain the power “ ‘to make such corrective order as may be appropriate to the enforcement of the limitations’ ” which 28 U. S. C. § 1253 imposes. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 34 (1962), quoting Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16, 18 (1934). What we have done recently, and in most such cases where the jurisdictional issue was previously unsettled — and we do not imply that our doing so is statutorily or otherwise compelled — has been to vacate the district court judgment and remand the case for the entry of a fresh decree from which an appeal may be taken to the appropriate court of appeals. Gonzalez v. Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 101 (1974), is an example. In the present case, however, the decision in Lucas has rendered the constitutional issues insubstantial and so much so as not even to support the jurisdiction of a three-judge district court to consider their merits on remand. See, e. g., Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332, 343-345 (1975); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 536-538 (1974). Thus, there is no point in remanding to enable the merits to be considered by a court of appeals. See McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U. S. 21 (1975).
It thus is evident that, whichever disposition we undertake, the effect is the same. It follows that there is no need to decide the theoretical question of jurisdiction in this case. In the past, we similarly have reserved difficult questions of our jurisdiction when the case alternatively could be resolved on the merits in favor of the same party. See Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U. S. 676 (1974). The Court has done this even when the original reason for granting certiorari was to resolve the jurisdictional issue. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U. S. 348, 349-352 (1969). Although such a disposition would not be desirable under all circumstances, we perceive no reason why we may not so proceed in this case where the merits have been rendered plainly insubstantial. Cf. McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U. S., at 32. Making the assumption, then, without deciding, that our jurisdiction in this cause is established, we affirm the judgment in favor of the Secretary on the basis of our decision in Mathews v. Lucas, ante, p. 495.
It is so ordered.
Section 202 (d) (1) provides survivorship benefits only to a child who was “dependent” upon the deceased insured parent at the time of the parent’s death. A legitimate child, a child entitled under the intestacy laws of the insured parent’s domicile to inherit personal property from the parent, a child whose illegitimacy results from a formal defect in the parents’ purported marriage ceremony, and a child acknowledged in writing by the insured father as his son or daughter or judicially decreed (during the father’s lifetime) to be such, are all deemed under the Act to be dependent upon the parent, unless the child has been adopted by some other individual, and thus are relieved of otherwise proving actual dependency. §§202 (d)(1), 202 (d)(3), 216(e), 216(h)(2), and 216(h)(3) (C)(i), 42 U. S. C. §§402 (d)(1), 402 (d)(3), 416 (e), 416 (h)(2), and 416 (h) (3) (C) (i) (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). Since appellant did not come within any of these categories, he could establish his status as a dependent child under the Act only by showing that his father lived with him or contributed to his support at the time of his death. §§202 (d)(3) and 216 (h) (3) (C) (ii), 42 TJ. S. C. §§402 (d)(3) and 416 (h) (3) (C) (ii). See generally Mathews v. Lucas, ante, p. 495.
The definition of the class, however, does not appear to have been formalized in the three-judge court’s judgment. App. 59.
In contrast to the situation in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 763 n. 8 (1975), there is no jurisdiction here under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, since the District Court’s decision was in favor of the statute’s constitutionality.
Section 205 (g) reads in pertinent part:
“Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action .... Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides .... As part of his answer the Secretary shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based. The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.”
Section 205 (h) reads in pertinent part:
“The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under [§ 1331 and other specified sections] of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this [subchapter II of the Social Security Act].”
See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S., at 756 n. 3.
The initiating judge observed that jurisdiction for his court was asserted under the general federal-question provision of 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and under 28 U. S. C. § 1361, vesting the district courts with jurisdiction “in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Norton v. Richardson, 352 F. Supp. 596, 598 n. 2 (Md. 1972).
The Solicitor General contends that a district court has jurisdiction to review a Social Security ruling only under § 205 (g) because § 205 (h) specifically excludes any other source of review of such determinations. He then contends that, for two reasons, there was no jurisdiction here to issue an injunction under § 205 (g). First, § 205 (g) in terms specifies that a district court may enter a judgment only “affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing,” but does not say it may enjoin him, and, moreover, in this statutory structure an injunction is out of place. Second, although the suit was made to sound as a class action, a class action is never appropriate under § 205 (g), and in any case the class was not properly certified, inasmuch as there was no allegation that the members had even filed applications for benefits; thus there is no jurisdiction over the class aspects of the case. Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, is cited. Since only the individual claim remains, even if injunctive power were available under § 205 (g), it would not be appropriately exercised in review of a single claimant’s case.
The appellant contends in rebuttal that the “affirming, modifying, or reversing” language in § 205 (g) does not withdraw a district court’s general and inherent equity powers, including the power to enjoin, and that, in any event, jurisdiction remains, and an injunction may be issued, under the other cited statutes.
The respective jurisdictional statements for the original appeal and for the present one preserved appellant’s statutory claim along with his constitutional contention. The statutory claim, however, was not pressed in appellant’s brief in the present case, and at oral argument it explicitly was abandoned. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6.
In McLucas a single District Judge enjoined the enforcement of Art. 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 934, without convening a three-judge court. He did so because he considered the constitutional infirmity of the Article to be plain. See Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962). On direct appeal, under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, the propriety of proceeding without a three-judge court was questioned. We observed that if a three-judge court was originally required under 28 U. S. C. § 2282, we ordinarily were bound to vacate the judgment and remand for the convening of a three-judge court. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 607 (1960); FHA v. The Darlington, Inc., 352 U. S. 977 (1957). Concluding, however, that no purpose could be served by deciding whether a three-judge court was required originally, because intervening decisions of this Court sustaining the constitutionality of Art. 134 had rendered the merits issue plainly insubstantial by the time the ease was before us, we vacated the judgment and remanded the case, directing dismissal. 421 U. S., at 32.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and filed an opinion in which Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Stevens, joined.
Georgia Code Ann. § 26-2001 (1972) provides that “ [a] person convicted of rape shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years." Punishment is determined by a jury in a separate sentencing proceeding in which at least one of the statutory aggravating circumstances must be found before the death penalty may be imposed. Petitioner Coker was convicted of rape and sentenced to death. Both the conviction and the sentence were affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. Coker was granted a writ of certiorari, 429 U. S. 815, limited to the single claim, rejected by the Georgia court, that the punishment of death for rape violates the Eighth Amendment, which proscribes “cruel and unusual punishments” and which must be observed by the States as well as the Federal Government. Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962).
I
While serving various sentences for murder, rape, kidnap-ing, and aggravated assault, petitioner escaped from the Ware Correctional Institution near Waycross, Ga., on September 2, 1974. At approximately 11 o’clock that night, petitioner entered the house of Allen and Elnita Carver through an unlocked kitchen door. Threatening the couple with a “board,” he tied up Mr. Carver in the bathroom, obtained a knife from the kitchen, and took Mr. Carver’s money and the keys to the family car. Brandishing the knife and saying “you know what’s going to happen to you if you try anything, don’t you,” Coker then raped Mrs. Carver. Soon thereafter, petitioner drove away in the Carver car, taking Mrs. Carver with him. Mr. Carver, freeing himself, notified the police; and not long thereafter petitioner was apprehended. Mrs. Carver was unharmed.
Petitioner was charged with escape, armed robbery, motor vehicle theft, kidnaping, and rape. Counsel was appointed to represent him. Having been found competent to stand trial, he was tried. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, rejecting his general plea of insanity. A sentencing hearing was then conducted in accordance with the procedures dealt with at length in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), where this Court sustained the death penalty for murder when imposed pursuant to the statutory procedures. The jury was instructed that it could consider as aggravating circumstances whether the rape had been committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony and whether the rape had been committed in the course of committing another capital felony, namely, the armed robbery of Allen Carver. The court also instructed, pursuant to statute, that even if aggravating circumstances were present, the death penalty need not be imposed if the jury found they were outweighed by mitigating circumstances, that is, circumstances not constituting justification or excuse for the offense in question, “but which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree” of moral culpability or punishment. App. 300. The jury’s verdict on the rape count was death by electrocution. Both aggravating circumstances on which the court instructed were found to be present by the jury.
II
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), and the Court’s decisions last Term in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976) ; Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976); and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325 (1976), make unnecessary the recanvassing of certain critical aspects of the controversy about the constitutionality of capital punishment. It is now settled that the death penalty is not invariably cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment; it is not inherently barbaric or an unacceptable mode of punishment for crime; neither is it always disproportionate to the crime for which it is imposed. It is also established that imposing capital punishment, at least for murder, in accordance with the procedures provided under the Georgia statutes saves the sentence from the infirmities which led the Court to invalidate the prior Georgia capital punishment statute in Furman v. Georgia, supra.
In sustaining the imposition of the death penalty in Gregg, however, the Court firmly embraced the holdings and dicta from prior cases, Furman v. Georgia, supra; Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 (1958); and Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349 (1910), to the effect that the Eighth Amendment bars not only those punishments that are “barbaric” but also those that are “excessive” in relation to the crime committed. Under Gregg, a punishment is “excessive” and unconstitutional if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. A punishment might fail the test on either ground. Furthermore, these Eighth Amendment judgments should not be, or appear to be, merely the subjective views of individual Justices; judgment should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent. To this end, attention must be given to the public attitudes concerning a particular sentence — history and precedent, legislative attitudes, and the response of juries reflected in their sentencing decisions are to be consulted. In Gregg, after giving due regard to such sources, the Court’s judgment was that the death penalty for deliberate murder was neither the purposeless imposition of severe punishment nor a punishment grossly disproportionate to the crime. But the Court reserved the question of the constitutionality of the death penalty when imposed for other crimes. 428 U. S., at 187 n. 35.
Ill
That question, with respect to rape of an adult woman, is now before us. We have concluded that a sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment.
A
As advised by recent cases, we seek guidance in history and from the objective evidence of the country’s present judgment concerning the acceptability of death as a penalty for rape of an adult woman. At no time in the last 50 years have a majority of the States authorized death as a punishment for rape. In 1925, 18 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government authorized capital punishment for the rape of an adult female. By 1971 just prior to the decision in Furman v. Georgia, that number had declined, but not substantially, to 16 States plus the Federal Government. Furman then invalidated most of the capital punishment statutes in this country, including the rape statutes, because, among other reasons, of the manner in which the death penalty was imposed and utilized under those laws.
With their death penalty statutes for the most part invalidated, the States were faced with the choice of enacting modified capital punishment laws in an attempt to satisfy the requirements of Furman or of being satisfied with life imprisonment as the ultimate punishment for any offense. Thirty-five. States immediately reinstituted the death penalty for at least limited kinds of crime. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 179 n. 23. This public judgment as to the acceptability of capital punishment, evidenced by the immediate, post-Furman legislative reaction in a large majority of the States, heavily influenced the Court to sustain the death penalty for murder in Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 179-182.
But if the “most marked indication of society’s endorsement of the death penalty for murder is the legislative response to Furman,” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 179-180, it should also be a telling datum that the public judgment with respect to rape, as reflected in the statutes providing the punishment for that crime, has been dramatically different. In reviving death penalty laws to satisfy Furman’s mandate, none of the States that had not previously authorized death for rape chose to include rape among capital felonies. Of the 16 States in which rape had been a capital offense, only three provided the death penalty for rape of an adult woman in their revised statutes — Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana. In the latter two States, the death penalty was mandan tory for those found guilty, and those laws were invalidated by Woodson and Roberts. When Louisiana and North Carolina, responding to those decisions, again revised their capital punishment laws, they re-enacted the death penalty for murder but not for rape; none of the seven other legislatures that to our knowledge have amended or replaced their death penalty statutes since July 2, 1976, including four States (in addition to Louisiana and North Carolina) that had authorized the death sentence for rape prior to 1972 and had reacted to Furman with mandatory statutes, included rape among the crimes for which death was an authorized punishment.
Georgia argues that 11 of the 16 States that authorized death for rape in 1972 attempted to comply with Furman by enacting arguably mandatory death penalty legislation and that it is very likely that, aside from Louisiana and North Carolina, these States simply chose to eliminate rape as a capital offense rather than to require death for each and every instance of rape. The argument is not without force; but 4 of the 16 States did not take the mandatory course and also did not continue rape of an adult woman as a capital offense. Further, as we have indicated, the legislatures of 6 of the 11 arguably mandatory States have revised their death penalty laws since Woodson and Roberts without enacting a new death penalty for rape. And this is to say nothing of 19 other States that enacted nonmandatory, post-Furman statutes and chose not to sentence rapists to death.
It should be noted that Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee also authorized the death penalty in some rape cases, but only where the victim was a child and the rapist an adults. The Tennessee statute has since been invalidated because the death sentence was mandatory. Collins v. State, 550 S. W. 2d 643 (Tenn. 1977). The upshot is that Georgia is the sole jurisdiction in the United States at the present time that authorizes a sentence of death when the rape victim is an adult woman, and only two other jurisdictions provide capital punishment when the victim is a child.
The current judgment with respect to the death penalty for rape is not wholly unanimous among state legislatures, but it obviously weighs very heavily on the side of rejecting capital punishment as a suitable penalty for raping an adult woman.
B
It was also observed in Gregg that “[t]he jury . . . is a significant and reliable objective index of contemporary values because it is so directly involved,” 428 U. S., at 181, and that it is thus important to look to the sentencing decisions that juries have made in the course of assessing whether capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for the crime being tried. Of course, the jury’s judgment is meaningful only where the jury has an appropriate measure of choice as to whether the death penalty is to be imposed. As far as execution for rape is concerned, this is now true only in Georgia and in Florida; and in the latter State, capital punishment is authorized only for the rape of children.
According to the factual submissions in this Court, out of all rape convictions in Georgia since 1973 — and that total number has not been tendered — 63 cases had been reviewed by the Georgia Supreme Court as of the time of oral argument; and of these, 6 involved a death sentence, 1 of which was set aside, leaving 5 convicted rapists now under sentence of death in the State of Georgia. Georgia juries have thus sentenced rapists to death six times since 1973. This obviously is not a negligible number; and the State argues that as a practical matter juries simply reserve the extreme sanction for extreme, cases of rape and that recent experience surely does not prove that jurors consider the death penalty to be a disproportionate punishment for every conceivable instance of rape, no matter how aggravated. Nevertheless, it is true that in the vast majority of cases, at least 9 out of 10, juries have not imposed the death sentence.
IV
These recent events evidencing the attitude of state legislatures and sentencing juries do not wholly determine this controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment. Nevertheless, the legislative rejection of capital punishment for rape strongly confirms our own judgment, which is that death is indeed a disproportionate penalty for the crime of raping an adult woman.
We do not discount the seriousness of rape as a crime. ..It is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim and for the latter’s privilege of choosing those with whom intimate relationships are to be established. Short of homicide, it is the “ultimate violation of self.” It is also a violent crime because it normally involves force, or the threat of force or intimidation, to overcome the will and the capacity of the victim to resist. Rape is very often aecom-panied by physical injury to the female and can also inflict mental and psychological damage. Because it undermines the community’s sense of security, there is public injury as well.
Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person. The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair. We have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which “is unique in its severity and irrevocability,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 187, is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life.
This does not end the matter; for under Georgia law, death may not be imposed for any capital offense, including rape, unless the jury or judge finds one of the statutory aggravating circumstances and then elects to impose that sentence. Ga. Code §26-3102 (1977); Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 165-166. For the rapist to be executed in Georgia, it must therefore be found not only that he committed rape but also that one or more of the following aggravating circumstances were present: (1) that the rape was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony; (2) that the rape was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, or aggravated battery; or (3) the rape “was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or aggravated battery to the victim.” Here, the first two of these aggravating circumstances were alleged and found by the jury.
Neither of these circumstances, nor both of them together, change our conclusion that the death sentence imposed on Coker is a disproportionate punishment for rape. Coker had prior convictions for capital felonies — rape, murder, and kid-naping — but these prior convictions do not change the fact that the instant crime being punished is a rape not involving the taking of life.
It is also true that the present rape occurred while Coker was committing armed robbery, a felony for which the Georgia statutes authorize the death penalty. But Coker was tried for the robbery offense as well as for rape and received a separate life sentence for this crime; the jury did not deem the robbery itself deserving of the death penalty, even though accompanied by the aggravating circumstance, which was stipulated, that Coker had been convicted of a prior capital crime.
We note finally that in Georgia a person commits murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. He also commits that crime when in the commission of a felony he causes the death of another human being, irrespective of malice. But even where the killing is deliberate, it is not punishable by death absent proof of aggravating circumstances. It is difficult to accept the notion, and we do not, that the rapist, with or without aggravating circumstances, should be punished more heavily than the deliberate killer as long as the rapist does not himself take the life of his victim. The judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court upholding the death sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
See n. 3, infra.
Ga. Code §26-3102 (1977):
“Capital offenses; jury verdict and sentence
“Where, upon a trial by jury, a person is convicted of an offense which may be punishable by death, a sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury verdict includes a finding of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance and a recommendation that such sentence be imposed. Where a statutory aggravating circumstance is found and a recommendation of death is made, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. Where a sentence of death is not recommended by the jury, the court shall sentence the defendant to imprisonment as provided by law. Unless the jury trying the case makes a finding of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance and recommends the death sentence in its verdict, the court shall not sentence the defendant to death, provided that no such finding of statutory aggravating circumstance shall be necessary in offenses of treason or aircraft hijacking. The provisions of this section shall not affect a sentence when the case is tried without a jury or when the judge accepts a plea of guilty.”
Ga. Code § 27-2302 (1977):
“Recommendation to mercy
“In all capital cases, other than those of homicide, when the verdict is guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, it shall be legal and shall be a recommendation to the judge of imprisonment for life. Such recommendation shall be binding upon the judge.”
Ga. Code § 27-2534.1 (1977):
“Mitigating and aggravating circumstances; death penalty
“(a) The death penalty may be imposed for the offenses of aircraft hijacking or treason, in any case.
“(b) In all cases of other offenses for which the death penalty may be authorized, the judge shall consider, or he shall include in his instructions to the jury for it to consider, any mitigating circumstances or aggravating circumstances otherwise authorized by law and any of the following statutory aggravating circumstances which may be supported by the evidence:
“(1) The offense of murder, rape, armed robbery, or kidnapping was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony, or the offense of murder was committed by a person who has a substantial history of serious assaultive criminal convictions.
“(2) The offense of murder, rape, armed robbery, or kidnapping was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, or aggravated battery, or the offense of murder was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of burglary or arson in the first degree.
"(3) The offender by his act of murder, armed robbery, or kidnapping knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person in a public place by means of a weapon or device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person.
“(4) The offender committed the offense of murder for himself or another, for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value.
“(5) The murder of a judicial officer, former judicial officer, district attorney or solicitor or former district attorney or solicitor during or because of the exercise of his official duty.
“(6) The offender caused or directed another to commit murder or committed murder as an agent or employee of another person.
“(7) The offense of murder, rape, armed robbery or kidnapping was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim.
“(8) The offense of murder was committed against any peace officer, corrections employee or fireman while engaged in the performance of his official duties.
“(9) The offense of murder was committed by a person in, or who has escaped from, the lawful custody of a peace officer or place of lawful confinement.
“(10) The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement, of himself or another.
“(c) The statutory instructions as determined by the trial judge to be warranted by the evidence shall be given in charge and in writing to the jury for its deliberation. The jury, if its verdict be a recommendation of death, shall designate in writing, signed by the foreman of the jury, the aggravating circumstance or circumstances which it found beyond a reasonable doubt. In non-jury cases the judge shall make such designation. Except in eases of treason or aircraft hijacking, unless at least one of the statutory aggravating circumstances enumerated in section 27-2534.1 (b) is so found, the death penalty shall not be imposed.”
Ga. Code § 27-2537 (.1977):
“Review of death sentences
“(a) Whenever the death penalty is imposed, and upon the judgment becoming final in the trial court, the sentence shall be reviewed on the record by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The clerk of the trial court, within ten days after receiving the transcript, shall transmit the entire record and transcript to the Supreme Court of Georgia together with a notice prepared by the clerk and a report prepared by the trial judge. The notice shall set forth the title and docket number of the ease, the name of the defendant and' the name and address of his attorney, a narrative statement of the judgment, the offense, and the punishment prescribed. The report shall be in the form of a standard questionnaire prepared and supplied by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
“(b) The Supreme Court of Georgia shall consider the punishment as well as any errors enumerated by way of appeal.
“(c) With regard to the sentence, the court shall determine:
“(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and
“(2) Whether, in cases other than treason or aircraft hijacking, the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in section 27-2534.1 (b), and
“(3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.
“(d) Both the defendant and the State shall have the right to submit briefs within the time provided by the court, and to present oral argument to the court.
“(e) The court shall include in its decision a reference to those similar cases which it took into consideration. In addition to its authority regarding correction of errors, the court, with regard to review of death sentences, shall be authorized to:
“(1) Affirm the sentence of death; or
“(2) Set the sentence aside and remand the case for resentencing by the trial judge based on the record and argument of counsel. The records of those similar cases referred to by the Supreme Court of Georgia in its decision, and the extracts prepared as hereinafter provided for, shall be provided to the resentencing judge for his consideration.
“(f) There shall be an Assistant to the Supreme Court, who shall be an attorney appointed by the Chief Justice of Georgia and who shall serve at the pleasure of the court. The court shall accumulate the records of all capital felony cases in which sentence was imposed after January 1, 1970, or such earlier date as the court may deem appropriate. The Assistant shall provide the court with whatever extracted information it desires with respect thereto, including but not limited to a synopsis or brief of the facts in the record concerning the crime and the defendant.
“(g) The court shall be authorized to employ an appropriate staff and such methods to compile such data as are deemed by the Chief Justice to be appropriate and relevant to the statutory questions concerning the validity of the sentence.
“(h) The office of the Assistant shall be attached to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Georgia for administrative purposes.
“ (i) The sentence review shall be in addition to direct appeal, if taken, and the review and appeal shall be consolidated for consideration. The court shall render its decision on legal errors enumerated, the factual substantiation of the verdict, and the validity of the sentence.”
Because the death sentence is a disproportionate punishment for rape, it is cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment even though it may measurably serve the legitimate ends of punishment and therefore is not invalid for its failure to do so. We observe that in the light of the legislative decisions in almost all of the States and in most of the countries around the world, it would be difficult to support a claim that the death penalty for rape is an indispensable part of the States’ criminal justice system.
See Bye, Recent History and Present Status of Capital Punishment in the United States, 17 J. Crim. L. & C. 234, 241-242 (1926).
Ala. Code, Tit. 14, § 395 (1958); Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-3403 (1964); Fla. Stat. Ann. §794.01 (1965); Ga. Code §26-2001 (1977); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§435.080-435.090 (1962); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:42 (1950); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 461 (1957); Miss. Code Ann. § 2358 (1957); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.260 (1969); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.360 (1963) (rape with substantial bodily harm); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14r-21 (1969); Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, § 1115 (1958); S. C. Code Ann. §§ 16-72, 16-80 (1962); Tenn. Code Ann. §39-3702 (1955); Tex. Penal Code §1189 (1961); Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-44 (1960); 18 U. S. C. § 2031.
1976 Okla. Sess. Laws, c. 1, p. 627; 1976 La. Acts, Nos. 657, 694; 1976 Ky. Acts, c. 15 (Ex. Sess.); 1977 Wyo. Sess. Laws, c. 122. Recent legislative action has taken place in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, California, and New Jersey. The legislation has been signed into law in North Carolina and Virginia, N. C. Sess. Laws (May 19, 1977); 1977 Va. Acts, c. 492 (Mar. 29, 1977), and has been vetoed in Maryland and California, Washington Post, May 27, 1977, p. Al, col. 1; N. Y. Times, May 28, 1977, p. 8, col. 6. The Governor of New Jersey apparently has not yet acted on the legislation in that State.
The legislation that respondent places in this category is as follows:
Ky. Rev. Stat. §507.020 (1975); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:30 (1974); Md. Code Ann., Art. 27, § 413 (b) (Supp. 1976); Miss. Code Ann. §§97-3-19, 97-3-21, 97-25-55, 99-17-20 (Supp. 1975); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§559.005, 559.009 (Supp. 1975); Nev. Rev. Stat. §200.030 (1975); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-17, 14r-21 (Supp. 1975); Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, §§ 701.1-701.3 (Supp. 1975); S. C. Code Ann. § 16-52 (Supp. 1975); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-2402, 39-2406, 39-3702 (1975); Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-10, 18.2-31 (1975). Brief for Respondent 19 n. 38.
Fla. Stat. Ann. §794.011 (2) (1976); Miss. Code Ann. §97-3-65 (Supp. 1976); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-3702 (1974).
In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 102 (1958), the plurality took pains to note the climate of international opinion concerning the acceptability of a particular punishment. It is thus not irrelevant here that out of 60 major nations in the world surveyed in 1965, only 3 retained the death penalty for rape where death did not ensue. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Capital Punishment 40, 86 (1968).
U. S. Dept, of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Report, Rape and Its Victims: A Report for Citizens, Health Facilities, and Criminal Justice Agencies 1 (1975), quoting Bard & Ellison, Crisis Intervention and Investigation of Forcible Rape, The Police Chief (May 1974), reproduced as Appendix I-B to the Report.
See Note, The Victim In a Forcible Rape Case; A Feminist View , 11 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 335, 338 (1973); Comment, Rape and Rape Laws: Sexism in Society and Law, 61 Calif. L. Rev. 919, 922-923 (1973).
See n. 1, supra, for the Georgia definition of rape.
There are other aggravating circumstances provided in the statute, see n. 3, supra, but they are not applicable to rape.
In Gregg v. Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court refused to sustain a death sentence for armed robbery because, for one reason, death had been so seldom imposed for this crime in other cases that such a sentence was excessive and could not be sustained under the statute. As it did in this case, however, the Georgia Supreme Court apparently continues to recognize armed robbery as a capital offense for the purpose of applying the aggravating-circumstances provisions of the Georgia Code.
Where the accompanying capital crime is murder, it is most likely that the defendant would be tried for murder, rather than rape; and it is perhaps academic to deal with the death sentence for rape in such a circumstance. It is likewise unnecessary to consider the rape-felony murder — a rape accompanied by the death of the victim which was unlawfully but nonmaliciously caused by the defendant.
Where the third aggravating circumstance mentioned in the text is present — that the rape is particularly vile or involves torture or aggravated battery — it would seem that the defendant could very likely be convicted, tried, and appropriately punished for this additional conduct.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether § 706(g) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 261, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g), precludes the entry of a consent decree which provides relief that may benefit individuals who were not the actual victims of the defendant’s discriminatory practices.
I
On October 23, 1980, the Vanguards of Cleveland (Vanguards), an organization of black and Hispanic firefighters employed by the City of Cleveland, filed a complaint charging the City and various municipal officials (hereinafter referred to collectively as the City) with discrimination on the basis of race and national origin “in the hiring, assignment and promotion of firefighters within the City of Cleveland Fire Department.” App. 6. The Vanguards sued on behalf of a class of blacks and Hispanics consisting of firefighters already employed by the City, applicants for employment, and “all blacks and Hispanics who in the future will apply for employment or will be employed as firemen by the Cleveland Fire Department.” Id., at 8.
The Vanguards claimed that the City had violated the rights of the plaintiff class under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and 42 U. S. C. §§1981 and 1983. Although the complaint alleged facts to establish discrimination in hiring and work assignments, the primary allegations charged that black and Hispanic firefighters “have... been discriminated against by reason of their race and national origin in the awarding of promotions within the Fire Department.” App. II. The complaint averred that this discrimination was effectuated by a number of intentional practices by the City. The written examination used for making promotions was alleged to be discriminatory. The effects of this test were said to be reinforced by the use of seniority points and by the manipulation of retirement dates so that minorities would not be near the top of promotion lists when positions became available. In addition, the City assertedly limited minority advancement by deliberately refusing to administer a new promotional examination after 1975, thus cancelling out the effects of increased minority hiring that had resulted from certain litigation commenced in 1973.
As just noted, the Vanguards’ lawsuit was not the first in which the City had to defend itself against charges of race discrimination in hiring and promotion in its civil services. In 1972, an organization of black police officers filed an action alleging that the Police Department discriminated against minorities in hiring and promotions. See Shield Club v. City of Cleveland, 370 F. Supp. 251 (ND Ohio 1972). The District Court found for the plaintiffs and issued an order enjoining certain hiring and promotion practices and establishing minority hiring goals. In 1977, these hiring goals were adjusted and promotion goals were established pursuant to a consent decree. Thereafter, litigation raising similar claims was commenced against the Fire Department and resulted in a judicial finding of unlawful discrimination and the entry of a consent decree imposing hiring quotas similar to those ordered in the Shield Club litigation. See Headen v. City of Cleveland, No. C73-330 (ND Ohio, Apr. 25, 1975). In 1977, after additional litigation, the Headen court approved a new plan governing hiring procedures in the Fire Department.
By the time the Vanguards filed their complaint, then, the City had already unsuccessfully contested many of the basic factual issues in other lawsuits. Naturally, this influenced the City’s view of the Vanguards’ case. As expressed by counsel for the City at oral argument in this Court:
“[W]hen this case was filed in 1980, the City of Cleveland had eight years at that point of litigating these types of cases, and eight years of having judges rule against the City of Cleveland.
“You don’t have to beat us on the head.' We finally learned what we had to do and what we had to try to do to comply with the law, and it was the intent of the city to comply with the law fully....” Tr. of Oral Arg. 41-42.
Thus, rather than commence another round of futile litigation, the City entered into “serious settlement negotiations” with the Vanguards. See Letter dated December 24, 1980, from Edward R. Stege, Jr., and Mark I. Wallach to Hon. Thomas J. Lambros.
On April 27, 1981, Local Number 93 of the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, C. L. C. (Local 93 or Union), which represents a majority of Cleveland’s firefighters, moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) to intervene as a party-plaintiff. The District Court granted the motion and ordered the Union to submit its complaint in intervention within 30 days.
Local 93 subsequently submitted a three-page document entitled “Complaint of Applicant for Intervention.” Despite its title, this document did not allege any causes of action or assert any claims against either the Vanguards or the City. It expressed the view that “[p]romotions based upon any criterion other than competence, such as a racial quota system, would deny those most capable from their promotions and would deny the residents of the City of Cleveland from maintaining the best possible fire fighting force,” and asserted that “Local #93’s interest is to maintain a well trained and properly staffed fire fighting force and [Local 93] contends that promotions should be made on the basis of demonstrated competency, properly measured by competitive examinations administered in accordance with the applicable provisions of Federal, State, and Local laws.” App. 27, 28. The “complaint” concluded with a prayer for relief in the form of an injunction requiring the City to award promotions on the basis of such examinations. Id., at 28.
In the meantime, negotiations between the Vanguards and the City continued, and a proposed consent decree was submitted to the District Court in November 1981. This proposal established “interim procedures” to be implemented “as a two-step temporary remedy” for past discrimination in promotions. Id., at 33. The first step required that a fixed number of already planned promotions be reserved for minorities: specifically, 16 of 40 planned promotions to Lieutenant, 3 of 20 planned promotions to Captain, 2 of 10 planned promotions to Battalion Chief, and 1 of 3 planned promotions to Assistant Chief were to be made to minority firefighters. Id., at 33-34. The second step involved the establishment of “appropriate minority promotion goal[s],” id., at 34, for the ranks of Lieutenant, Captain, and Battalion Chief. The proposal also required the City to forgo using seniority points as a factor in making promotions. Id., at 32-33. The plan was to remain in effect for nine years, and could be extended upon mutual application of the parties for an additional 6-year period. Id., at 36.
The District Court held a 2-day hearing at the beginning of January to consider the fairness of this proposed consent decree. Local 93 objected to the use of minority promotional goals and to the 9-year life of the decree. In addition, the Union protested the fact that it had not been included in the negotiations. This latter objection particularly troubled the District Judge. Indeed, although hearing evidence presented by the Vanguards and the City in support of the decree, the Judge stated that he was “appalled that these negotiations leading to this consent decree did not include the intervenors...,” and refused to pass on the decree under the circumstances. Tr. 134 (Jan. 7, 1982). Instead, he concluded: “I am going to at this time to defer this proceeding until another day and I am mandating the City and the [Vanguards] to engage the Fire Fighters in discussions, in dialogue. Let them know what is going on, hear their particular problems.” Id., at 151. At the same time, Judge Lambros explained that the Union would have to make its objections more specific to accomplish anything: “I don’t think the Fire Fighters are going to be able to win their position on the basis that, ‘Well, Judge, you know, there’s something inherently wrong about quotas. You know, it’s not fair.’ We need more than that.” Id., at 153.
A second hearing was held on April 27. Local 93 continued to oppose any form of affirmative action. Witnesses for all parties testified concerning the proposed consent decree. The testimony revealed that, while the consent decree dealt only with the 40 promotions to Lieutenant already planned by the City, the Fire Department was actually authorized to make up to 66 offers; similarly, the City was in a position to hire 32 rather than 20 Captains and 14 rather than 10 Battalion Chiefs. After hearing this testimony, Judge Lambros proposed as an alternative to have the City make a high number of promotions over a relatively short period of time. The Judge explained that if the City were to hire 66 Lieutenants rather than 40, it could “plug in a substantial number of black leadership that can start having some influence in the operation of this fire department” while still promoting the same nonminority officers who would have obtained promotions under the existing system. Tr. 147-148 (Apr. 27, 1982). Additional testimony revealed that this approach had led to the amicable resolution of similar litigation in Atlanta, Georgia. Judge Lambros persuaded the parties to consider revamping the consent decree along the lines of the Atlanta plan. The proceedings were therefore adjourned and the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate.
Counsel for all three parties participated in 40 hours of intensive negotiations under the Magistrate’s supervision and agreed to a revised consent decree that incorporated a modified version of the Atlanta plan. See App. 79 (Report of Magistrate). However, submission of this proposal to the court was made contingent upon approval by the membership of Local 93. Despite the fact that the revised consent decree actually increased the number of supervisory positions available to nonminority firefighters, the Union members overwhelmingly rejected the proposal;
On January 11, 1983, the Vanguards and the City lodged a second amended consent decree with the court and moved for its approval. This proposal was “patterned very closely upon the revised decree negotiated under the supervision of [the] Magistrate...,” App. to Pet. for Cert. A31, and thus its central feature was the creation of many more promotional opportunities for firefighters of all races. Specifically, the decree required that the City immediately make 66 promotions to Lieutenant, 32 promotions to Captain, 16 promotions to Battalion Chief, and 4 promotions to Assistant Chief. These promotions were to be based on a promotional examination that had been administered during the litigation. The 66 initial promotions to Lieutenant were to be evenly split between minority and nonminority firefighters. However, since only 10 minorities had qualified for the 52 upper-level positions, the proposed decree provided that all 10 should be promoted. The decree further required promotional examinations to be administered in June 1984 and December 1985. Promotions from the lists produced by these examinations were to be made in accordance with specified promotional “goals” that were expressed in terms of percentages and were different for each rank. The list from the 1985 examination would remain in effect for two years, after which time the decree would expire. The life of the decree was thus shortened from nine years to four. In addition, except where necessary to implement specific requirements of the consent decree, the use of seniority points was restored as a factor in ranking candidates for promotion. Id., at A29-A38.
Local 93 was mentioned twice in the proposal. Paragraph 16 required the City to submit progress reports concerning compliance to both the Union and the Vanguards. Id., at A36. In paragraph 24, the court reserved exclusive jurisdiction with respect to applications or claims made by “any party, including Intervenor.” Id,., at A38. The decree imposed no legal duties or obligations on Local 93.
On January 19, the City was ordered to notify the members of the plaintiff class of the terms of the proposed decree. In addition, persons who wished to object to the proposal were ordered to submit their objections in writing. Local 93 filed the following formal objection to the proposed consent decree:
“Local #93 has consistently and steadfastly maintained that there must be a more equitable, more fair, more just way to correct the problems caused by the [City]. Many alternatives to the hopefully soon to be unnecessary ‘remedial’ methods embodied in the law have been explored and some have been utilized.
“Local #93 reiterates it’s [sic] absolute and total objection to the use of racial quotas which must by their very nature cause serious racial polarization in the Fire Service. Since this problem is obviously the concern of the collective representative of all members of the fire service, Intervenors, Local #93. [sic] We respectfully urge this court not to implement the ‘remedial’ provisions of this Decree.” App. 98.
Apart from thus expressing its opinion as to the wisdom and necessity of the proposed consent decree, the Union still failed to assert any legal claims against either the Vanguards or the City.
The District Court approved the consent decree on January 31, 1983. Judge Lambros found that “[t]he documents, statistics, and testimony presented at the January and April 1982 hearings reveal a historical pattern of racial discrimination in the promotions in the City of Cleveland Fire Department.” App. to Brief in Opposition of City of Cleveland A3-A4. He then observed:
“While the concerns articulated by Local 93 may be valid, the use of a quota system for the relatively short period of four years is not unreasonable in light of the demonstrated history of racial discrimination in promotions in the City of Cleveland Fire Department. It is neither unreasonable nor unfair to require non-minority firefighters who, although they committed no wrong, benefited from the effects of the discrimination to bear some of the burden of the remedy. Furthermore, the amended proposal is more reasonable and less burdensome than the nine-year plan that had been proposed originally.” Id., at A5.
The Judge therefore overruled the Union’s objection and adopted the consent decree “as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the claims raised in this action.” Ibid. The District Court retained exclusive jurisdiction for “all purposes of enforcement, modification, or amendment of th[e] Decree upon the application of any party....” App. to Pet. for Cert. A38.
The Union appealed the overruling of its objections. A panel for the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. Vanguards of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 753 F. 2d 479 (1985). The court rejected the Union’s claim that the use of race-conscious relief was “unreasonable,” finding such relief justified by the statistical evidence presented to the District Court and the City’s express admission that it had engaged in discrimination. The court also found that the consent decree was “fair and reasonable to non-minority firefighters,” emphasizing the “relatively modest goals set forth in the plan,” the fact that “the plan does not require the hiring of unqualified minority firefighters or the discharge of any non-minority firefighters,” the fact that the plan “does not create an absolute bar to the advancement of non-minority employees,” and the short duration of the plan. Id., at 485.
After oral argument before the Court of Appeals, this Court decided Firefighters v. Stotts, 467 U. S. 561 (1984). “Concerned with the potential impact of Stotts,” the Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs, 753 F. 2d, at 485-486, but ultimately concluded that Stotts did not affect the outcome of the case. The court noted that the District Court in Stotts had issued an injunction requiring layoffs over the objection of the City, while in this case the City of Cleveland had agreed to the plan. The court reasoned that even if Stotts holds that Title VII limits relief to those who have been actual victims of discrimination, “[t]he fact that this case involves a consent decree and not an injunction makes the legal basis of the Stotts decision inapplicable.” 753 F. 2d, at 486.
Local 93 petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. The sole issue raised by the petition is whether the consent decree is an impermissible remedy under § 706(g) of Title VII. Local 93 argues that the consent decree disregards the express prohibition of the last sentence of § 706(g) that
“[n]o order of the court shall require the admission or reinstatement of an individual as a member of a union, or the hiring, reinstatement, or promotion of an individual as an employee, or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was refused admission, suspended, or expelled, or was refused employment or advancement or was suspended or discharged for any reason other than discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or in violation of section 2000e-3(a) of this title.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g) (emphasis added).
According to Local 93, this sentence precludes a court from awarding relief under Title VII that may benefit individuals who were not the actual victims of the employer’s discrimination. The Union argues further that the plain language of the provision that “[n]o order of the court” shall provide such relief extends this limitation to orders entered by consent in addition to orders issued after litigation. Consequently, the Union concludes that a consent decree entered in Title VII litigation is invalid if — like the consent decree approved in this case — it utilizes racial preferences that may benefit individuals who are not themselves actual victims of an employer’s discrimination. The Union is supported by the United States as amicus curiae.
We granted the petition in order to answer this important question of federal law. 474 U. S. 816 (1985). The Court holds today in Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, ante, p. 421, that courts may, in appropriate cases, provide relief under Title VII that benefits individuals who were not the actual victims of a defendant’s discriminatory practices. We need not decide whether this is one of those cases, however. For we hold that whether or not § 706(g) precludes a court from imposing certain forms of race-conscious relief after trial, that provision does not apply to relief awarded in a consent decree. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II
We have on numerous occasions recognized that Congress intended voluntary compliance to be the preferred means of achieving the objectives of Title VII. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44 (1974); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 417-418 (1975) (quoting United States v. N. L. Industries, Inc., 479 F. 2d 354, 379 (CA8 1973)) (Title VII sanctions intended to cause employers “‘to self-examine and self-evaluate their employment practices and to endeavor to eliminate, so far as possible, the last vestiges of an unfortunate and ignominious page in this country’s history’”). See also Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 364 (1977); Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 228 (1982); W. R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers, 461 U. S. 757, 770-771 (1983). This view is shared by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which has promulgated guidelines setting forth its understanding that “Congress strongly encouraged employers... to act on a voluntary basis to modify employment practices and systems which constituted barriers to equal employment opportunity _” 29 CFR § 1608.1(b) (1985). According to the EEOC:
“The principle of nondiscrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and the principle that each person subject to Title VII should take voluntary action to correct the effects of past discrimination and to prevent present and future discrimination without awaiting litigation, are mutually consistent and interdependent methods of addressing social and economic conditions which precipitated the enactment of Title VII. Voluntary affirmative action to improve opportunities for minorities and women must be encouraged and protected in order to carry out the Congressional intent embodied in Title VII.” § 1608.1(c) (footnote omitted).
It is equally clear that the voluntary action available to employers and unions seeking to eradicate race discrimination may include reasonable race-conscious relief that benefits individuals who were not actual victims of discrimination. This was the holding of Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U. S. 193 (1979). In Weber, an employer and a union agreed in collective bargaining to reserve for black employees 50% of the openings in an in-plant, craft-training program until the percentage of black craftworkers in the plant was commensurate with the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. After considering both the purposes of Title VII and its legislative history, we concluded that “[i]t would be ironic indeed if a law triggered by a Nation’s concern over centuries of racial injustice and intended to improve the lot of those who had ‘been excluded from the American dream for so long’ constituted the first legislative prohibition of all voluntary, private, race-conscious efforts to abolish traditional patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy.” Id., at 204 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we held that Title VII permits employers and unions voluntarily to make use of reasonable race-conscious affirmative action, although we left to another day the task of “defin[ing] in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and impermissible affirmative action plans.” Id., at 208.
Of course, Weber involved a purely private contractual agreement rather than a consent decree. But, at least at first blush, there does not seem to be any reason to distinguish between voluntary action taken in a consent decree and voluntary action taken entirely outside the context of litigation. Indeed, in Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 88, n. 14 (1981), we held that a District Court’s order denying entry of a consent decree is appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(a)(1) because such an order undermines Congress’ “strong preference for encouraging voluntary settlement of employment discrimination claims” under Title VII. Moreover, the EEOC’s guidelines concerning “Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 29 CFR pt. 1608 (1985), plainly contemplate the use of consent decrees as an appropriate form of voluntary affirmative action. See, e. g., §1608.8. True, these guidelines do not have the force of law, General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125, 141 (1976), but still they “‘constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.’” Id., at 142 (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944)). Therefore, absent some contrary indication, there is no reason to think that voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action such as was held permissible in Weber is rendered impermissible by Title VII simply because it is incorporated into a consent decree.
Local 93 and the United States find a contrary indicator in § 706(g), which governs the courts’ remedial power under Title VII. They contend that § 706(g) establishes an independent limitation on what courts — as opposed to employers or unions — can do, prohibiting any “order of the court” from providing rélief that may benefit nonvictims. They argue that a consent decree should be treated as an “order” within the meaning of § 706(g) because it possesses the legal force and character of a judgment decreed after a trial. They rely for this conclusion on several characteristics of consent decrees: first, that a consent decree looks like and is entered as a judgment; second, that the court retains the power to modify a consent decree in certain circumstances over the objection of a signatory, see United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106, 114 (1932) (Swift II); third, that noncompliance with a consent decree is enforceable by citation for contempt of court, see United States v. City of Miami, 664 F. 2d 435, 440, and n. 8 (CA5 1981) (opinion of Rubin, J.).
To be sure, consent decrees bear some of the earmarks of judgments entered after litigation. At the same time, because their terms are arrived at through mutual agreement of the parties, consent decrees also closely resemble contracts. See United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U. S. 223, 235-237 (1975); United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U. S. 673 (1971). More accurately, then, as we have previously recognized, consent decrees “have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees,” a dual character that has resulted in different treatment for different purposes. United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., supra, at 235-237, and n. 10. The question is not whether we can label a consent decree as a “contract” or a “judgment,” for we can do both. The question is whether, given their hybrid nature, consent decrees implicate the concerns embodied in § 706(g) in such a way as to require treating them as “orders” within the meaning of that provision.
Because this Court’s cases do not treat consent decrees as judicial decrees in all respects and for all purposes, we think that the language of § 706(g) does not so clearly include consent decrees as to preclude resort to the voluminous legislative history of Title VII. The issue is whether, when Congress used the phrase “[n]o order of the court shall require” in § 706(g), it unmistakably intended to refer to consent decrees. In addition to the fact that consent decrees have contractual as well as judicial features, the use of the verb “require” in § 706(g) suggests that it was the coercive aspect of a judicial decree that Congress had in mind. We turn therefore to the legislative history, since the language of § 706(g) does not clearly settle the matter.
The conclusion in Weber that “Congress chose not to forbid all voluntary race-conscious affirmative action” when it enacted Title VII was largely based upon the legislative history, which shows that Congress was particularly concerned to avoid undue federal interference with managerial discretion. Weber, 443 U. S., at 205-207. As originally enacted, Title VII regulated only private enterprises; the liberal Republicans and Southern Democrats whose support was crucial to obtaining passage of the bill expressed misgivings about the potential for Government intrusion into the managerial decisions of employers and unions beyond what was necessary to eradicate unlawful discrimination. Id., at 206. Their votes were obtained only after they were given assurances that “management prerogatives, and union freedoms are to be left undisturbed to the greatest extent possible.” H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 29 (1963). See also, 110 Cong. Rec. 1518 (1964) (remarks of Rep. Celler); id., at 11471 (remarks of Sen. Javits); id., at 14314 (remarks of Sen. Miller); id., at 15893 (remarks of Rep. McCulloch). As one commentator points out, rather than seeking to outlaw voluntary affirmative action, the more conservative proponents of Title VII who held the balance of power in 1964 “were far more concerned to avoid the intrusion into business autonomy that a rigid color-blind standard would entail.” Note, Preferential Relief Under Title VII, 65 Va. L. Rev. 729, 771, n. 224 (1979). See also, Weber, supra, at 207-208, n. 7 (quoting 110 Cong. Rec. 15893 (1964) (remarks of Rep. MacGregor)) (Congress was not legislating about “‘preferential treatment or quotas in employment’” because it believed that “‘the problems raised by these controversial questions are more properly handled at a governmental level closer to the American people and by communities and individuals themselves’ ”).
The legislative history pertaining specifically to § 706(g) suggests that it was drafted with this concern in mind and, in fact, that a principal purpose of the last sentence of § 706(g) was to protect managerial prerogatives of employers and unions. See H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 11 (1963) (first version of § 706(g) preserving employer defense of “cause”); 110 Cong. Rec. 2567-2571 (1964) (amending this version to substitute for “any reason other than discrimination” in place of “cause”); id., at 2567 (remarks of Rep. Celler, the amendment’s sponsor, that the amendment’s purpose was “to specify cause”); id., at 6549 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey that § 706(g) makes clear “that employers may hire and fire, promote and refuse to promote for any reason, good or bad” except when such decisions violate the substantive provisions of Title VII). Thus, whatever the extent of the limits § 706(g) places on the power of the federal courts to compel employers and unions to take certain actions that the employers or unions oppose and would not otherwise take, § 706(g) by itself does not restrict the ability of employers or unions to enter into voluntary agreements providing for race-conscious remedial action. The limits on such agreements must be found outside § 706(g).
From this, it is readily apparent that consent decrees are not included among the “orders” referred to in § 706(g), for the voluntary nature of a consent decree is its most fundamental characteristic. See United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U. S., at 235-237; United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U. S. 673 (1971); Hughes v. United States, 342 U. S. 353 (1952); United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 360 U. S. 19 (1959); Ashley v. City of Jackson, 464 U. S. 900, 902 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). As we observed in United States v. Armour & Co.:
“Consent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms. The parties waive their right to litigate the issues involved in the case and thus save themselves the time, expense, and inevitable risk of litigation. Naturally, the agreement reached normally embodies a compromise; in exchange for the saving of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each give up something they might have won had they proceeded with the litigation. Thus, the decree itself cannot be said to have a purpose; rather the parties have purposes, generally opposed to each other, and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve.” 402 U. S., at 681-682 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
Indeed, it is the parties’ agreement that serves as the source of the court’s authority to enter any judgment at all. See United States v. Ward Baking Co., 376 U. S. 327 (1964) (cannot enter consent decree to which one party has not consented); Ashley v. City of Jackson, supra, at 902 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). More importantly, it is the agreement of the parties, rather than the force of the law upon which the complaint was originally based, that creates the obligations embodied in a consent decree. Consequently, whatever the limitations Congress placed in § 706(g) on the power of federal courts to impose obligations on employers or unions to remedy violations of Title VII, these simply do not apply when the obligations are created by a consent decree.
The features of consent decrees designated by the Union and the United States do not require a contrary result. The fact that a consent decree looks like a judgment entered after a trial obviously does not implicate Congress’ concern with limiting the power of federal courts unilaterally to require employers or unions to make certain kinds of employment decisions. The same is true of the court’s conditional power to modify a consent decree; the mere existence of an unexer-cised power to modify the obligations contained in a consent decree does not alter the fact that those obligations were created by agreement of the parties rather than imposed by the court. Finally, we reject the argument that a consent decree should be treated as an “order” within the meaning of § 706(g) because it can be enforced by a citation for contempt. There is no indication in the legislative history that the availability of judicial enforcement of an obligation, rather than the creation of the obligation itself, was the focus of congressional concern. In fact, judicial enforcement is available whether race-conscious relief is provided in a collective-bargaining agreement (as in Weber) or in a consent decree; only the form of that enforcement is different. But the difference between contractual remedies and the contempt power is not significant in any relevant sense with respect to § 706(g). For the choice of an enforcement scheme — whether to rely on contractual remedies or to have an agreement entered as a consent decree — is itself made voluntarily by the parties. Thus, it does not implicate Congress’ concern that federal courts not impose unwanted obligations on employers and unions any more than the decision to institute race-conscious affirmative action in the first place; in both cases the parties have themselves created obligations and surrendered claims in order to achieve a mutually satisfactory compromise.
r-H hH I — I
Relying upon Firefighters v. Stotts, 467 U. S. 561 (1984), and Railway Employees v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642 (1961), Local 93—again joined by the United States — contends that we have recognized as a general principle that a consent decree cannot provide greater relief than a court could have decreed after a trial. They urge that even if § 706(g) does not directly invalidate the consent decree, that decree is nonetheless void because the District Court “would have been powerless to order [such an injunction] under Title VII, had the matter actually gone to trial.” Brief for Petitioner 17.
We concluded above that voluntary adoption in a consent decree of race-conscious relief that may benefit nonvictims does not violate the congressional objectives of § 706(g). It is therefore hard to understand the basis for an independent judicial canon or “common law” of consent decrees that would give § 706(g) the effect of prohibiting such decrees anyway. To be sure, a federal court is more than “a recorder of contracts” from whom parties can purchase injunctions; it is “an organ of government constituted to make judicial decisions....” IB J. Moore, J. Lucas, & T. Currier, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.409[5], p. 331 (1984) (hereinafter Moore). Accordingly, a consent decree must spring from and serve to resolve a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, consistent with this requirement, the consent decree must “com[e] within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings,” Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We here review the upholding by the New York Court of Appeals of the action of the New York State Industrial Commissioner terminating petitioners’ registration and liability to state taxation as employers under the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law. N. Y. Labor Law, §§ 511-512, 517-518, 570, 577, 581. This determination was effected under what was conceived to be the compulsion of a federal statute, the Communist Control Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 775, 50 U. S. C. §§ 841-844, which provides, in pertinent part:
“Section 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States .... Therefore the Communist Party should be outlawed.
“Section 3. The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.” (Emphasis supplied.)
New York has an “experience rating” scheme whereby employers with consistent records of high employment levels are taxed at a lower rate than would otherwise obtain. Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U. S. C. §§ 3301-3308, an employer is entitled to a federal tax credit for the amount paid in state unemployment taxes. If the state taxing structure allows for a reduction in tax rate to employers with good employment records under a federally certified “experience rating” system, the federal tax is nevertheless reduced by the highest rate imposed by the State, so that the employer retains the full benefit of his experience rating reduction. Thus, before the termination of their New York registration the combined federal and state tax rate of the petitioner, Communist Party, U. S. A., was 1%, and that of the petitioner, Communist Party of New York State, was, according to its representations, 1.1%. The effect of the registration termination as to both was to increase the rate to 3%, the rate provided in the federal statute.
We granted certiorari, 364 U. S. 918, to consider the petitioners’ claims that New York has mistakenly construed the Communist Control Act of 1954 to require termination of their status as employers under the New York statute, and, contrariwise,, that both § 3 of the Communist Control Act, so construed, and New York’s termination of registration infringed the Constitution of the United States.
We must reject at the outset respondent’s contention that the Court of Appeals’ decision rested on a determination, based on judicial notice which was not displaced by any proof, that petitioners were not employers within the meaning of § 512 of the New York Labor Law, but a criminal conspiracy. It is entirely clear that the Industrial Commissioner and the Unemployment Insurance Referee, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, and the Court of Appeals all based their determination squarely on what they conceived to be the compulsion of the Communist Control Act. The Court of Appeals’ amended remittitur, which states that the questions of the construction and constitutionality of the Communist Control Act “were presented and necessarily passed upon,” puts the matter beyond doubt.
Following the familiar rule that decision of Constitutional questions should be avoided wherever fairly possible, we turn at once to the federal statute which this Court has not heretofore had occasion to construe. Apart from unrevealing random remarks during the course of debate in the two Houses, there is no legislative history which in any way serves to give content to the vague terminology of § 3 of the Communist Control Act. The statute contains no definition, and neither committee reports nor authoritative spokesmen attempt to give any definition, of the clause “rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision thereof.” Respondent would have us construe this language to mean that wherever a situation advantageous to the petitioners occurs by reference to the statutory or common law of a State or any other government in the United States, this is to be considered a “right,” “privilege,” or “immunity,” and must be deemed to be withheld by the Act. On this basis New York has reasoned that liability to taxation as an employer, though not a privilege in the ordinary sense of the term, is nonetheless a recognition of the common-law contractual capacity to employ, and as such is advantageous to petitioners; and further, that an employer whose employees are unable to benefit from state and federal unemployment insurance programs will be disadvantaged in finding and keeping employees. Therefore it was thought that the Communist Control Act required termination of the registration of petitioners as employers.
This interpretation, raising as it does novel constitutional questions, the answers to which are not necessarily controlled by decisions of this Court in connection with other legislation dealing with the Communist Party, must, we think, be rejected. Not only does the language of the statute fall far short of compelling such an interpretation, but there are good indications that the particular result of barring petitioners as employers under state and federal unemployment insurance systems was not within the contemplation of this Act. The Internal Revenue Service has continued to collect taxes from petitioners under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and Congress in 1956 has dealt in terms with a like matter, excluding from federal old-age, survivors and disability benefits, 42 U. S. C., c. 7, subchapter II, employment with any organization required to register by the Subversive Activities Control Board and removing from the coverage of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U. S. C., c. 21, any such organization, thus tying the exclusion to the administrative fact findings and determinations required by the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987; see Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, ante, p. 1.
In face of these considerations we should hesitate long before attributing to Congress a purpose to effectuate the similar exclusion in this instance by legislative fiat. Our reluctance to accept a state interpretation which would have that effect is fortified both by the difficult constitutional questions that would result and by the undesirability of having conflicting state and federal administrative interpretations of a federal statute establishing this “coordinated and dual system” (Buckstaff Co. v. McKinley, 308 U. S. 358, 364) of employment insurance. We hold that the Communist Control Act of 1954 does not require exclusion of the petitioners from New York’s unemployment compensation system. Since the New York Court of Appeals’ decision unmistakably rested on the contrary premise, its judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
The basic federal rate was increased to 3.1% by Public Law 86-778, § 523 (c), 74 Stat. 924, 982, effective 1961. 26 U. S. C. § 3301.
Petitioners argue that the Act on its face and as applied violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Art. I, § 9, cl. 3 of the Federal Constitution, which provides that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Petitioners also contingently assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim, see note 6, infra.
The Referee, in reviewing the administrative action of the Commissioner, stated that “the Commissioner’s representatives . . . urge that Congress has effectively outlawed the Communist Party and thus, by force of law, the Referee is bound to find that . . . there could not have been any valid employment . . . .” (R. 5.) This contention the Referee accepted, holding that “Congress effectively terminated the right of the Parties to enter into contracts of employment . . . .” (R. 7.)
The Board affirmed the Referee’s conclusions of law. (R. 2.)
See 8 N. Y. 2d 77, at 83, 168 N. E. 2d 242, at 245, for the opinion of Chief Judge Desmond, with whom Judge Dye concurred, and 8 N. Y. 2d, at 90-91, 168 N. E. 2d, at 248-249, for the opinion of Judge Van Voorhis, with whom Judge Burke concurred. Two judges of the court dissented, and one judge did not participate.
Petitioners also argue that if the administrative action rested upon some state procedural ground, as respondent contends, then that action violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not reach this contention.
The Solicitor General, in a letter to the Clerk of this Court responding to a certification by the Court to the Attorney General of the United States that the constitutionality of a federal statute had been drawn into question in this case, stated that “[t]here is no need to file a brief describing the practice of federal agencies in interpreting the statute [The Communist Control Act of 1954], for this information is already set forth in the opinion of Judge Fuld in the New York Court of Appeals.” The dissenting opinion of Judge Fuld states that “the federal authorities, admittedly aware of the Industrial Commissioner’s position, have taken one diametrically opposed and continue to recognize the Communist Party as an employer subject to the Federal act.”
42 U. S. C. § 410 (a) (17) and 26 U. S. C. § 3121 (b) (17), Act of August 1, 1956, § 121 (c) and (d), 70 Stat. 839. No similar exclusion, however, has been made from the coverage of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U. S. C., c. 23, which imposes the federal tax against which the state taxes involved in this case are credited. See p. 391, 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:
|
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises questions concerning the interpretation of that part of § 811 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code which for estate tax purposes requires including in a decedent’s gross estate the value of all the property the decedent had transferred by trust or otherwise before his death which was “intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death....” Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, post, p. 701, involves questions which also depend upon interpretation of that provision of § 811 (c). After argument and consideration of the cases at the October 1947 Term, an order was entered restoring them to the docket and requesting counsel upon reargument particularly to discuss certain questions broader in scope than those originally presented and argued. Journal Supreme Court, June 21, 1948, 296-298. Those additional questions have now been fully treated in briefs and oral arguments.
This case involves a trust executed in 1924 by Francois Church, then twenty-one years of age, unmarried and childless. He executed the trust in New York in accordance with state law. Church and two brothers were named co-trustees. Certain corporate stocks were transferred to the trust with grant of power to the trustees to hold and sell the stocks and to reinvest the proceeds. Church reserved no power to alter, amend, or revoke, but required the trustees to pay him the income for life. This reservation of life income is the decisive factor here.
At Church’s death (which occurred in 1939) the trust was to terminate and the trust agreement contained some directions for distribution of the trust assets when he died. These directions as to final distribution did not, however, provide for all possible contingencies. If Church died without children and without any of his brothers or sisters, or their children, surviving him, the trust instrument made no provision for disposal of the trust assets. Had this unlikely possibility come to pass (at his death there were living, five brothers, one sister, and ten of their children) the distribution of the trust assets would have been controlled by New York law. It has been the Government’s contention that under New York law had there been no such surviving trust beneficiaries the corpus would have reverted to the decedent’s estate. This possibility of reverter plus the retention by the settlor of the trust income for life, the Government has argued, requires inclusion of the value of the trust property in the decedent’s gross estate under our holding in Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106.
The Hallock case held that where a person while living makes a transfer of property which provides for a reversion of the corpus to the donor upon a contingency terminable at death, the value of the corpus should be included in the decedent’s gross estate under the “possession or enjoyment” provision of § 811 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code. In this case, the Tax Court, relying upon its former holdings declared that “The mere possibility of reverter by operation of law upon a failure of the trust, due to the death of all the remaindermen prior to the death of decedent, is not such a possibility as to come within the Hallock case.” This holding made it unnecessary for the Tax Court to decide the disputed question as to whether New York law operated to create such a reversionary interest. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, one judge dissenting, affirmed on the ground that it could not identify a clear-cut mistake of law in the Tax Court’s decision. 161 F. 2d 11. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Spiegel case found that under Illinois law there was a possibility of reverter and reversed the Tax Court, holding that possible reversion by operation of law required inclusion of a trust corpus in a decedent’s estate. Commissioner v. Spiegel’s Estate, 159 F. 2d 257. Other United States courts of appeal have held the same. Because of this conflict we granted certiorari in this and the Spiegel case.
Counsel for the two estates have strongly contended in both arguments of these cases that the law of neither New York nor Illinois provides for a possibility of reverter under the circumstances presented. They argue further that even if under the law of those states a possibility of reverter did exist, it would be an unjustifiable extension of the Hallock rule to hold that such a possibility requires inclusion of the value of a trust corpus in a decedent’s estate. The respondent in this case pointed out the extreme improbability that the decedent would have outlived all his brothers, his sister, and their ten children. He argues that the happening of such a contingency was so remote, the money value of such a reversionary interest was so infinitesimal, that it would be entirely unreasonable to hold that the Hallock rule requires an estate tax because of such a contingency. But see Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Rothensies, 324 U. S. 108, 112.
Arguments and consideration of this and the Spiegel case brought prominently into focus sharp divisions among courts, judges and legal commentators, as to the intended scope and effect of our Hallock decision, particularly whether our holding and opinion in that case are so incompatible with the holding and opinion in May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238, that the latter can no longer be accepted as a controlling interpretation of the “possession or enjoyment” provision of §811 (c). May v. Heiner held that the corpus of a trust transfer need not be included in a settlor’s estate, even though the settlor had retained for himself a life income from the corpus. We have concluded that confusion and doubt as to the effect of our Hallock case on May v. Heiner should be set at rest in the interest of sound tax and judicial administration. Furthermore, if May v. Heiner is no longer controlling, the value of the Church trust corpus was properly included in the gross estate, without regard to the much discussed state law question, since Church reserved a life estate for himself. For reasons which follow, we conclude that the Hallock and May v. Heiner holdings and opinions are irreconcilable. Since we adhere to Hal-lock, the May v. Heiner interpretation of the “possession or enjoyment” provisions of § 811 (c) can no longer be accepted as correct.
The “possession or enjoyment” provision appearing in § 811 (c) seems to have originated in a Pennsylvania inheritance tax law in 1826. As early as 1884 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that where a legal transfer of property was made which carried with it a right of possession with a reservation by the grantor of income and profits from the property for his life, the transfer was not intended to take effect in enjoyment until the grantor’s death: “One certainly cannot be considered, as in the actual enjoyment of an estate, who has no right to the profits or incomes arising or accruing therefrom.” Reish, Adm’r v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. 621, 526. That court further held that the “possession or enjoyment” clause did not involve a mere technical question of title, but that the law imposed the death tax unless one had parted during his life with his possession and his title and his enjoyment. It was further held in that case that the test of “intended” was not a subjective one, that the question was not what the parties intended to do, but what the transaction actually effected as to title, possession and enjoyment.
Most of the states have included the Pennsylvania-originated “possession or enjoyment” clause in death tax statutes, and with what appears to be complete unanimity, they have up to this day, despite May v. Heiner, substantially agreed with this 1884 Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpretation. Congress used the “possession or enjoyment” clause in‘death tax legislation in 1862, 1864, and 1898. 12 Stat. 432, 485; 13 Stat. 223, 285; 30 Stat. 448, 464. In referring to the provision in the 1898 Act, this Court said that it made “the liability for taxation depend, not upon the mere vesting in a technical sense of title to the gift, but upon the actual possession or enjoyment thereof.” Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 196 U. S. 480, 493. And five years before the 1916 estate tax statute incorporated the “possession or enjoyment” clause to frustrate estate tax evasions, 39 Stat. 756, 780, this Court had affirmed a judgment of the New York Court of Appeals sustaining the constitutionality of its state inheritance tax in an opinion which said: “It is true that an ingenious mind may devise other means of avoiding an inheritance tax, but the one commonly used is a transfer with reservation of a life estate.” Matter of Keeney, 194 N. Y. 281, 287, 87 N. E. 428, 429; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 525. And see Helvering v. Bullard, 303 U. S. 297, 302, where the foregoing quotation was repeated with seeming approval.
From the first estate tax law in 1916 until May v. Heiner, supra, was decided in 1930, trust transfers which were designed to distribute the corpus at the settlor’s death and which reserved a life income to the settlor had always been treated by the Treasury Department as transfers “intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at... his death.” The regulations had so provided and millions of dollars had been collected from taxpayers on this basis. See e. g., T. D. 2910, 21 Treas. Dec. 771 (1919); and see 74 Cong. Rec. 7078, 7198-7199 (March 3, 1931). This principle of estate tax law was so well settled in 1928, that the United States Court of Appeals decided May v. Heiner in favor of the Government in a one-sentence per curiam opinion. 32 F. 2d 1017. Nevertheless, March 2, 1931, this Court followed May v. Heiner in three cases in per curiam opinions, thus upsetting the century-old historic meaning and the long standing Treasury interpretation of the “possession or enjoyment” clause. Burnet v. Northern Trust Co., 283 U. S. 782; Morsman v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 783; McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 784.
March 3, 1931, the next day after the three per curiam opinions were rendered, Acting Secretary of the Treasury Ogden Mills wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House explaining the holdings in May v. Heiner and the three cases decided the day before. He pointed out the disastrous effects they would have on the estate tax law and urged that Congress “in order to prevent tax evasion,” immediately “correct this situation” brought about by May v. Heiner and the other cases. 74 Cong. Rec. 7198, 7199 (1931). He expressed fear that without such action the Government would suffer “a loss in excess of one-third of the revenue derived from the Federal estate tax, with anticipated refunds of in excess of $25,000,000.” The Secretary's surprise at the decisions and his apprehensions as to their tax evasion consequences were repeated on the floor of the House and Senate. 74 Cong. Rec. supra. Senator Smoot, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said on the floor of the Senate that this judicial interpretation of the statute “came almost like a bombshell, because nobody ever anticipated such a decision.” 74 Cong. Rec. 7078. Both houses of Congress unanimously passed and the President signed the requested resolution that same day.
February 28, 1938, this Court held that neither passage of the resolution nor its later inclusion in the 1932 Revenue Act was intended to apply to trusts created before its passage. Hassett v. Welch, Helvering v. Marshall, 303 U. S. 303. Accordingly, if the corpus of the Church trust executed in 1924 is to be included in the settlor’s estate without this Court’s involvement in the intricacies of state property law, it must be done by virtue of the possession and enjoyment section as it stood without the language added by the joint resolution.
Crucial to the Court’s holding in May v. Heiner was its finding that no interest in the corpus passed at the settlor’s death because legal title had passed from the settlor irrevocably when the trust was executed; for this reason the grantor’s reservation of the trust income for his life— one of the chief bundle-of-ownership interests — -was held not to bring the transfer within the category of transfers “intended to take effect in... enjoyment at... his death.” This Court had never before so limited the possession or enjoyment section. Thus was formal legal title rather than the substance of a transaction made the sole test of taxability under §811 (c). For from the viewpoint of the grantor the significant effect of this transaction was his continued enjoyment and retention of the income until his death; the important consequence to the remaindermen was the postponement of their right to this enjoyment of the income until the grantor’s death.
The effect of the Court’s interpretation of this estate tax section was to permit a person to relieve his estate from the tax by conveying its legal title to trustees whom he selected, with an agreement that they manage the estate during his life, pay to him all income and profits from the property during his life, and deliver it to his chosen beneficiaries at death. Preparation of papers to defeat an estate tax thus became an easy chore for one skilled in the “various niceties of the art of conveyancing.” Klein v. United States, 283 U. S. 231, 234. And by this simple method one could, despite the “possession or enjoyment” clause, retain and enjoy all the fruits of his property during life and direct its distribution at death, free from taxes that others less skilled in tax technique would have to pay. Regardless of these facts May v. Heiner held that such an instrument preserving the beneficial use of one’s property during life and providing for its distribution and delivery at death was “not testamentary in character.” May v. Heiner, supra at 243. Cf. Keeney v. New York, supra at 535, 536.
One year after May v. Heiner, this Court decided Klein v. United States, supra. There the grantor made a deed conveying property to his wife for her life with provisions that if she survived him she should “by virtue of this conveyance take, have, and hold the said lands in fee simple,” but the fee was to “remain vested in” him should his wife die first. This Court pointed out that in general and under the law of Illinois where the deed was made, vesting of title in the grantee “depended upon the condition precedent that the death of the grantor happen before that of the grantee.” Thus, since it was found that under Illinois law -legal title to the land had been retained by the husband, it was held that the value of the land should be included in his gross estate under the “possession or enjoyment” section. The Court did not cite May v. Heiner.
In 1935, this Court decided Helvering v. St. Louis Trust Co., 296 U. S. 39, and Becker v. St. Louis Trust Co., 296 U. S. 48. In each of these cases the Court again, as in May v. Heiner, delved into the question of legal title under rather subtle property law concepts and decided that the legal title of the trust properties there, unlike the situation in the Klein transfer, had passed irrevocably from the grantor. This passage of bare legal title was held to be enough to render the possession or enjoyment section inapplicable. These cases were expressly overruled by Helvering v. Hallock.
Helvering v. Hallock was decided in 1940. Three separate trusts were considered in the Hallock case. These three trusts as those considered in the St. Louis Trust and Becker cases, had been executed with provisions for reversion of the trust properties to the grantors should the grantors outlive the beneficiaries. The trusts had been executed in 1917, 1919, and 1925. In the Hallock case this Court was again asked to limit the effect of § 811 (c) by emphasis upon the formal passage of legal title. By such concentration on elusive legal title, the Court was invited to lose sight of the plain fact that complete enjoyment had been postponed. We declined to limit the effectiveness of the possession or enjoyment provision of § 811 (c) by attempting to define the nature of the interest which the decedent retained after his inter vivos transfer. We called attention to the snares which inevitably await an attempt to restrict estate tax liability on the “niceties of the art of conveyancing” at p. 117. We declared that the statute now under consideration “taxes not merely those interests which are deemed to pass at death according to refined technicalities of the law of property. It also taxes inter vivos transfers that are too much akin to testamentary dispositions not to be subjected to the same excise,” p. 112, and inter vivos gifts “resorted to, as a substitute for a will, in making dispositions of property operative at death,” p. 114.
As pointed out by the dissent in Hallock, we there directly and unequivocally rejected the only support that could possibly suffice for the holdings in May v. Heiner. That support was the Court’s conclusion in May v. Heiner that retention of possession or enjoyment of his property was not enough to require inclusion of its value in the gross estate if a trust grantor had succeeded in passing bare legal title out of himself before death. In Hallock we emphasized our removal of that support by declaring that § 811 (c) “deals with property not technically passing at death but with interests theretofore created. The taxable event is a transfer inter vivos. But the measure of the tax is the value of the transferred property at the time when death brings it into enjoyment,” pp. 110-111.
Moreover, the Hallock case, p. 114, stands plainly for the principle that “In determining whether a taxable transfer becomes complete only at death we look to substance, not to form... However we label the device [if] it is but a means by which the gift is rendered incomplete until the donor’s death” the “possession or enjoyment” provision applies.
How is it possible to call this trust transfer “complete” except by invoking a fiction? Church was sole owner of the stocks before the transfer. Probably their greatest property value to Church was his continuing right to get their income. After legal title to the stocks was transferred, somebody still owned a property right in the stock income. That property right did not pass to the trust beneficiaries when the trust was executed; it remained in Church until he died. He made no “complete” gift effective before that date, unless we view the trust transfer as a “complete” gift to the trustees. But Church gave the trustees nothing, either partially or completely. He transferred no right to them to get and spend the stock income. And under the teaching of the Hallock case, quite in contrast to that of May v. Heiner, passage of the mere technical legal title to a trustee is not necessarily crucial in determining whether and when a gift becomes “complete” for estate tax purposes. Looking to substance and not merely to form, as we must unless we depart from the teaching of Hallock, the inescapable fact is that Church retained for himself until death a most valuable property right in these stocks — the right to get and to spend their income. Thus Church did far more than attach a “string” to a remotely possible reversionary interest in the property, a sufficient reservation under the Hallock rule to make the value of the corpus subject to an estate tax. Church did not even risk attaching an unbreakable cable to the most valuable property attribute of the stocks, their income. He simply retained this valuable property, the right to the income, for himself until death, when for the first time the stock with all its property attributes “passed” from Church to the trust beneficiaries. Even if the interest of Church was merely “obliterated,” in May v. Heiner language, it is beyond all doubt that simultaneously with his death, Church no longer owned the right to the income; the beneficiaries did. It had then “passed.” It never had before. For the first time, the gift had become “complete.”
Thus, what we said in Hallock was not only a repudiation of the reasoning which was advanced to support the two cases (St. Louis Trust and Becker) that Hallock overruled, but also a complete rejection of the rationale of May v. Heiner on which the two former cases had relied. Hallock thereby returned to the interpretation of the “possession or enjoyment” section under which an estate tax cannot be avoided by any trust transfer except by a bona fide transfer in which the settlor, absolutely, unequivocally, irrevocably, and without possible reservations, parts with all of his title and all of his possession and all of his enjoyment of the transferred property. After such a transfer has been made, the settlor must be left with no present legal title in the property, no possible reversionary interest in that title, and no right to possess or to enjoy the property then or thereafter. In other words such a transfer must be immediate and out and out, and must be unaffected by whether the grantor lives or dies. See Shukert v. Allen, 273 U. S. 545, 547; Smith v. Shaughnessy, 318 U. S. 176. We declared this to be the effect of the Hallock case in Goldstone v. United States, 325 U. S. 687, 690, 691. There we said with reference to § 811 (c) in connection with our Hallock ruling:.. It thus sweeps into the gross estate all property the ultimate possession or enjoyment of which is held in suspense until the moment of the decedent’s death or thereafter.... Testamentary dispositions of an inter vivos nature cannot escape the force of this section by hiding behind legal niceties contained in devices and forms created by conveyancers.” And see Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Rothensies, supra, and Commissioner v. Estate of Field, 324 U. S. 113.
It is strongly urged that we continue to regard May v. Heiner as controlling and leave its final repudiation to Congress. Little effort is made to defend the May v. Heiner interpretation of “possession or enjoyment” on the ground that it truly reflects the congressional purpose, nor do we think it possible to attribute such a purpose to Congress. There is no persuasive argument, if any at all, that trusts reserving life estates with remainders over at grantors’ deaths are not satisfactory and effective substitutes for wills. In fact, the purpose of this settlor as expressed in his trust papers was to make “provision for any lawful issue” he might “leave at the time of his death as well as provide an income for himself for life.” This paper, labeled a trust, but providing for all the substantial purposes of a will, was intended to and did postpone until the settlor’s death the right of his relatives to possess and enjoy his property. There may be trust instruments that fall more clearly within the class intended to be treated as substitutes for wills by the “possession or enjoyment” clause, but we doubt it.
The argument for continuing the error of May v. Heiner is not on the merits but is advanced in the alleged interest of tax stability and certainty, stare decisis and a due deference to the just expectations of those who have relied on the May v. Heiner doctrine. Special stress is laid on Treasury regulations which since the Hassett v. Welch holding in 1938 have accepted the May v. Heiner doctrine and have not provided that the value of a trust corpus must be included in the decedent’s gross estate where a grantor had reserved the trust income. It is even argued that Congress in some way ratified the May v. Heiner doctrine when it passed the joint resolution and that if not, the decision in the Hassett and Marshall cases set at rest all questions as to the soundness of the May v. Heiner interpretation. We find no merit in these contentions.
What was said in the Hallock opinion on the question of stare decisis would appear to be a sufficient answer to that contention here. The Hallock opinion also answers the argument as to recent Treasury regulations, all of which were made by the Treasury under compulsion of this Court’s cases. Furthermore, the history of the struggle of the Treasury to subject such transfers as this to the estate tax law, a history shown in part in the Hassett v. Welch opinion, has served to spotlight the abiding conviction of the Treasury that the May v. Heiner statutory interpretation should be rejected. In view of the struggle of the Treasury in this tax field, the variant judicial and Tax Court opinions, our opinion in the Hallock case and others which followed, it is not easy to believe that taxpayers who executed trusts prior to the 1931 joint resolution felt secure in a belief that May v. Heiner gave them a vested interest in protection from estate taxes under trust transfers such as this one. And so far as this trust is concerned, Treasury regulations required the value of its corpus to be included in the gross estate when it was made in 1924, and most of the period from then up to the settlor’s death in 1939.
Moreover, the May v. Heiner doctrine has been repudiated by the Congress and repeatedly challenged by the Treasury. It certainly is not an overstatement to say that this Court’s Hallock opinion and holding treated May v. Heiner with scant respect. We said Congress had “displaced” the May v. Heiner construction of § 811 (c); in overruling the St. Louis Trust cases we pointed out that those cases had relied in part on the “Congressionally discarded May v. Heiner doctrine”; we thought Congress “had in principle already rejected the general attitude underlying” the May v. Heiner and St. Louis Trust cases; and finally our Hallock opinion demolished the only reasoning ever advanced to support the May v. Heiner holding. And in the Hallock case, trusts created in 1917, 1919, and 1925 were held subject to the estate tax under the provisions included in § 811 (c). What we said and did about May v. Heiner in the Hallock case took place in 1940, two years after Hassett v. Welch had held that the 1931 and 1932 amendments could not be applied to trusts created before 1931. Certainly, May v. Heiner cannot be granted the sanctuary of stare decisis on the ground that it has had a long and tranquil history free from troubles and challenges.
Nor does the joint resolution or the opinion in the Hassett v. Welch and Helvering v. Marshall cases, decided together, support an argument that the May v. Heiner doctrine be left undisturbed. It would be impossible to say that Congress in 1931 intended to accept and ratify decisions that hit the Congress like a “bombshell.” And in Hassett v. Welch the Government did not ask this Court to reexamine or overrule May v. Heiner or the three per curiam cases that relied on May v. Heiner. In fact, the government brief argued that May v. Heiner on its facts was distinguishable from Hassett v. Welch. The government brief also pointedly insisted that its position in Hassett v. Welch did “not require a reexamination of the three per curiam decisions of March 2, 1931.” It was the Government’s sole contention in the Hassett and Marshall cases that the 1932 reenactment of the joint resolution was not limited in application to trusts thereafter created, but was intended to make the new 1932 amendment applicable to past trust agreements. That contention was rejected. The holding was limited to that single question.
The plain implications of the Hallock opinion recognize that the Hassett and Marshall cases did not reaffirm the May v. Heiner doctrine. In the Marshall case the trust, created in 1920, contained a provision that should the settlor outlive the trust beneficiary, the trust corpus would revert to the settlor. That is the very type of provision which we held in Hallock would require inclusion of its value in the settlor’s estate. Since the Hallock case did not overrule the Marshall case involving a trust created in 1920, it must have accepted the Marshall and Hassett cases as deciding no more than that the value of the trust properties there could not be included in the decedent’s gross estate where the Government’s sole reliance was on a retroactive application of the 1931 and 1932 amendments to the estate tax law.
That the Hallock opinion did not treat the Hassett and Marshall cases as having reaffirmed this Court’s interpretation of the pre-1931 possession or enjoyment clause is further emphasized by the effect of the Hallock case on the type of trust in McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 784, a trust created before 1931. The United States Court of Appeals in that case had held that the trust property should be included in the decedent’s estate chiefly because of the trust provision that the corpus should revert to the settlor in the event that she outlived her three children. 43 F. 2d 277. This Court in its per curiam opinion reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the McCormick corpus need not be included in the decedent’s estate. Our Hallock case held directly the contrary, for since Hallock, the McCormick corpus would have to be taxed under the pre-1931 language of §811 (c). In so interpreting the pre-1931 language in the Hallock case, we necessarily rejected the contention made there that the Congress by passage of the resolution and this Court by the Hassett and Marshall opinions had accepted as correct the May v. Heiner restrictive interpretation of §811 (c). It is plain that this Court in the Hallock case considered that the Has-sett and Marshall cases held no more than that the 1931 and 1932 amendments were prospective, and that neither the congressional resolution nor the Hassett and Marshall cases were designed to give new life and vigor to the May v. Heiner doctrine.
The reliance of respondent here on the Hassett and Marshall cases is misplaced. We hold that this trust agreement, because it reserved a life income in the trust property, was intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at the settlor’s death and that the Commissioner therefore properly included the value of its corpus in the estate.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Jackson concurs in the result.
The Hallock case considered the “possession or enjoyment” language of § 811 (c) which appeared in § 302 (c) of the 1926 Revenue Act, 44 Stat. 9, 70, as amended by § 803 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, 279, 26 U. S. C. § 811 (c).
Estate of Cass, 3 T. C. 562; Commissioner v. Kellogg, 119 F. 2d 54, affirming 40 B. T. A. 916; Estate of Downe, 2 T. C. 967; Estate of Houghton, 2 T. C. 871; Estate of Goodyear, 2 T. C. 885; Estate of Delany, 1 T. C. 781.
Commissioner v. Bayne’s Estate, 155 F. 2d 475; Commissioner v. Bank of California, 155 F. 2d 1; Thomas v. Graham, 158 F. 2d 561; Beach v. Busey, 156 F. 2d 496.
Cf. Estate of Hughes, 44 B. T. A. 1196, with Estate of Bradley, 1 T. C. 518, affirmed sub nom. Helvering v. Washington Trust Co., 140 F. 2d 87. See New York Trust Co. v. United States, 100 Ct. Cl. 311, 51 F. Supp. 733. Cf. Montgomery, Federal Taxes — Estates, Trusts and Gifts, 461-462, 480-482 (1946) with Paul, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, 1946 Supp. §§ 7.15, 7.23. See also Note, Inter Vivos Transfers and the Federal Estate Tax, 49 Yale L. J. 1118 (1940); Eisenstein, Estate Taxes and the Higher Learning of the Supreme Court, 3 Tax L. Rev. 395 (1948).
Note, Origin of the Phrase, “Intended To Take Effect in Possession or Enjoyment At or After... Death” (§811 (e), Internal Revenue Code), 56 Yale L. J. 176 (1946).
See cases collected in 49 A. L. R. 878-892; 67 A. L. R. 1250-1254; 100 A. L. R. 1246-1254. See also Rottschaefer, Taxation of Transfers Taking Effect in Possession at Grantor’s Death, 26 Iowa L. Rev. 514 (1941); Oliver, Property Rationalism and Tax Pragmatism, 20 Tex. L. Rev. 675, 704-709 (1942).
“(c) To the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer, by trust or otherwise, in contemplation of or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death, including a transfer under which the transferor has retained for his life or any period not ending before his death (1) the possession or enjoyment of, or the income from, the property or (2) the right to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom... The italics are added to indicate the additions made by the amendments to § 302 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1926. Joint Resolution of March 3, 1931, 46 Stat. 1516-1517.
The May v. Heiner trust provided for the income to go to Barney-May during his lifetime, after his death to his wife, Pauline May, the grantor, and upon her death the corpus was to be distributed to the grantor’s four children. The Court said that the record failed clearly to disclose whether Mrs. May survived her husband, but held this was of no special importance.
The Court also quoted from and relied heavily on Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 345. This Court there held that the corpus of two trusts that reserved a life income to the grantor plus a power to revoke should have been included in the decedent’s estate. The corpus of five other trusts were held not includable. These five trusts did not reserve a power in the grantor alone to revoke, nor did they reserve a life estate to the grantor, but they provided for accumulation of that income during the settlor’s life, and at his death it was to go to the beneficiaries, subject to prior use by the beneficiaries as directed by the settlor. Thus, this case did not directly support the May v. Heiner holding. Nor is May 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:
|
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases implicate one of our Nation’s newest problems of public policy and perhaps our oldest question of constitutional law. The public policy issue involves the disposal of radioactive waste: In these cases, we address the constitutionality of three provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99-240, 99 Stat. 1842, 42 U. S. C. § 2021b et seq. The constitutional question is as old as the Constitution: It consists of discerning the proper division of authority between the Federal Government and the States. We conclude that while Congress has substantial power under the Constitution to encourage the States to provide for the disposal of the radioactive waste generated within their borders, the Constitution ■does not confer upon Congress the ability simply to compel the States to do so. We therefore find that only two of the Act’s three provisions at issue are consistent with the Constitution’s allocation of power to the Federal Government.
HH
We live m a world full of low level radioactive waste. Radioactive material is present in luminous watch dials, smoke alarms, measurement devices, medical fluids, research materials, and the protective gear and construction materials used by workers at nuclear power plants. Low level radioactive waste is generated by the Government, by hospitals, by research institutions, and by various industries. The waste must be isolated from humans for long periods of time, often for hundreds of years. Millions of cubic feet of low level radioactive waste must be disposed of each year. See App. 110a-llla; Berkovitz, Waste Wars: Did Congress “Nuke” State Sovereignty in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985?, 11 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 487, 439-440 (1987).
Our Nation’s first site for the land disposal of commercial low level radioactive waste opened in 1962 in Beatty, Nevada. Five more sites opened in the following decade: Maxey Flats, Kentucky (1963), West Valley, New York (1963), Hanford, Washington (1965), Sheffield, Illinois (1967), and Barnwell, South Carolina (1971). Between 1975 and 1978, the Illinois site closed because it was full, and water management problems caused the closure of the sites in Kentucky and New York. As a result, since 1979 only three disposal sites— those in Nevada, Washington, and South Carolina — have been in operation. Waste generated in the rest of the country must be shipped to one of these three sites for disposal. See Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulation 39-40 (M. Burns ed. 1988).
In 1979, both the Washington and Nevada sites were forced to shut down temporarily, leaving South Carolina to shoulder the responsibility of storing low level radioactive waste produced in every part of the country. The Governor of South Carolina, understandably perturbed, ordered a 50% reduction in the quantity of waste accepted at the Barnwell site. The Governors of Washington and Nevada announced plans to shut their sites permanently. App. 142a, 152a.
Faced with the possibility that the Nation would be left with no disposal sites for low level radioactive waste, Congress responded by enacting the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, Pub. L. 96-573, 94 Stat. 3347. Relying largely on a report submitted by the National Governors’ Association, see App. 105a-141a, Congress declared a federal policy of holding each State “responsible for providing for the availability of capacity either within or outside the State for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders,” and found that such waste could be disposed of "most safely and efficiently... on a regional basis.” § 4(a)(1), 94 Stat. 3348. The 1980 Act authorized States to enter into regional compacts that, once ratified by Congress, would have the authority beginning in 1986 to restrict the use of their disposal facilities to waste generated within member States. § 4(a)(2)(B), 94 Stat. 3348. The 1980 Act included no penalties for States that failed to participate in this plan.
By 1985, only three approved regional compacts had operational disposal facilities; not surprisingly, these were the compacts formed around South Carolina, Nevada, and Washington, the three sited States. The following year, the 1980 Act would have given these three compacts the ability to exclude waste from nonmembers, and the remaining 31 States would have had no assured outlet for their low level radioactive waste. With this prospect looming, Congress once again took up the issue of waste disposal. The result was the legislation challenged here, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
The 1985 Act was again based largely on a proposal submitted by the National Governors’ Association. In broad outline, the Act embodies a compromise among the sited and unsited States. The sited States agreed to extend for seven years the period in which they would accept low level radioactive waste from other States. In exchange, the unsited States agreed to end their reliance on the sited States by 1992.
The mechanics of this compromise are intricate. The Act directs: “Each State shall be responsible for providing, either by itself or in cooperation with other States, for the disposal of... low-level radioactive waste generated within the State,” 42 U. S. C. § 2021e(a)(l)(A), with the exception of certain waste generated by the Federal Government, §§2021e(a)(l)(B), 2021c(b). The Act authorizes States to “enter into such [interstate] compacts as may be necessary to provide for the establishment and operation of regional disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste.” §2021d(a)(2). For an additional seven years beyond the period contemplated by the 1980 Act, from the beginning of 1986 through the end of 1992, the three existing disposal sites “shall make disposal capacity available for low-level radioactive waste generated by any source,” with certain exceptions not relevant here. § 2021e(a)(2). But the three States in which the disposal sites are located are permitted to exact a graduated surcharge for waste arriving from outside the regional compact — in 1986-1987, $10 per cubic foot; in 1988-1989, $20 per cubic foot; and in 1990-1992, $40 per cubic foot. § 2021e(d)(l). After the 7-year transition period expires, approved regional compacts may exclude radioactive waste generated outside the region. §2021d(e).
The Act provides three types of incentives to encourage the States to comply with their statutory obligation to provide for the disposal of waste generated within their borders.
1. Monetary incentives. One quarter of the surcharges collected by the sited States must be transferred to an escrow account held by the Secretary of Energy. §2021e (d)(2)(A). The Secretary then makes payments from this account to each State that has complied with a series of deadlines. By July 1,1986, each State was to have ratified legislation either joining a regional compact or indicating an intent to develop a disposal facility within the State. §§ 2021e (e)(1)(A), 2021e(d)(2)(B)(i). By January 1,1988, each unsited compact was to have identified the State in which its facility would be located, and each compact or stand-alone State was to have developed a siting plan and taken other identified steps. §§2021e(e)(l)(B), 2021e(d)(2)(B)(ii). By January 1, 1990, each State or compact was to have filed a complete application for a license to operate a disposal facility, or the Governor of any State that had not filed an application was to have certified that the State would be capable of disposing of all waste generated in the State after 1992. §§2021e (e)(1)(C), 2021e(d)(2)(B)(iii). The rest of the account is to be paid out to those States or compacts able to dispose of all low level radioactive waste generated within their borders by January 1, 1993. §2021e(d)(2)(B)(iv). Each State that has not met the 1993 deadline must either take title to the waste generated within its borders or forfeit to the waste generators the incentive payments it has received. §2021e(d)(2)(C).
2. Access incentives. The second type of incentive involves the denial of access to disposal sites. States that fail to meet the July 1986 deadline may be charged twice the ordinary surcharge for the remainder of 1986 and may be denied access to disposal facilities thereafter. §2021e(e)(2) (A). States that fail to meet the 1988 deadline may be charged double surcharges for the first half of 1988 and quadruple surcharges for the second half of 1988, and may be denied access thereafter. § 2021e(e)(2)(B). States that fail to meet the 1990 deadline may be denied access. §2021e (e)(2)(C). Finally, States that have not filed complete applications by January 1, 1992, for a license to operate a disposal facility, or States belonging to compacts that have not filed such applications, may be charged triple surcharges. §§ 2021e(e)(l)(D), 2021e(e)(2)(D).
3. The take title provision. The third type of incentive is the most severe. The Act provides:
“If a State (or, where applicable, a compact region) in which low-level radioactive waste is generated is unable to provide for the disposal of all such waste generated within such State or compact region by January 1,1996, each State in which such waste is generated, upon the request of the generator or owner of the waste, shall take title to the waste, be obligated to take possession of the waste, and shall be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by such generator or owner as a consequence of the failure of the State to take possession of the waste as soon after January 1,1996, as the generator or owner notifies the State that the waste is available for shipment.” §2021e(d)(2)(C).
These three incentives are the focus of petitioners’ constitutional challenge.
In the seven years since the Act took effect, Congress has approved nine regional compacts, encompassing 42 of the States. All six unsited compacts and four of the unaffiliated States have met the first three statutory milestones. Brief for United States 10, n. 19; id., at 13, n. 26.
New York, a State whose residents generate a relatively large share of the Nation’s low level radioactive waste, did not join a regional compact. Instead, the State complied with the Act’s requirements by enacting legislation providing for the siting and financing of a disposal facility in New York. The State has identified five potential sites, three in Allegany County and two in Cortland County. Residents of the two counties oppose the State’s choice of location. App. 29a-30a, 66a~68a.
Petitioners — the State of New York and the two counties — filed this suit against the United States in 1990. They sought a declaratory judgment that the Act is inconsistent with the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the Constitution, with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and with the Guarantee Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The States of Washington, Nevada, and South Carolina intervened as defendants. The District Court dismissed the complaint. 757 F. Supp. 10 (NDNY 1990). The Court of Appeals affirmed. 942 F. 2d 114 (CA21991). Petitioners have abandoned their due process and Eleventh Amendment claims on their way up the appellate ladder; as the cases stand before us, petitioners claim only that the Act is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment and the Guarantee Clause.
II
A
In 1788, in the course of explaining to the citizens of New York why the recently drafted Constitution provided for federal courts, Alexander Hamilton observed: “The erection of a new government, whatever care or wisdom may distinguish the work, cannot fail to originate questions of intricacy and nicety; and these may, in a particular manner, be expected to flow from the the establishment of a constitution founded upon the total or partial incorporation of a number of distinct sovereignties.” The Federalist No. 82, p. 491 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Hamilton’s prediction has proved quite accurate. While no one disputes the proposition that “[t)he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers,” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991); and while the Tenth Amendment makes explicit that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; the task of ascertaining the constitutional line between federal and state power has given rise to many of the Court’s most difficult and celebrated cases. At least as far back as Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324 (1816), the Court has resolved questions “of great importance and delicacy” in determining whether particular sovereign powers have been granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government or have been retained by the States.
These questions can be viewed in either of two ways. In some cases the Court has inquired whether an Act of Congress is authorized by one of the powers delegated to Congress in Article I of the Constitution. See, e. g., Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). In other cases the Court has sought to determine whether an Act of Congress invades the province of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment. See, e. g., Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Au thority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985); Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71 (1869). In a case like these, involving the division of authority between federal and state governments, the two inquiries are mirror images of each other. If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States; if a power is an attribute of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress. See United States v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 643, 649 (1961); Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92, 102 (1946); Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508, 534 (1941).
It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment “states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.” United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 124 (1941). As Justice Story put it, “[t]his amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities.” 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 752 (1833). This has been the Court’s consistent understanding: “The States unquestionably do retai[n] a significant measure of sovereign authority... to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred those powers to the Federal Government.” Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, supra, at 549 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Congress exercises its conferred powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution. Thus, for example, under the Commerce Clause Congress may regulate publishers engaged in interstate commerce, but Congress is constrained in the exercise of that power by the First Amendment. The Tenth Amendment likewise restrains the power of Congress, but this limit is not derived from the text of the Tenth Amendment itself, which, as we have discussed, is essentially a tautology. Instead, the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States. The Tenth Amendment thus directs us to determine, as in this case, whether an incident of state sovereignty is protected by a limitation on an Article I power.
The benefits of this federal structure have been extensively cataloged elsewhere, see, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, supra, at 457-460; Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 3-10 (1988); McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders’ Design, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1484,1491-1511 (1987), but they need not concern us here. Our task would be the same even if one could prove that federalism secured no advantages to anyone. It consists not of devising our preferred system of government, but of understanding and applying the framework set forth in the Constitution. “The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people.” United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 63 (1936).
This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role. Among the provisions of the Constitution that have been particularly important in this regard, three concern us here.
First, the Constitution allocates to Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce... among the several States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Interstate commerce was an established feature of life in the late 18th century. See, e. g., The Federalist No. 42, p. 267 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (“The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members [has] been clearly pointed out by experience”). The volume of interstate commerce and the range of commonly accepted objects of government regulation have, however, expanded considerably in the last 200 years, and the regulatory authority of Congress has expanded along with them. As interstate commerce has become ubiquitous, activities once considered purely local have come to have effects on the national economy, and have accordingly come within the scope of Congress’ commerce power. See, e. g., Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942).
Second, the Constitution authorizes Congress “to pay the Debts and provide for the... general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. As conventional notions of the proper objects of government spending have changed over the years, so has the ability of Congress to “fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981). Compare, e. g., United States v. Butler, supra, at 72-75 (spending power does not authorize Congress to subsidize farmers), with South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203 (1987) (spending power permits Congress to condition highway funds on States’ adoption of minimum drinking age). While the spending power is “subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases,” id., at 207, these restrictions have not been so severe as to prevent the regulatory authority of Congress from generally keeping up with the growth of the federal budget.
The Court’s broad construction of Congress’ power under the Commerce and Spending Clauses has of course been guided, as it has with respect to Congress’ power generally, by the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes Congress “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. See, e. g., Legal Tender Case, 110 U. S. 421, 449-450 (1884); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at 411-421.
Finally, the Constitution provides that “the Laws of the United States... 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. As the Federal Government’s willingness to exercise power within the confines of the Constitution has grown, the authority of the States has correspondingly diminished to the extent that federal and state policies have conflicted. See, e. g., Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85 (1983). We have observed that the Supremacy Clause gives the Federal Government “a decided advantage in th[e] delicate balance” the Constitution strikes between state and federal power. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S., at 460.
The actual scope of the Federal Government’s authority with respect to the States has changed over the years, therefore, but the constitutional structure underlying and limiting that authority has not. In the end, just as a cup may be half empty or half full, it makes no difference whether one views the question at issue in these cases as one of ascertaining the limits of the power delegated to the Federal Government under the affirmative provisions of the Constitution or one of discerning the core of sovereignty retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment. Either way, we must determine whether any of the three challenged provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 oversteps the boundary between federal and state authority.
B
Petitioners do not contend that Congress lacks the power to regulate the disposal of low level radioactive waste. Space in radioactive waste disposal sites is frequently sold by residents of one State to residents of another. Regulation of the resulting interstate market in waste disposal is therefore well within Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. Cf. Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 621-623 (1978); Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 504 U. S. 353, 359 (1992). Petitioners likewise do not dispute that under the Supremacy Clause Congress could, if it wished, pre-empt state radioactive waste regulation. Petitioners contend only that the Tenth Amendment limits the power of Congress to regulate in the way it has chosen. Rather than addressing the problem of waste disposal by directly regulating the generators and disposers of waste, petitioners argue, Congress has impermissibly directed the States to regulate in this field.
Most of our recent cases interpreting the Tenth Amendment have concerned the authority of Congress to subject state governments to generally applicable laws. The Court’s jurisprudence in this area has traveled an unsteady path. See Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183 (1968) (state schools and hospitals are subject to Pair Labor Standards Act); National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 (1976) (overruling Wirtz) (state employers are not subject to Fair Labor Standards Act); Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985) (overruling National League of Cities) (state employers are once again subject to Fair Labor Standards Act). See also New York v. United States, 326 U. S. 572 (1946); Fry v. United States, 421 U. S. 542 (1975); Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co., 455 U.S. 678 (1982); EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983); South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988); Gregory v. Ashcroft, supra. This litigation presents no occasion to apply or revisit the holdings of any of these cases, as this is not a case in which Congress has subjected a State to the same legislation applicable to private parties. Cf. FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 758-759 (1982).
This litigation instead concerns the circumstances under which Congress may use the States as implements of regulation; that is, whether Congress may direct or otherwise motivate the States to regulate in a particular field or a particular way. Our eases have established a few principles that guide our resolution of the issue.
1
As an initial matter, Congress may not simply “comman-dee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.” Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 288 (1981). In Hodel, the Court upheld the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 precisely because it did not “commandeer” the States into regulating mining. The Court found that “the States are not compelled to enforce the steep-slope standards, to expend any state funds, or to participate in the federal regulatory program in any manner whatsoever. If a State does not wish to submit a proposed permanent program that complies with the Act and implementing regulations, the full regulatory burden will be borne by the Federal Government.” Ibid.
The Court reached the same conclusion the following year in FERC v. Mississippi, supra. At issue in FERC was the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, a federal statute encouraging the States in various ways to develop programs to combat the Nation’s energy crisis. We observed that “this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations.” Id., at 761-762. As in Hodel, the Court upheld the statute at issue because it did not view the statute as such a command. The Court emphasized: “Titles I and III of [the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)] require only consideration of federal standards. And if a State has no utilities commission, or simply stops regulating in the field, it need not even entertain the federal proposals.” 456 U. S., at 764 (emphasis in original). Because “[tjhere [wa]s nothing in PURPA ‘directly compelling’ the States to enact a legislative program,” the statute was not inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between the Federal Government and the States. Id., at 765 (quoting Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., supra, at 288). See also South Carolina v. Baker, supra, at 513 (noting “the possibility that the Tenth Amendment might set some limits on Congress’ power to compel States to regulate on' behalf of federal interests”); Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, supra, at 556 (same).
These statements in FERC and Hodel were not innovations. While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 565 (1911). The Court has been explicit about this distinction. “Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States.” Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall., at 76 (emphasis added). The Court has made the same point with more rhetorical flourish, although perhaps with less precision, on a number of occasions. In Chief Justice Chase’s much-quoted words, “the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869). See also Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 523 (1926) (“[NJeither government may destroy the other nor curtail in any substantial manner the exercise of its powers”); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990) (“[UJnder our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government”); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S., at 461 (“[TJhe States retain substantial sovereign powers under our constitutional scheme, powers with which Congress does not readily interfere”).
Indeed, the question whether the Constitution should permit Congress to employ state governments as regulatory agencies was a topic of lively debate among the Framers. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority in most respects to govern the people directly. In practice, Congress “could not directly tax or legislate upon individuals; it had no explicit ‘legislative’ or ‘governmental’ power to make binding ‘law’ enforceable as such.” Amar, Of Sovereignty and Federalism, 96 Yale L. J. 1425,1447 (1987).
The inadequacy of this governmental structure was responsible in part for the Constitutional Convention. Alexander Hamilton observed: “The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or collective capacities, and as contradistin-guished from the individuals of whom they consist.” The Federalist No. 15, p. 108 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). As Hamilton saw it, “we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and a government; we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens — the only proper objects of government.” Id., at 109. The new National Government “must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations.... The government of the Union, like that of each State, must be able to address itself immediately to the hopes and fears of individuals.” Id., No. 16, at 116.
The Convention generated a great number of proposals for the structure of the new Government, but two quickly took center stage. Under the Virginia Plan, as first introduced by Edmund Randolph, Congress would exercise legislative authority directly upon individuals, without employing the States as intermediaries. 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 21 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Under the New Jersey Plan, as first introduced by William Paterson, Congress would continue to require the approval of the States before legislating, as it had under the Articles of Confederation. 1 id., at 243-244. These two plans underwent various revisions as the Convention progressed, but they remained the two primary options discussed by the delegates. One frequently expressed objection to the New Jersey Plan was that it might require the Federal Government to coerce the States into implementing legislation. As Randolph explained the distinction, “[t]he true question is whether we shall adhere to the federal plan [i. e., the New Jersey Plan], or introduce the national plan. The insufficiency of the former has been fully displayed.... There are but two modes, by which the end of a Gen[eral] Government] can be attained: the 1st is by coercion as proposed by Mr. Pfaterson’s] plan[, the 2nd] by real legislation as proposed] by the other plan. Coercion [is] impracticable, expensive, cruel to individuals.... We must resort therefore to a national Legislation over individuals.” 1 id., at 255-256 (emphasis in original). Madison echoed this view: “The practicability of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies, had been exploded on all hands.” 2 id., at 9.
Under one preliminary draft of what would become the New Jersey Plan, state governments would occupy a position relative to Congress similar to that contemplated by the Act at issue in these cases: “[T]he laws of the United States ought, as far as may be consistent with the common interests of the Union, to be carried into execution by the judiciary and executive officers of the respective states, wherein the exe-eution thereof is required.” 3 id., at 616. This idea apparently never even progressed so far as to be debated by the delegates, as contemporary accounts of the Convention do not mention any such discussion. The delegates’ many descriptions of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans speak only in general terms about whether Congress was to derive its authority from the people or from the States, and whether it was to issue directives to individuals or to States. See 1 id., at 260-280.
In the end, the Convention opted for a Constitution in which Congress would exercise its legislative authority directly over individuals rather than over States; for a variety of reasons, it rejected the New Jersey Plan in favor of the Virginia Plan. 1 id., at 313. This choice was made clear to the subsequent state ratifying conventions. Oliver Ells-worth, a member of the Connecticut delegation in Philadelphia, explained the distinction to his State’s convention: “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity.... But this legal coercion singles out the... individual.” 2 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 197 (2d ed. 1863). Charles Pinck-ney, another delegate at the Constitutional Convention, emphasized to the South Carolina House of Representatives that in Philadelphia “the necessity of having a government which should at once operate upon the people, and not upon the states, was conceived to be indispensable by every delegation present.” 4 id., at 256. Rufus King, one of Massachusetts’ delegates, returned hom¿ to support ratification by recalling the Commonwealth’s unhappy experience under the Articles of Confederation and arguing: “Laws, to be effective, therefore, must not be laid on states, but upon individuals.” 2 id., at 56. At New York’s convention, Hamilton (another delegate in Philadelphia) exclaimed: “But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to-be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible. Then we are brought to this dilemma — either a federal standing army is to enforce the requisitions, or the federal treasury is left without supplies, and the government without support. What, sir, is the cure for this great evil? Nothing, but to enable the national laws to operate on individuals, in the same manner as those of the states do.” 2 id., at 233. At North Carolina's convention, Samuel Spencer recognized that “all the laws of the Confederation were binding on the states in their political capacities,... but now the thing is entirely different. The laws of Congress will be binding on individuals.” 4 id., at 153.
In providing for a stronger central government, therefore, the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action in the light of the matter called to this Court’s attention on page 7 of the Solicitor General’s brief in No. 235, Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States et al., ante, p. 49.
[For dissent of Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan, see ante, p. 50.]
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Respondent Jerry Nachtigal was charged with operating a motor vehicle in Yosemite National Park while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of 36 CFR §§ 4.23(a)(1) and (a)(2) (1992). Driving under the influence (DUI) is a class B misdemeanor and carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, § 1.3(a); 18 U. S. C. § 3581(b)(7), and a $5,000 fine, §§ 3571(b)(6) and (e). As an alternative to a term of imprisonment, the sentencing court may impose a term of probation not to exceed five years. §§ 3561(a)(3), (b)(2). The sentencing court has discretion to attach a host of discretionary conditions to the probationary term. § 3563(b).
Respondent moved for a jury trial. Applying our decision in Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U. S. 538 (1989), the Magistrate Judge denied the motion. He reasoned that because DUI carries a maximum term of imprisonment of six months, it is presumptively a “petty” offense which is not embraced by the jury trial guaranty of the Sixth Amendment. He rejected respondent’s contention that the additional penalties transformed DUI into a “serious” offense for Sixth Amendment purposes. Respondent was then tried by the Magistrate Judge and convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of 36 CFR § 4.23(a)(1) (1992). He was fined $750 and placed on unsupervised probation for one year.
The District Court reversed the Magistrate Judge on the issue of entitlement to a jury trial, commenting that the language in our opinion in Blanton was “at variance with the Ninth Circuit precedent of United States v. Craner, [652 F. 2d 23 (1981)],” and electing to follow Craner because our opinion in Blanton did not “expressly overrule” Craner.: App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a, 20a.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court, holding that Blanton is “[inapposite,” that Craner controls, and that -respondent is entitled to a jury trial. App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a-4a, judgt. order reported at 953 F. 2d 1389 (1992). The Court of Appeals reasoned that since the Secretary of the Interior, and not Congress, set the maximum prison term at six months, “[t]here is no controlling legislative determination” regarding the seriousness of the offense. App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a; see also United States v. Craner, 652 F. 2d 23, 25 (CA9 1981). The court also found it significant that the Secretary of the Interior, in whom Congress vested general regulatory authority to fix six months as the maximum sentence for any regulatory offense dealing with the use and management of the national parks, monuments, or reservations, see 16 U. S. C. §3, chose the harshest penalty available for DUI offenses. App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a-4a; see also Craner, supra, at 25. Finally, the court noted that seven of the nine States within the Ninth Circuit guarantee a jury trial for a DUI offense. App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a-4a; see also Craner, supra, at 27.
Unlike the Court of Appeals and the District Court, we think that this case is quite obviously controlled by our decision in Blanton. We therefore grant the United States’ petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis is granted.
In Blanton, we held that in order to determine whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial attaches to a particular offense, the court must examine “objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense.” Blanton, 489 U. S., at 541 (internal quotation marks omitted). The best indicator of society’s views is the maximum penalty set by the legislature. Ibid. While the word “penalty” refers both to the term of imprisonment and other statutory penalties, we stated that “[pjrimary emphasis ... must be placed on the maximum authorized period of incarceration.” Id., at 542. We therefore held that offenses for which the maximum period of incarceration is six months or .less are presumptively “‘petty.’” A defendant can overcome this presumption, and become entitled to a jury trial, only by showing that the additional penalties, viewed together with the maximum prison term, are so severe that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a “ ‘serious’” one. Id., at 543. Finally, we expressly stated that the statutory penalties in other States are irrelevant to the question whether a particular legislature deemed a particular offense “‘serious.’” Id., at 545, n. 11.
Applying the above rule, we held that DUI was a petty offense under Nevada law. Since the maximum prison term was six months, the presumption described above applied. We did not find it constitutionally significant that the defendant would automatically lose his license for up to 90 days, and would be required to attend, at his own expense, an alcohol abuse education course. Id., at 544, and n. 9. Nor did we believe that a $1,000 fine or an alternative sentence of 48 hours’ community service while wearing clothing identifying him as a DUI offender was more onerous than six months in jail. Id., at 544-545.
The present case, we think, requires only a relatively routine application of the rule announced in Blanton. Because the maximum term of imprisonment is six months, DUI under 36 CFR § 4.23(a)(1) (1992) is presumptively a petty offense to which no jury trial right attaches. The Court of Appeals refused to apply the Blanton presumption, reasoning that the Secretary of the Interior, and not Congress, ultimately determined the maximum prison term. But there is a controlling legislative determination present within the regulatory scheme. In 16 U. S. C. § 3, Congress set six months as the maximum penalty the Secretary could impose for a violation of any of his regulations. The Court of Appeals offered no persuasive reason why this congressional determination is stripped of its “legislative” character merely because the Secretary has final authority to decide, within the limits given by Congress, what the maximum prison sentence will be for a violation of a given regulation.
The additional penalties imposed under the regulations are not sufficiently severe to overcome this presumption. As we noted in Blanton, it is a rare case where “a legislature packs an offense it deems ‘serious’ with onerous penalties that nonetheless do not puncture the 6-month incarceration line.” Blanton, 489 U. S., at 543 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the federal DUI offense carries a maximum fine of $5,000, and respondent faced, as an alternative to incarceration, a maximum 5-year term of probation. While the maximum fine in this case is $4,000 greater than the one in Blanton, this monetary penalty “cannot approximate in severity the loss of liberty that a prison term entails.” Id., at 542.
Nor do we believe that the probation alternative renders the DUI offense “serious.” Like a monetary penalty, the liberty infringement caused by a term of probation is far less intrusive than incarceration. Ibid. The discretionary probation conditions do not alter this conclusion; while they obviously entail a greater infringement on liberty than probation without attendant conditions, they do not approximate the severe loss of liberty caused by imprisonment for more than six months.
We hold that the Court of Appeals was wrong in refusing to recognize that this case was controlled by our opinion in Blanton rather than by its previous opinion in Craner. An individual convicted of driving under the influence in violation of 36 CFR § 4.23(a)(1) (1992) is not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. The petition of the United States for certiorari is accordingly granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
There are 21 discretionary conditions which the sentencing court may impose upon a defendant. Under 18 U. S. C. § 3563(b), a court may require, among other things, that the defendant (1) pay restitution; (2) take part in a drug and alcohol dependency program offered by an institution, and if necessary, reside at the institution; (3) remain in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons during nights and weekends for a period not exceeding the term of imprisonment; (4) reside at or participate in a program of a community correctional facility for all or part of the probationary term; or (5) remain at his place of residence during nonworking hours, and, if necessary, this condition may be monitored by telephonic or electronic devices. §§ 3563(b)(3), (b)(10), (b)(11), (b)(12), (b)(20).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In 1995, the city of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio (hereinafter City), submitted to voters a facially neutral referendum petition that called for the repeal of a municipal housing ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether the City violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Fair Housing Act, 82 Stat. 81, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §3601 et seq., by placing the petition on the ballot. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Sixth Circuit erred in ruling that respondents’ suit against the City could proceed to trial.
hH
A
In June 1995, respondents Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to developing affordable housing through the use of low-income tax credits, and others (hereinafter Buckeye or respondents), purchased land zoned for apartments in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. In February 1996, Buckeye submitted a site plan for Pleasant Meadows, a multifamily, low-income housing complex, to the city planning commission. Residents of Cuyahoga Falls immediately expressed opposition to the proposal. See 263 F. 3d 627, 630 (CA6 2001). After respondents agreed to various conditions, including that respondents build an earthen wall surrounded by a fence on one side of the complex, the commission unanimously approved the site plan and submitted it to the city council for final authorization.
As the final approval process unfolded, public opposition to the plan resurfaced and eventually coalesced into a referendum petition drive. See Cuyahoga Falls City Charter, Art. 9, § 2, App. 14 (giving voters “the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance or resolution passed by the Council” within 30 days of the ordinance’s passage). At city council meetings and independent gatherings, some of which the mayor attended to express his personal opposition to the site plan, citizens of Cuyahoga Falls voiced various concerns: that the development would cause crime and drug activity to escalate, that families with children would move in, and that the complex would attract a population similar to the one on Prange Drive, the City’s only African-American neighborhood. See, e. g., 263 F. 3d, at 636-637; App. 98, 139, 191; Tr. 182-185, 270, 316. Nevertheless, because the plan met all municipal zoning requirements, the city council approved the project on April 1, 1996, through City Ordinance No. 48-1996.
On April 29, a group of citizens filed a formal petition with the City requesting that the ordinance be repealed or submitted to a popular vote. Pursuant to the charter, which provides that an ordinance challenged by a petition “shall [not] go into effect until approved by a majority” of voters, the filing stayed the implementation of the site plan. Art. 9, § 2, App. 15. On April 30, respondents sought an injunction against the petition in state court, arguing that the Ohio Constitution does not authorize popular referendums on administrative matters. On May 31, the Court of Common Pleas denied the injunction. Civ. No. 96-05-1701 (Summit County), App. to Pet. for Cert. 255a. A month later, respondents nonetheless requested building permits from the City in order to begin construction. On June 26, the city engineer rejected the request after being advised by the city law director that the permits “could not be issued because the site plan ordinance ‘does not take effect’ due to the petitions.” 263 F. 3d, at 633.
In November 1996, the voters of Cuyahoga Falls passed the referendum, thus repealing Ordinance No. 48-1996. In a joint stipulation, however, the parties agreed that the results of the election would not be certified until the litigation over the referendum was resolved. See Stipulation and Jointly Agreed upon Preliminary Injunction Order in No. 5:96 CV 1458 (ND Ohio, Nov. 25, 1996). In July 1998, the Ohio Supreme Court, having initially concluded that the referendum was proper, reversed itself and declared the referendum unconstitutional. 82 Ohio St. 3d 539, 697 N. E. 2d 181 (holding that the Ohio State Constitution authorizes referendums only in relation to legislative acts, not administrative acts, such as the site-plan ordinance). The City subsequently issued the building permits, and Buckeye commenced construction of Pleasant Meadows.
B
In July 1996, with the state-court litigation still pending, respondents filed suit in federal court against the City and several city officials, seeking an injunction ordering the City to issue the building permits, as well as declaratory and monetary relief. Buckeye alleged that “in allowing a site plan approval ordinance to be submitted to the electors of Cuya-hoga Falls through a referendum and in rejecting [its] application for building permits,” the City and its officials violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3601. Complaint in No. 5:96 CV 1458 ¶ 1 (ND Ohio, July 5, 1996) (hereinafter Complaint). In June 1997, the District Court dismissed the ease against the mayor in his individual capacity but denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on the equal protection and due process claims, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to both claims. 970 F. Supp. 1289, 1308 (ND Ohio 1997). After the Ohio Supreme Court declared the referendum invalid in 1998, thus reducing respondents’ action to a claim for damages for the delay in construction, the City and its officials again moved for summary judgment. On November 19, 1999, the District Court granted the motion on all counts. Civ. No. 5:96 CV 1458, App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. As to respondents’ equal protection claim, the court concluded that they had produced sufficient evidence to go to trial on the allegation that the City, by allowing the referendum petition to stay the implementation of the site plan, gave effect to the racial bias reflected in the public’s opposition to the project. See 263 F. 3d, at 639. The court then held that even if respondents failed to prove intentional discrimination, they stated a valid claim under the Fair Housing Act on the theory that the City’s actions had a disparate impact based on race and family status. See id., at 640. Finally, the court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the City, by denying respondents the benefit of the lawfully approved site plan, engaged in arbitrary and irrational government conduct in violation of substantive due process. Id., at 644. We granted certiorari, 536 U. S. 938 (2002), and now reverse the constitutional holdings and vacate the Fair Housing Act holding.
HH H
Respondents allege that by submitting the petition to the voters and refusing to issue building permits while the petition was pending, the City and its officials violated the Equal Protection Clause. See Complaint ¶ 41. Petitioners claim that the Sixth Circuit went astray by ascribing the motivations of a handful of citizens supportive of the referendum to the City. We agree with petitioners that respondents have failed to present sufficient evidence of an equal protection violation to survive summary judgment.
We have made clear that “[pjroof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required” to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265 (1977) (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976)). In deciding the equal protection question, the Sixth Circuit erred in relying on cases in which we have subjected enacted, discretionary measures to equal protection scrutiny and treated decisionmakers’ statements as evidence of such intent. See 263 F. 3d, at 634-635 (citing Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 448 (1985); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., supra, at 268; and Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385, 392 (1969)). Because respondents claim injury from the referendum petitioning process and not from the referendum itself — which never went into effect — these cases are inapposite. Ultimately, neither of the official acts respondents challenge reflects the intent required to support equal protection liability.
First, in submitting the referendum petition to the voters, the City acted pursuant to the requirements of its charter, which sets out a facially neutral petitioning procedure. See Art. 9, §2. By placing the referendum on the ballot, the City did not enact the referendum and therefore cannot be said to have given effect to voters’ allegedly discriminatory motives for supporting the petition. Similarly, the city engineer, in refusing to issue the building permits while the referendum was still pending, performed a nondiscretionary, ministerial act. He acted in response to the city law director’s instruction that the building permits “could not . . . issue” because the charter prohibited a challenged site-plan ordinance from going into effect until “approved by a majority of those voting thereon,” App. 16. See 263 F. 3d, at 633. Respondents point to no evidence suggesting that these official acts were themselves motivated by racial animus. Respondents do not, for example, offer evidence that the City followed the obligations set forth in its charter because of the referendum’s discriminatory purpose, or that city officials would have selectively refused to follow standard charter procedures in a different case.
Instead, to establish discriminatory intent, respondents and the Sixth Circuit both rely heavily on evidence of allegedly discriminatory voter sentiment. See id., at 635-637. But statements made by private individuals in the course of a citizen-driven petition drive, while sometimes relevant to equal protection analysis, see supra, at 194, do not, in and of themselves, constitute state action for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1002-1003 (1982) (“‘[T]he principle has become firmly embedded in our constitutional law that the action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States’ ” (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 13 (1948))). Moreover, respondents put forth no evidence that the “private motives [that] triggered” the referendum drive “can fairly be attributed to the State.” Blum v. Yaretsky, supra, at 1004.
In fact, by adhering to charter procedures, city officials enabled public debate on the referendum to take place, thus advancing significant First Amendment interests. In assessing the referendum as a “basic instrument of democratic government,” Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U. S. 668, 679 (1976), we have observed that “[provisions for referendums demonstrate devotion to democracy, not to bias, discrimination, or prejudice,” James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137, 141 (1971). And our well established First Amendment admonition that “government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989), dovetails with the notion that all citizens, regardless of the content of their ideas, have the right to petition their government. Cf. Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 421-422 (1988) (describing the circulation of an initiative petition as “‘core political speech’”); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 96 (1972) (“[Government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views”). Again, statements made by decision-makers or referendum sponsors during deliberation over a referendum may constitute relevant evidence of discriminatory intent in a challenge to an ultimately enacted initiative. See, e. g., Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457, 471 (1982) (considering statements of initiative sponsors in subjecting enacted referendum to equal protection scrutiny); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S., at 268. But respondents do not challenge an enacted referendum.
In their brief to this Court, respondents offer an alternative theory of equal protection liability: that city officials, including the mayor, acted in concert with private citizens to prevent Pleasant Meadows from being built because of the race and family status of its likely residents. See Brief for Respondents 12-26; Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34, 36-40, 43. Respondents allege, among other things, that the city law director prompted disgruntled voters to file the petition, that the city council intentionally delayed its deliberations to thwart the development, and that the mayor stoked the public opposition. See Brief for Respondents 17. Not only did the courts below not directly address this theory of liability, but respondents also appear to have disavowed this claim at oral argument, focusing instead on the denial of the permits. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38.
What is more, respondents never articulated a cognizable legal claim on these grounds. Respondents fail to show that city officials exercised any power over voters’ decision-making during the drive, much less the kind of “coercive power” either “overt or covert” that would render the voters’ actions and statements, for all intents and purposes, state action. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S., at 1004. Nor, as noted above, do respondents show that the voters’ sentiments can be attributed in any way to the state actors against which it has brought suit. See ibid. Indeed, in finding a genuine issue of material fact with regard to intent, the Sixth Circuit relied almost entirely on apparently independent statements by private citizens. See 263 F. 3d, at 635-637. And in dismissing the claim against the mayor in his individual capacity, the District Court found no evidence that he orchestrated the referendum. See 970 F. Supp., at 1321. Respondents thus fail to present an equal protection claim sufficient to survive summary judgment.
III
In evaluating respondents’ substantive due process claim, the Sixth Circuit found, as a threshold matter, that respondents had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the building permits, and therefore a property interest in those permits, in light of the city council’s approval of the site plan. See 263 F. 3d, at 642. The court then held that respondents had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on their claim that the City engaged in arbitrary conduct by denying respondents the benefit of the plan. Id., at 644. Both in their complaint and before this Court, respondents contend that the City violated substantive due process, not only for the reason articulated by the Sixth Circuit, but also on the grounds that the City’s submission of an administrative land-use determination to the charter’s referendum procedures constituted per se arbitrary conduct. See Complaint ¶ ¶ 39, 43; Brief for Respondents 32-49. We find no merit in either claim.
We need not decide whether respondents possessed a property interest in the building permits, because the city engineer’s refusal to issue the permits while the petition was pending in no sense constituted egregious or arbitrary government conduct. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 846 (1998) (noting that in our evaluations of “abusive executive action,” we have held that “only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be ‘arbitrary in the constitutional sense’”). In light of the charter’s provision that “[n]o such ordinance [challenged by a petition] shall go into effect until approved by a majority of those voting thereon,” Art. 9, §2, App. 15, the law director’s instruction to the engineer to not issue the permits represented an eminently rational directive. Indeed, the site plan, by law, could not be implemented until the voters passed on the referendum.
Respondents’ second theory of liability has no basis in our precedent. As a matter of federal constitutional law, we have rejected the distinction that respondents ask us to draw, and that the Ohio Supreme Court drew as a matter of state law, between legislative and administrative referendums. In Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U. S., at 672, 675, we made clear that because all power stems from the people, “[a] referendum cannot... be characterized as a delegation of power,” unlawful unless accompanied by “discernible standards.” The people retain the power to govern through referendum “‘with respect to any matter, legislative or administrative, within the realm of local affairs.’” Id., at 674, n. 9. Cf. James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137. Though the “substantive result” of a referendum may be invalid if it is “arbitrary and capricious,” Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, supra, at 676, respondents do not challenge the referendum itself. The subjection of the site-plan ordinance to the City’s referendum process, regardless of whether that ordinance reflected an administrative or legislative decision, did not constitute per se arbitrary government conduct in violation of due process.
IV
For the reasons detailed above, we reverse the Sixth Circuit’s judgment with regard to respondents’ equal protection and substantive due process claims. The Sixth Circuit also held that respondents’ disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act could proceed to trial, 263 F. 3d, at 641, but respondents have now abandoned the claim. See Brief for Respondents 31. We therefore vacate the Sixth Circuit’s disparate impact holding and remand with instructions to dismiss, with prejudice, the relevant portion of the complaint. See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 200 (1988).
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is, accordingly, reversed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether the Due Process Clause permits New Mexico to tax a portion of dividends that appellant F. W. Woolworth Co. received from foreign subsidiaries that do no business in New Mexico. We also must decide whether New Mexico may include within Woolworth’s apportionable New Mexico income a sum, commonly known as “gross-up,” that Woolworth calculated in order to claim a foreign tax credit on its federal income tax.
I
Woolworth’s principal place of business and commercial domicile are in New York. It engages in retail business through chains of stores located in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It sells a wide spectrum of merchandise, including dry goods, hardware, small appliances, confections, packaged goods, and fountain items. In the fiscal year ending January 31, 1977, Woolworth’s gross domestic sales totalled approximately $2.5 billion, with New Mexico sales amounting to approximately $13 million — or about 0.5% of the gross figure. App. 57a.
Woolworth owns four foreign subsidiaries of relevance to this suit. Three are wholly owned: F. W. Woolworth GmbH, in Germany; F. W. Woolworth, Ltd., in Canada; and F. W. Woolworth, S. A. de C. V. Mexico. F. W. Woolworth Co., Ltd., is an English corporation of which Woolworth owns 52.7%, with the remainder held and traded publicly. These four corporations also engage in chainstore retailing. Together they paid Woolworth approximately $39.9 million in dividends during the fiscal year in question.
New Mexico adopted a version of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act in 1965, N. M. Stat. Ann. §§7-4-1 — 7-4-21 (1981), and joined the Multistate Tax Compact in 1967. § § 7-5-1 — 7-5-7 (1981). See AS ARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, ante, at 311-312; United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452 (1978). Consequently the State distinguishes between “business” income, which it apportions between it and other States for tax purposes, and “nonbusiness” income, which it generally allocates to a single State on the basis of commercial domicile. Woolworth reported its dividend income of $39.9 million from its German, Canadian, Mexican, and English subsidiaries as “nonbusiness” income, none of which was to be allocated to New Mexico. Woolworth also treated as “non-business” income a $1.6 million gain from a hedging transaction in British pounds. This transaction was undertaken for the purpose of insuring the payment of the British subsidiary’s dividend against currency fluctuations. See App. 52a-54a. Similarly, Woolworth did not report as New Mexico “business” income $25.5 million of “gross-up” that it never actually received but that the Federal Government (for purposes-of calculating Woolworth’s federal foreign tax credit pursuant to 26 U. S. C. §§78, 901(a), and 902(a)) deemed Woolworth to have received from its foreign subsidiaries.
On audit, the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department determined that, under state law, Woolworth should have included in its apportionable New Mexico income the dividends from its four foreign subsidiaries, the foreign exchange gain, and the $25.5 million gross-up figure. These additions increased Woolworth’s apportioned New Mexico income from $84,622 to $401,518. App. 69a. The Department denied Woolworth’s protest, but this decision was reversed on appeal by the New Mexico Court of Appeals. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 95 N. M. 542, 624 P. 2d 51 (1979).
As a matter of state law, the Court of Appeals excluded from apportionable New Mexico income Woolworth’s receipt of the dividends at issue. The court stated that “[t]here is no indication that the income from Woolworth’s long-standing investments [in its subsidiaries] was used either in taxpayer’s unitary domestic business or in its business conducted in New Mexico....” Id., at 545, 624 P. 2d, at 54. With respect to the gross-up issue, the Court of Appeals said that the State’s “rigid insistence” on inclusion of this amount “is a refusal to recognize an obviously fictitious income figure, made artificial by the federal reporting requirements for a specific purpose....” Id., at 543-544, 624 P. 2d, at 52-53. The court said that “ ‘[g]ross-up’ in fact represents income to taxpayer’s foreign subsidiaries [that] is paid out in taxes to foreign governments,” id., at 544, 624 P. 2d, at 53, and not income in fact to the parent. The court thus likewise excluded this sum from Woolworth’s apportionable New Mexico income.
The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed over one dissent. 95 N. M. 519, 624 P. 2d 28 (1981). On the question whether Woolworth’s receipt of dividends from its subsidiaries constituted apportionable New Mexico income, the court observed that, “[r]egrettably, it needs to be said that the State did a very poor job of inquiring into and developing the facts in this case.” Id., at 524, 624 P. 2d, at 33. The court nonetheless found substantial evidence to support the findings that the subsidiaries’ dividend payments met the State’s statutory test for inclusion in Woolworth’s apportionable New Mexico income. On the constitutional issue, the court identified the “key question” after our decision in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U. S. 425 (1980), as “whether those dividends were income earned in a unitary business.” 95 N. M., at 528, 624 P. 2d, at 37. The court stated:
“The [dividend] income [from Woolworth’s subsidiaries] is obviously related to the mutual activities of the parent and its affiliates. The control over the subsidiaries, the interdependence, the history of the relationships, the placing of the [dividend] money in [Woolworth’s] general operating account, all point to functional integration and reveal an underlying unitary business for our purposes here.” Id., at 529, 624 P. 2d, at 38.
Respecting the State’s inclusion of Woolworth’s federal gross-up figure as apportionable state income, the court “deem[ed] it unnecessary to delve into all the intricacies of the federal laws and regulations,” but found it sufficient “to say that, since Woolworth decided to use the gross-up option, the income taxes paid by Woolworth’s foreign subsidiaries to foreign governments must be deemed to be received as dividends ----” Id., at 521-522, 624 P. 2d, at 30-31. “Admittedly, the fictitious gross-up, which the state claims is ‘business income’ and which Woolworth deliberately acceded to, does not fit the ordinary definition of ‘income’....” Id., at 522, 624 P. 2d, at 31. Nevertheless, the court noted that there was no claim and no lower court finding that Woolworth did not “obtain an economic benefit from the gross-up procedure here.” Id., at 523, 624 P. 2d, at 32. The court consequently rejected Woolworth’s statutory and constitutional challenges to the State’s inclusion of the federal gross-up figure in Woolworth’s apportionable New Mexico business income.
II
This case was argued in tandem with ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, ante, p. 307, which also involved dividends and gains from foreign subsidiaries. We have reiterated today in ASARCO that “‘[t]he “linchpin of apportionability” for state income taxation of an interstate enterprise is the “unitary-business principle.”’” Ante, at 319, quoting Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 447 U. S. 207, 223 (1980), in turn quoting Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, supra, at 439.
Woolworth owns all the stock of three of its dividend payors and a 52.7% majority interest in the fourth. As a result, Woolworth (at least with respect to the three wholly owned companies) elects all of the subsidiaries’ directors. It potentially has the authority to operate these companies as integrated divisions of a single unitary business. Our decision in ASARCO makes clear, however, that the potential to operate a company as part of a unitary business is not dispositive when, looking at “the ‘underlying economic realities of a unitary business,’” the dividend income from the subsidiaries in fact is “derive[d] from ‘unrelated business activity’ which constitutes a ‘discrete business enterprise.’” Exxon, supra, at 223-224, quoting Mobil, supra, at 441, 442, 439. See ASARCO, ante, at 322-323 (holding that a 52.7%-owned subsidiary is not part of its parent’s unitary business).
A
The State Supreme Court in important part analyzed this case under a different legal standard. After stating that the existence of a unitary business relationship was the “key question,” the court proceeded to resolve this question largely by emphasizing the potentials of the relationship between Woolworth and its subsidiaries:
“The possession of large assets by subsidiaries is a business advantage of great value to the parent; ‘it may give credit which will result in more economical business methods; it may give a standing which shall facilitate purchases; it may enable the corporation to enlarge the field of its activities and in many ways give it business standing and prestige.’ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 166... (1911).” 95 N. M., at 529, 624 P. 2d, at 38.
This reliance on the Flint case was error. Flint upheld a federal excise tax levied on corporate income. The States, of course, are subject to limitations on their taxation powers that do not apply to the Federal Government. As relevant here, “the income attributed to [a] State for tax purposes must be rationally related to ‘values connected with the taxing State.’ Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, 390 U. S. 317, 325.” Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U. S. 267, 273 (1978). The state court’s reasoning would trivialize this due process limitation by holding it satisfied if the income in question “adds to the riches of the corporation....” Wallace v. Hines, 253 U. S. 66, 70 (1920). Income, from whatever source, always is a “business advantage” to a corporation. Our cases demand more. In particular, they specify that the proper inquiry looks to “the underlying unity or diversity of business enterprise,” Mobil, supra, at 440, not to whether the nondomiciliary parent derives some economic benefit — as it virtually always will — -from its ownership of stock in another corporation. See ASARCO, ante, at 325-329.
B
In Mobil we emphasized, as relevant to the right of a State to tax dividends from foreign subsidiaries, the question whether “contributions to income [of the subsidiaries] resulted] from functional integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale.” 445 U. S., at 438. If such “factors of profitability” arising “from the operation of the business as a whole” exist and evidence the operation of a unitary business, a State can gain a justification for its tax consideration of value that has no other connection with that State. Ibid. We turn now to consider the extent, if any, to which these factors exist in this case.
There was little functional integration. Woolworth’s subsidiaries engaged exclusively in the business of retailing — the purchase of wholesale goods for resale to final consumers. This type of business differs significantly from the “highly integrated business” of locating, processing, and marketing a resource (such as petroleum) that we previously have found to constitute a unitary business. Exxon, 447 U. S., at 224. See also id., at 226 (describing “a unitary stream of income, of which the income derived from internal transfers of raw materials from exploration and production to refining is a part”); Mobil, 445 U. S., at 428. Consistent with this distinetion, the evidence in this case is that no phase of any subsidiary’s business was integrated with the parent’s. With respect to “who makes the decision for seeing to the merchandise, [store] site selection, advertising and accounting control,” the undisputed testimony stated that “[e]ach subsidiary performs these functions autonomously and independently of the parent company.” App. 12a. “Each subsidiary has a complete accounting department and a financial staff.” Id,., at 14a. Each had its own outside counsel. App. to Juris. Statement 34a. It further appears that Woolworth engaged in no centralized purchasing, manufacturing, or warehousing of merchandise. The parent had no central personnel training school for its foreign subsidiaries. Ibid. And each subsidiary was responsible for obtaining its own financing from sources other than the parent. In sum, the record is persuasive that Woolworth’s operations were not functionally integrated with its subsidiaries.
We now consider the extent to which there was centralization of management or achievement of other economies of scale. It appears that each subsidiary operated as a distinct business enterprise at the level of fulltime management. With one possible exception, none of the subsidiaries' officers during the year in question was a current or former employee of the parent. Ibid. The testimony was that the subsidiaries “figure that their operations are independent, autonomous.” App. 13a. Woolworth did not “rotate personnel or train personnel to operate stores in those countries. There is no exchange of personnel.” Ibid. There was no “training program that is central to transmit the Woolworth idea of merchandising^] such as it may be[,] to the foreign subsidiaries.” Id., at 15a. The subsidiaries “proceed... with their own programs, either formal or informal. They develop their own managers and instruct them in their methods of operation.” Ibid.
This management decentralization was reflected in the fact that each subsidiary possessed autonomy to determine its own policies respecting its primary activity — retailing. According to the hearing examiner:
“Each of the four subsidiaries are responsible for determining the size and location of retail stores, the market conditions in their own territory and the mix of items to be sold. The German subsidiary emphasizes soft goods such as dresses and coats. It sells no food. The English subsidiary operates restaurants in its stores and also operates supermarkets. Each subsidiary attempts to cater to local tastes and needs. The inventory of each subsidiary consists, in large part, of home country produced items. This purchase-at-home practice is consistent with the policy of the taxpayer. A number of inventory items are purchased from the Orient or other places but there is no evidence that the subsidiaries purchase, or are required to purchase, inventory items from any particular source.” App. to Juris. Statement 33a — 34a.
Importantly, the Department’s hearing examiner found that Woolworth had “no department or section, as such, devoted to overseeing the foreign subsidiary operations.” Id., at 34a. Neither the parent corporation nor any of the subsidiaries consolidates its tax return with any of the other companies. App. 37a-38a. The tax manager for Woolworth stated that he did not review the subsidiaries’ tax returns or consult with them on decisions affecting taxes. Id., at 14a. There was no “policy of the parent that all of the managers of all the operations get together periodically to discuss the overall Woolworth operations.” Id., at 35a.
There were some managerial links. Woolworth maintained one or several common directors with some of the subsidiaries. There also was irregular in-person and “frequent” mail, telephone, and teletype communication between the upper echelons of management of the parent and the subsidiaries. App. to Juris. Statement 34a. Decisions about major financial decisions, such as the amount of dividends to be paid by the subsidiaries and the creation of substantial debt, had to be approved by the parent. Id., at 35a. Woolworth’s published financial statements, such as its annual reports, were prepared on a consolidated basis. Ibid.
We conclude, on the basis of undisputed facts, that the four subsidiaries in question are not a part of a unitary business under the principles articulated in Mobil and Exxon, and today reiterated in ASARCO. Except for the type of occasional oversight — with respect to capital structure, major debt, and dividends — that any parent gives to an investment in a subsidiary, there is little or no integration of the business activities or centralization of the management of these five corporations. Woolworth has proved that its situation differs from that in Exxon, where the corporation’s Coordination and Services Management office was found to provide for the asserted unitary business
“long-range planning for the company, maximization of overall company operations, development of financial policy and procedures, financing of corporate activities, maintenance of the accounting system, legal advice, public relations, labor relations, purchase and sale of raw crude oil and raw materials, and coordination between the refining and other operating functions ‘so as to obtain an optimum short range operating program.’ ” 447 U. S., at 211.
In this case the parent company’s operations are not interrelated with those of its subsidiaries so that one’s “stable” operation is important to the other’s “full utilization” of capacity. Id., at 218. See also id., at 225. The Woolworth parent did not provide “many essential corporate services” for the subsidiaries, and there was no “centralized purchasing office... whose obvious purpose was to increase overall corporate profits through bulk purchases and efficient allocation of supplies among retailers.” Id., at 224. And it was not the case that “sales were facilitated through the use of a uniform credit card system, uniform packaging, brand names, and promotional displays, all run from the national headquarters.” Ibid. See also Mobil, 445 U. S., at 428, 435.
There is a critical distinction between a retail merchandising business as conducted by Woolworth and the type of multinational business — now so familiar — in which refined, processed, or manufactured products (or parts thereof) may be produced in one or more countries and marketed in various countries, often worldwide. In operations of this character there is a flow of international trade, often an interchange of personnel, and substantial mutual interdependence. The uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that Woolworth’s international retail business is not comparable. There is no flow of international business. Nor is there any integration or unitary operation in the sense in which our cases consistently have used these terms.
In Mobil, we recognized:
“[A]ll dividend income received by corporations operating in interstate commerce is [not] necessarily taxable in each State where that corporation does business. Where the business activities of the dividend payor have nothing to do with the activities of the recipient in the taxing State, due process considerations might well preclude apportionability, because there would be no underlying unitary business.” Id., at 441-442.
This is such a case. Each of the foreign subsidiaries at issue operates a “discrete business enterprise,” Mobil, supra, at 439, with a notable absence of any “umbrella of centralized management and controlled interaction.” Exxon, 447 U. S., at 224. New Mexico, in taxing a portion of dividends received from such enterprises, is attempting to reach “extraterritorial values,” Mobil, supra, at 442, wholly unrelated to the business of the Woolworth stores in New Mexico. As a result, a “showing has been made that income unconnected with the unitary business has been used in the” levy of the New Mexico tax. Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U. S. 501, 509 (1942). We conclude that this tax does not bear the necessary relationship “ ‘to opportunities, benefits, or protection conferred or afforded by the taxing State. See Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444.’” Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Missouri State Tax Comm’n, 390 U. S. 317, 325, n. 5 (1968), quoting Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 336 U. S. 169, 174 (1949). New Mexico’s tax thus fails to meet established due process standards.
► — I W-i
We need not be detained by New Mexico’s reaching out to tax “gross-up” amounts that even the Supreme Court of New Mexico recognized as “fictitious.” 95 N. M., at 522, 624 P. 2d, at 31. The gross-up computation is a figure that the Federal Government “deems” Woolworth to have received for purposes of part of Woolworth’s federal foreign tax credit calculation. It “is treated [for this purpose] as a dividend in the same manner as a dividend actually received by the domestic corporation from a foreign corporation.” H. R. Rep. No. 1447, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., A83 (1962). See also S. Rep. No. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 227 (1962). In this case the foreign tax credit arose from the taxation by foreign nations of Woolworth foreign subsidiaries that had no unitary business relationship with New Mexico. New Mexico’s effort to tax this income “deemed received” — with respect to which New Mexico contributed nothing — also must be held to contravene the Due Process Clause.
> 1 — \
The judgment of the Supreme Court of New Mexico is reversed.
It is so ordered.
[For concurring opinion of The Chief Justice, see ante, p. 331.]
The English subsidiary operates about 2,000 stores, App. 39a, the Canadian company about 500, id., at 24a, and the Mexican about 12. Id., at 28a. The record does not specify the number of stores the German company owns, but the company may be between the English and Canadian operations in size.
“ ‘[B]usiness income’ means income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer’s trade or business and includes income from tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management and disposition of the property constitute integral parts of the taxpayer’s regular trade or business operations....” N. M. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-2(A) (1981).
“All business income shall be apportioned to this state by multiplying the income by a fraction, the numerator of which is the property factor plus the payroll factor plus the sales factor, and the denominator of which is three.” N. M. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-10 (1981).
“The property factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the average value of the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used in this state during the tax period and the denominator of which is the average value of all the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used during the tax period.” § 7-4-11.
“The payroll factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total amount paid in this state during the tax period by the taxpayer for compensation, and the denominator of which is the total compensation paid everywhere during the tax period.” § 7-4-14.
“The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in the state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period.” § 7-4-16.
“ ‘[N]onbusiness income’ means all income other than business income.” N. M. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-2(D) (1981).
“Rents and royalties from real or tangible personal property, capital gains, interest, dividends, or patent or copyright royalties, to the extent that they constitute nonbusiness income, shall be allocated as provided in Sections 6 through 9 [7-4-6 to 7-4-9 NMSA 1978] of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act.” N. M. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-5 (1981) (emphasis added).
“Interest and dividends are allocable to this state if the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is in this state.” § 74-8.
New Mexico defines “commercial domicile” as “the principal place from which the trade or business of the taxpayer is directed or managed.” § 7-4-2(B).
“If a domestic corporation chooses to have the benefits of subpart A of part III of subchapter N (relating to foreign tax credit) for any taxable year, an amount equal to the taxes deemed to be paid by such corporation under section 902(a) (relating to credit for corporate stockholder in foreign corporation)... for such taxable year shall be treated for purposes of this title... as a dividend received by such domestic corporation from the foreign corporation.” 26 U. S. C. § 78 (emphasis added).
“If the taxpayer chooses to have the benefits of this subpart, the tax imposed by this chapter shall... be credited with the... taxes deemed to have been paid under seetio[n] 902....” § 901(a).
“For purposes of this subpart, a domestic corporation which owns at least 10 percent of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it receives dividends in any taxable year shall be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income... taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country... on... the accumulated profits of such foreign corporation from which such dividends were paid, which the amount of such dividends (determined without regard to section 78) bears to the amount of such accumulated profits in excess of such income... taxes (other than those deemed paid).” § 902(a).
Woolworth gives this example: “If a foreign subsidiary of a United States parent earns $100, pays foreign tax of $40, and pays a dividend of $30 out of its after-tax profits of $60, the deemed paid foreign tax credit of the parent under section 902(a) is 30/60 x $40, or $20. The parent includes $50 in dividend income (i. e., the actual dividend of $30 plus $20 of ‘gross-up’) and claims a foreign tax credit of $20 against the federal income tax on this income.” Brief for Appellant 6, n. 4. See 26 CFR §§ 1.78-1, 1.902-l(h), (k) (1982); S. Rep. No. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 222-228 (1962); H. R. Rep. No. 1447, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., A79-A84 (1962); 3 B. Bittker, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶69.2 (1981).
Only one witness — Woolworth’s tax manager — appeared before the Department’s hearing examiner. The State introduced as evidence Woolworth’s tax return, a notice of assessment, its worksheets, Woolworth’s protest, and tax regulations. Woolworth introduced a one-page diagram of its corporate structure. See App. B to Brief for Appellee. The testimony given before the examiner and referred to in this opinion is uncontroverted unless otherwise noted.
The Department’s decision and order did not mention Woolworth’s foreign exchange gain. See App. to Juris. Statement 30a-38a.
The Court of Appeals did not refer to Woolworth’s foreign exchange gain.
The New Mexico Supreme Court also ruled that the Court of Appeals had erred in holding that it was reasonable to conclude that Woolworth had simply passed the foreign dividends through its general treasury to its stockholders, without using the dividends for Woolworth’s general corporate purposes. The Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof was on the taxpayer. Consequently, the court held, the State’s reasonable inference that Woolworth had used the foreign dividends for its own corporate purposes was supportable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 95 N. M., at 529, 624 P. 2d, at 38. The court further rejected Woolworth’s claim that the apportionment formula should be adjusted if the dividend income were found to be apportionable. Id., at 529-530, 624 P. 2d, at 38-39.
The dissenting justice founded his position on “agree[ment] with the analysis of the Court of Appeals.” Id., at 530, 624 P. 2d, at 39.
Neither the majority nor the dissenting opinion discussed Woolworth’s foreign exchange gain.
The tax did not apply to a corporation’s receipt of dividends from other companies subjected to the tax. 220 U. S., at 144-145.
The hearing examiner and the New Mexico Supreme Court also thought it significant that Woolworth had commingled its dividends with its general funds and had used them for general corporate operating purposes. See 95 N. M., at 529, 624 P. 2d, at 38; n. 9, supra. This analysis likewise subverts the unitary-business limitation. All dividend income— irrespective of whether it is generated by a “discrete business enterprise,” Mobil, 445 U. S., at 439 — would become part of a unitary business if the test were whether the corporation commingled dividends from other corporations, whether subsidiaries or not.
The testimony before the Department’s hearing examiner, see n. 7, supra, focused primarily on the English and German subsidiaries. With respect to the Mexican and Canadian subsidiaries, the evidence was confined to the following:
“Q. Now, I would like to[,] without repeating every question if I may[,] ask a summary question concerning the Canadian and the Mexican subsidiaries, we are talking about decisions concerning merchandise mix, site selection, advertising, accounting, training of personnel, and of those items[,] would you say that there is a similarity between the relationship of the U. S. parent to Canada as there is to the German and the English subsidiaries to the extent to which these things are decentralized?
“A. Yes, there is a distinct similarity or philosophy involved in the ownership of these companies.” App. 18a.
The State did not undertake to controvert the implications of this statement, and neither of the courts below found any difference in the relationships between the parent and each of the four subsidiaries. We thus must assume that the relationship between the parent and the Mexican and Canadian subsidiaries paralleled that between the parent and the English and German subsidiaries in material respects.
The New Mexico Supreme Court did state that “[t]here is some flow back and forth of goods” between the parent and the subsidiaries. 95 N. M., at 524, 624 P. 2d, at 33. It cited no evidence in support of this statement. Neither the Department’s hearing examiner nor the Court of Appeals made such a finding. The testimony in the record was that there were not “any inter-company sales of inventory.” App. 13a.
The Woolworth witness also stated that, with respect to certain types of goods manufactured by other of the parent’s subsidiaries, he lacked actual knowledge of whether there were intercompany sales. He continued that the idea was “inconceivable to me because of the autonomous operation of the company and the lack of coordination and other facets.” Id., at 43a. Upon further questioning, the witness conceded that he did not “really know where [the English subsidiary’s managers] buy their merchandise.” But he affirmed his knowledge that the English company’s sales to and purchases from the parent were “virtually nil.” Id., at 44a. When questioned whether Woolworth utilized a central buying office for it and its subsidiaries, the witness replied that it did not. Id., at 14a. No other evidence indicated that the parent and the subsidiaries engaged in any joint manufacturing, purchasing, or warehousing functions. Nor did the New Mexico courts find otherwise.
Woolworth had no outstanding debts from its English subsidiary, App. to Juris. Statement 35a, and it had not reinvested its dividends in that company. App. 51a. The parent had reinvested dividends in the German company, id., at 52a, but the last additional capital contribution by the parent that the witness could recall, id., at 46a, was a $400,000 transfer made after the German company was demolished during World War II. Id., at 30a. See App. to Juris. Statement 35a.
The hearing examiner found that “[i]n the taxable year involved, none of the four subsidiaries’] officers were currently or formerly employees of the parent.” Id., at 34a. Without explanation, he also later stated that “[a]t least one officer of the Canadian subsidiary [was] also an officer of the [parent].” Ibid.
One officer from the Mexican subsidiary was a participant in Woolworth’s profit-sharing plan. Woolworth paid the employee’s share of this plan. Ibid.
Woolworth had one vice president “who is the liaison man with the smaller foreign subsidiaries,” ibid., such as the Spanish and Mexican subsidiaries. App. 50a. The testimony was that this liaison man “from time to time... may have contact with the major subsidiaries....” Ibid.
The witness replied that “[t]here hasn’t been that” in response to the questions of whether “all of the managers of all of the operations” ever “get together and talk together about where the company is going or what it is doing or where it should be tomorrow or in ten years from today? Planning for future programs or for future expansion?” Id., at 35a.
The managing director of the English subsidiary sat as one of the parent’s 15 directors, and the parent sent one of its officers to participate in meetings of the English board of directors. The state hearing examiner also found that “[a]t least one person who is on the Canadian subsidiary is also on the taxpayer’s board.”.App. to Juris. Statement 34a. Cf. App. 41a (at least three members of the Canadian board of directors also sat on the parent’s board). Although the Department’s hearing examiner did not make findings in this connection, there was testimony that “some of the directors of Woolworth, the taxpayer, sit on the Board of the Mexican subsidiary....” Id., at 29a.
“It would be on a rare occasion, once a year,” that the “managing directors” of the foreign subsidiaries would come to New York. Id., at 34a. “It is only sporadically that the parent company is represented at the [English company's] Board meetings.” Id., at 40a. Further, while Woolworth’s chief executive officer and other officers would “on occasion” travel to confer with the subsidiaries’ managers, it was “hard to discern any pattern of regular monthly visits or quarterly visits.” Id., at 35a.
“The exchange of information contacts by the subsidiaries is made by the Chief Executive of the company. The Director of Purchases of the parent company does not confer with the Director of Purchasing of the Canadian company or of the German company.” Id., at 37a.
The testimony was that “the Canadian
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by these cases is whether application of the withdrawal liability provisions of the Multi-employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 to employers withdrawing from pension plans during a 5-month period prior to the statute’s enactment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We hold that it does not.
I — I
<C
In 1974, after careful study of private retirement pension plans, Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. Among the principal purposes of this “comprehensive and reticulated statute” was to ensure that employees and their beneficiaries would not be deprived of anticipated retirement benefits by the termination of pension plans before sufficient funds have been accumulated in the plans. Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 446 U. S. 359, 361-362, 374-375 (1980). See Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 510-511 (1981). Congress wanted to guarantee that “if a worker has been promised a defined pension benefit upon retirement — and if he has fulfilled whatever conditions are required to obtain a vested benefit — he actually will receive it.” Nachman, supra, at 375; Alessi, supra, at 510.
Toward this end, Title IV of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., created a plan termination insurance program, administered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a wholly owned Government corporation within the Department of Labor, § 1302. The PBGC collects insurance premiums from covered pension plans and provides benefits to participants in those plans if their plan terminates with insufficient assets to support its guaranteed benefits. See §§1322, 1361. For pension plans maintained by single employers, the PBGC’s obligation to pay benefits took effect immediately upon enactment of ERISA in 1974. §§ 1381(a), (b). For multiemployer pension plans, however, the payment of guaranteed benefits by the PBGC was not to become mandatory until January 1, 1978. § 1381(c)(1).
During the intervening period, the PBGC had discretionary authority to pay benefits upon the termination of multi-employer pension plans. §§ 1381(c)(2) — (4). If the PBGC exercised its discretion to pay such benefits, employers who had contributed to the plan during the five years preceding its termination were liable to the PBGC in amounts proportional to their share of the plan’s contributions during that period. § 1364. In other words, any employer withdrawing from a multiemployer plan was subject to a contingent liability that was dependent upon the plan’s termination in the next five years and the PBGC’s decision to exercise its discretion and pay guaranteed benefits. In addition, any individual employer’s liability was not to exceed 30% of the employer’s net worth. § 1362(b)(2).
As the date for mandatory coverage of multiemployer pension plans approached, Congress became concerned that a significant number of plans were experiencing extreme financial hardship. This, in turn, could have resulted in the termination of numerous plans, forcing the PBGC to assume obligations in excess of its capacity. To avoid this potential collapse of the plan termination insurance program, Congress deferred mandatory insurance coverage for multiemployer plans for 18 months — until July 1, 1979 — extending the PBGC’s discretionary authority to insure plans terminating during the interim. Pub. L. 95-214, 91 Stat. 1501. The PBGC was also directed to prepare a comprehensive report analyzing the problems faced by multiemployer plans and recommending appropriate legislative action. See S. Rep. No. 95-570, pp. 1-4 (1977); H. R. Rep. No. 95-706, p. 1 (1977). In this way, Congress created “time to legislate, if necessary, before the mandatory coverage comes into effect.” 123 Cong. Rec. 36800 (1977) (statement of Sen. Williams); id., at 36800-36802.
The PBGC issued its report on July 1, 1978. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Multiemployer Study Required by P. L. 95-214 (1978). Among its principal findings was that ERISA did not adequately protect plans from the adverse consequences that resulted when individual employers terminate their participation in, or withdraw from, multi-employer plans. As the report summarized:
“The basic problem with the withdrawal rules is that they are designed primarily to protect PBGC. They do not provide an efficient mechanism for reducing the burden of withdrawal on the plan and remaining employers. They may even encourage withdrawals in some instances (e. g., where termination may be imminent). Changes in the withdrawal rules should be considered:
“(1) to provide relief to plans without increasing the burden on the insurance system,
“(2) to provide a disincentive‘to voluntary employer withdrawals,
“(3) to reduce or remove disincentives to plan entry, and
“(4) to work with, instead of against, the termination liability provisions.” Id., at 96-97.
To alleviate the problem of employer withdrawals, the PBGC suggested new rules under which a withdrawing employer would be required to pay whatever share of the plan’s unfunded vested liabilities was attributable to that employer’s participation. Id., at 97-114. These tentative proposals were included in policy recommendations submitted to Congress on February 27, 1979, and were incorporated in proposed legislation that the Executive Branch formally sent to Congress three months later, S. 1076, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979). Most significantly for present purposes, the bill included an effective date for withdrawal liability of February 27, 1979 — the date on which the PBGC had initially submitted its recommendations to Congress. Id., §108. This date was chosen to prevent employers from avoiding the adverse consequences of withdrawal liability by withdrawing from plans while such liability was being considered by Congress. As one Senator noted, the retroactive effective date was designed “to prevent. . . the withdrawal of these opportunistic employers without imposition of liability” and was to serve “as a deterrent to hasty employer withdrawal.” 126 Cong. Rec. 20234 (1980) (remarks of Sen. Matsunaga).
Congress debated the issue of withdrawal liability for the remainder of 1979 and much of 1980. By April 1980, two Committees in the House and one in the Senate had approved substantially similar versions of the bill, each containing the February 27, 1979, effective date for withdrawal liability. The Senate Finance Committee had not yet completed its work on the bill, however, and sought more time for consideration of the legislation. See supra, at 721, and n. 1. At the same time, the Senate advanced the effective date for imposing withdrawal liability to April 29, 1980. As Senator Javits later explained:
“The committees decided in part to move up the date from February 27, 1979, the date contained in earlier versions of the bill, because the original purpose of a retroactive effective date — namely, to avoid encouragement of employer -withdrawals while the bill was being considered — has been achieved. It should also be noted that the April 29 effective date is the product of strong political pressures by certain withdrawing employers who were caught by the earlier date. I realize that permitting these employers to avoid liability only increases the burdens of those employers remaining with the plans in question, but it appears necessary to accept the April 29 date in order to enact the bill before the August 1 deadline for action.” 126 Cong. Rec. 20179 (1980) (statement of Sen. Javits).
See also id., at 9236-9237 (statement of Sen. Bentsen).
The House unanimously passed its version of the bill, including the February 27, 1979, effective date, in May 1980. Id., at 12233. The Senate version, adopting an effective date of April 29, 1980, was endorsed by a vote of 85-1. Id., at 20247. The Conference Committee accepted the Senate’s effective date, and the legislation was signed into law by the President on September 26, 1980. Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA or Act), Pub. L. 96-364, 94 Stat. 1208. As enacted, the Act requires that an employer withdrawing from a multiemployer pension plan pay a fixed and certain debt to the pension plan. This withdrawal liability is the employer’s proportionate share of the plan’s “unfunded vested benefits,” calculated as the difference between the present value of vested benefits and the current value of the plan’s assets. 29 U. S. C. §§ 1381, 1391. Pursuant to 29 U. S. C. § 1461(e), these withdrawal liability provisions took effect on April 29, 1980, approximately five months before the statute was enacted into law.
B
Appellee R. A. Gray & Co. (Gray) is a building and construction firm doing business in Oregon. Under a series of collective-bargaining agreements with the Oregon State Council of Carpenters (Council), Gray contributed to the Oregon-Washington Carpenters-Employers Pension Trust Fund (Pension Plan), a multiemployer pension plan under 29 U. S. C. § 1301(a)(3). During February 1980, Gray advised the Council that it would be terminating their collective-bargaining agreement when it expired on June 1, 1980. Gray continued to engage in the building and construction industry, however, and therefore was deemed to have completely withdrawn from the Pension Plan pursuant to § 1383(b).
The Pension Plan subsequently notified Gray that, by completely withdrawing from the plan on June 1, 1980, it had incurred a withdrawal liability of $201,359. The notice set forth a schedule of quarterly payments and demanded payment in accordance with that schedule. After some preliminary correspondence between Gray and the plan’s trustees, the Pension Plan informed Gray that it was delinquent in its payments. Gray thereafter filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Pension Plan and the PBGC.
Gray’s complaint raised several constitutional claims, including a challenge to the retroactive application of the MPPAA under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In particular, Gray noted that its June 1, 1980, withdrawal from the Pension Plan occurred during the 5-month period preceding enactment of the MPPAA, and therefore was directly affected by the retroactivity provision included in the Act. Moreover, Gray contended, retroactive application of withdrawal liability could not be sustained under the Due Process Clause because it was arbitrary and irrational, and because it impaired the collective-bargaining agreements that Gray had signed with the Council.
The District Court rejected Gray’s due process claim, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Pension Plan and the PBGC. 549 F. Supp. 531 (1982). Specifically, the court analyzed the constitutionality of retroactively imposing withdrawal liability on employers by applying a four-part test established by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 592 F. 2d 947 (1979), aff’d on statutory grounds, 446 U. S. 359 (1980). As that test requires, the court examined (1) the reliance interest of the affected parties, (2) whether the interest impaired is in an area previously subjected to regulatory control, (3) the equities of imposing the legislative burdens, and (4) the statutory provisions that limit and moderate the impact of the burdens imposed. Under these criteria, the court concluded that Gray had not satisfied the heavy burden faced by parties attempting to demonstrate that Congress has acted arbitrarily and irrationally when enacting socioeconomic legislation.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, although it too believed that the four-factor Nachman test was the appropriate standard to use when analyzing the constitutionality of retroactive legislation enacted by Congress. Shelter Framing Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 705 F. 2d 1502 (1983). In particular, the court concluded that retroactive application of withdrawal liability violated the Due Process Clause because employers had reasonably relied on the contingent withdrawal liability provisions included in ERISA prior to passage of the MPPAA, id., at 1511-1512, and because the equities in this action generally favored Gray over the Pension Plan, id., at 1512-1514
Both the Pension Plan and the PBGC invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. §1252. We noted probable jurisdiction, 464 U. S. 912 (1983), and now reverse.
II
The starting point for analysis is our decision in Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1 (1976). In Turner Elkhom, we considered a constitutional challenge to the retroactive effects of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 as amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972. Under Title IV of that Act, coal mine operators were required to compensate former employees disabled by pneu-moconiosis even though those employees had terminated their work in the industry before the statute was enacted. We nonetheless had little difficulty in upholding the statute against constitutional attack under the Due Process Clause. As we initially noted:
“It is by now well established that legislative Acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life come to the Court with a presumption of constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way. See, e. g., Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726 (1963); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 487-488 (1955).” 428 U. S., at 15.
We further explained that the strong deference accorded legislation in the field of national economic policy is no less applicable when that legislation is applied retroactively. Provided that the retroactive application of a statute is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means, judgments about the wisdom of such legislation remain within the exclusive province of the legislative and executive branches:
“[Ijnsofar as the Act requires compensation for disabilities bred during employment terminated before the date of enactment, the Act has some retrospective effect— although, as we have noted, the Act imposed no liability on operators until [after its enactment]. And it may be that the liability imposed by the Act for disabilities suffered by former employees was not anticipated at the time of actual employment. But our cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectations. See Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U. S. 100 (1947); Carpenter v. Wabash R. Co., 309 U. S. 23 (1940); Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U. S. 240 (1935); Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 (1934); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467 (1911). This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty or liability based on past acts. See Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742 (1948); Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S. 134 (1938); Funkhouser v. Preston Co., 290 U. S. 163 (1933).” Id., at 15-16 (footnotes omitted).
To be sure, we went on to recognize that retroactive legislation does have to meet a burden not faced by legislation that has only future effects. “It does not follow . . . that what Congress can legislate prospectively it can legislate retrospectively. The retroactive aspects of legislation, as well as the prospective aspects, must meet the test of due process, and the justifications for the latter may not suffice for the former.” Id., at 16-17. But that burden is met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose.
For example, in Turner Elkhom we found that “the imposition of liability for the effects of disabilities bred in the past is justified as a rational measure to spread the costs of the employees’ disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor — the operators and the coal consumers.” Id., at 18. Similarly, in these cases, a rational legislative purpose supporting the retroactive application of the MPPAA’s withdrawal liability provisions is easily identified. Indeed, Congress was quite explicit when explaining the reason for the statute’s retroactivity.
In particular, we believe it was eminently rational for Congress to conclude that the purposes of the MPPAA could be more fully effectuated if its withdrawal liability provisions were applied retroactively. One of the primary problems Congress identified under ERISA was that the statute encouraged employer withdrawals from multiemployer plans. And Congress was properly concerned that employers would have an even greater incentive to withdraw if they knew that legislation to impose more burdensome liability on withdrawing employers was being considered. See 126 Cong. Rec. 20179 (1980) (statement of Sen. Javits); id., at 20244 (remarks of Sen. Matsunaga). See also supra, at 723-724. Withdrawals occurring during the legislative process not only would have required that remaining employers increase their contributions to existing pension plans, but also could have ultimately affected the stability of the plans themselves. Congress therefore utilized retroactive application of the statute to prevent employers from taking advantage of a lengthy legislative process and withdrawing while Congress debated necessary revisions in the statute. Indeed, as the amendments progressed through the legislative process, Congress advanced the effective date chosen so that it would encompass only that retroactive time period that Congress believed would be necessary to accomplish its purposes. As we recently noted when upholding the retroactive application of an income tax statute in United States v. Darusmont, 449 U. S. 292, 296-297 (1981) (per curiam), the enactment of retroactive statutes “confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation . . . is a customary congressional practice.” We are loathe to reject such a common practice when conducting the limited judicial review accorded economic legislation under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
M h-i I — (
Gray and its supporting amici offer several reasons for subjecting the retroactive application of the MPPAA to some form of heightened judicial scrutiny. We are not persuaded, however, by any of their arguments.
First, Gray contends that retroactive legislation does not satisfy due process requirements unless persons affected by the legislation had “notice” of changing legal circumstances and “an opportunity to conform their conduct to the requirements of [the] new legislation.” Brief for Appellee 20. We have doubts, however, that retroactive application of the MPPAA would be invalid under the Due Process Clause for lack of notice even if it was suddenly enacted by Congress without any period of deliberate consideration, as often occurs with floor amendments or “riders” added at the last minute to pending legislation. But even assuming that advance notice of legislative action with retrospective effects is constitutionally compelled, cf. Darusmont, supra, at 299 (similarly assuming that notice is a relevant consideration), we believe that employers had ample notice of the withdrawal liability imposed by the MPPAA. Not only did ERISA itself impose contingent liability on withdrawing employers, but the various legislative proposals debated by Congress before enactment of the MPPAA uniformly included retroactive effective dates among their provisions. See supra, at 723-725.
Second, it is suggested that we apply constitutional principles that have been developed under the Contract Clause, Art. I, §10, cl. 1 (“No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . .”), when reviewing this federal legislation. See, e. g., Energy Resources Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U. S. 400 (1983); Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U. S. 234 (1978). We have never held, however, that the principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are coextensive with prohibitions existing against state impairments of pre-existing contracts. See, e. g., Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. v. Schubert, 224 U. S. 603 (1912). Indeed, to the extent that recent decisions of the Court have addressed the issue, we have contrasted the limitations imposed on States by the Contract Clause with the less searching standards imposed on economic legislation by the Due Process Clauses. See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U. S. 1, 17, n. 13 (1977). And, although we have noted that retrospective civil legislation may offend due process if it is “particularly ‘harsh and oppressive,”’ ibid, (quoting Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S. 134, 147 (1938), and citing Turner Elkhorn, 428 U. S., at 14-20), that standard does not differ from the prohibition against arbitrary and irrational legislation that we clearly enunciated in Turner Elkhorn.
Finally, Gray urges that we resuscitate the Court’s 1935 decision in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U. S. 330, which invalidated provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934 that required employers to finance pensions for former railroad employees. Assuming, as we did in Turner Elkhorn, supra, at 19, that this aspect of Alton “retains vitality” despite the changes in judicial review of economic legislation that have occurred in the ensuing years, we again find it distinguishable from the present litigation. Unlike the statute in Alton, which created pensions for employees who had been fully compensated while working for the railroads, the MPPAA merely requires a withdrawing employer to compensate a pension plan for benefits that have already vested with the employees at the time of the employer’s withdrawal.
IV
We conclude that Congress’ decision to apply the withdrawal liability provisions of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act to employers withdrawing from pension plans during the 5-month period preceding enactment of the Act is supported by a rational legislative purpose, and therefore withstands attack under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The effective date for mandatory insurance coverage of multiemployer plans was subsequently deferred to May 1, 1980, Pub. L. 96-24, 93 Stat. 70, to July 1, 1980, Pub. L. 96-239, 94 Stat. 341, and finally to August 1, 1980, Pub. L. 96-293, 94 Stat. 610. On each occasion, Congress was providing more time for thorough consideration of the complex issues posed by the termination of multiemployer pension plans. Ultimately, mandatory insurance coverage was superseded by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-364, 94 Stat. 1208.
Congressional testimony by the Executive Director of the PBGC further explained the problems caused by employers withdrawing from multiemployer plans:
“A key problem of ongoing multiemployer plans, especially in declining industries, is the problem of employer withdrawal. Employer withdrawals reduce a plan’s contribution base. This pushes the contribution rate for remaining employers to higher and higher levels in order to fund past service liabilities, including liabilities generated by employers no longer participating in the plan, so-called inherited liabilities. The rising costs may encourage — or force — further withdrawals, thereby increasing the inherited liabilities to be funded by an ever-decreasing contribution base. This vicious downward spiral may continue until it is no longer reasonable or possible for the pension plan to continue.” Pension Plan Termination
Insurance Issues: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., 22 (1978) (statement of Matthew M. Lind).
Again, the PBGC’s Executive Director provided a more elaborate explanation:
“To deal with this problem, our report considers an approach under which an employer withdrawing from a multiemployer plan would be required to complete funding its fair share of the plan’s unfunded liabilities. In other words, the plan would have a claim against the employer for the inherited liabilities which would otherwise fall upon the remaining employers as a result of the withdrawal. . . .
“We think that such withdrawal liability would, first of all, discourage voluntary withdrawals and curtail the current incentives to flee the plan. Where such withdrawals nonetheless occur, we think that withdrawal liability would cushion the financial impact on the plan.” Id., at 23 (statement of Matthew M. Lind).
Gray also moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain the Pension Plan from taking any further steps to collect the withdrawal liability it assessed. The District Court denied that motion. App. 50-57.
At the same time, Gray requested that the Pension Plan review its determination of withdrawal liability. See 29 U. S. C. § 1399(b)(2). In response, the Pension Plan issued a “Decision on Review,” concluding that it had “accurately determined: (1) the method for allocating the unfunded vested benefits to Gray, (2) the amount of the Plan’s unfunded vested benefits, (3) the schedule of payments offered to Gray, and (4) the date of Gray’s complete withdrawal.” 549 F. Supp. 531, 534 (Ore. 1982). Although Gray could have initiated arbitration with the Pension Plan on these issues, 29 U. S. C. § 1401(a), it accepted these findings and waived its right to arbitration, 549 F. Supp., at 534.
Gray also contended, inter alia, that the different treatment afforded employers participating in multiemployer pension plans as opposed to employers participating in single-employer pension plans violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, that retroactive application of the MPPAA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause included in Art. I, § 9, of the Constitution, and that the Act’s arbitration provisions violated Gray’s rights to procedural due process and trial by jury. The District Court rejected the first two claims, see 549 F. Supp., at 538-539, and refused to reach the last claim because Gray had waived its right to arbitration, id., at 539; n. 4, supra. These issues were not reached by the Court of Appeals, Shelter Framing Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 705 F. 2d 1502, 1515 (CA9 1983), and are not now pressed before this Court.
The court in Nachman developed this four-part test for reviewing the constitutionality of retroactive legislation under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause primarily by relying upon this Court’s decisions in Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U. S. 234 (1978), and Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U. S. 330 (1935). For reasons explained below, however, we do not believe that these cases control judicial review of retroactive federal legislation affecting economic benefits and burdens. See infra, at 732-734. We therefore reject the constitutional underpinnings of the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals in Nachman, although we have no occasion to consider whether the factors mentioned by that court might in some circumstances be relevant in determining whether retroactive legislation is rational. Cf. Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 446 U. S. 359, 367-368, and n. 12 (1980) (explicitly limiting our review to the statutory question presented).
At least three Courts of Appeals, as well as numerous District Courts, have concluded that retroactive application of the MPPAA’s withdrawal liability provisions satisfies constitutional standards. See, e. g., Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co., 725 F. 2d 843 (CA2 1984); Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Cory., 724 F. 2d 1247 (CA7 1983), cert. pending, No. 83-1246; Republic Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters Joint Council, 718 F. 2d 628 (CA4 1983), cert. pending, No. 83-541.
The prospective application of the MPPAA’s withdrawal liability provisions has also been the subject of extensive nationwide litigation. All of the Courts of Appeals addressing the various constitutional challenges raised in those cases, however, have upheld the statute. See, e. g., The Washington Star Co. v. International Typographical Union Negotiated Pension Plan, 235 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 729 F. 2d 1502 (1984); Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., supra; Republic Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters Joint Council, supra. Because these issues were not addressed by the Court of Appeals, cf. n. 5, supra, and are not actively pursued by the parties before this Court, we assume for purposes of our decision in these cases that the prospective effects of the Act satisfy constitutional standards.
See, e. g., Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co., 725 F. 2d, at 852 (“Notice was everywhere. . . . [Employers] withdrew from their funds not only when pervasive regulation, including withdrawal liability under ERISA, existed in the pension field, but also when the advent of the MPPAA was imminent”); Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 724 F. 2d, at 1269 (“[T]he intent of Congress to provide for the retrospective imposition of liability was quite clear from the very beginning of the legislative process.... [EJmployers who withdrew during [the retrospective] period cannot argue that they are now being required to pay wholly unanticipated liabilities”) (footnote omitted).
It could not justifiably be claimed that the Contract Clause applies, either by its own terms or by convincing historical evidence, to actions of the National Government. Indeed, records from the debates at the Constitutional Convention leave no doubt that the Framers explicitly refused to subject federal legislation impairing private contracts to the literal requirements of the Contract Clause:
“MR. GERRY entered into observations inculcating the importance of public faith, and the propriety of the restraint put on the states from impairing the obligation of contracts; alleging that Congress ought to be laid under the like prohibitions. He made a motion to that effect. He was not seconded.” 5 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 546 (2d ed. 1876).
See 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 619 (1911).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the early morning hours of August 26, 1976, respondents Clifford Bailey, James T. Cogdell, Ronald C. Cooley, and Ralph Walker, federal prisoners at the District of Columbia jail, crawled through a window from which a bar had been removed, slid down a knotted bedsheet, and escaped from custody. Federal authorities recaptured them after they had remained at large for a period of time ranging from one month to three and one-half months. Upon their apprehension, they were charged with violating 18 U. S. C. § 751 (a), which governs escape from federal custody. At their trials, each of the respondents adduced or offered to adduce evidence as to various conditions and events at the District of Columbia jail, but each was convicted by the jury. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the convictions by a divided vote, holding that the District Court had improperly precluded consideration by the respective juries of respondents' tendered evidence. We granted certiorari, 440 U. S. 957, and now reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals.
In reaching our conclusion, we must decide the state of mind necessary for violation of § 751 (a) and the elements that constitute defenses such as duress and necessity. In explaining the reasons for our decision, we find ourselves in a position akin to that of the mother crab who is trying to teach her progeny to walk in a straight line, and finally in desperation exclaims: “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.” The Act of Congress we construe consists of one sentence set forth in the margin, n. 1, supra; our own pragmatic estimate, expressed infra, at 417, is that “[i]n general, trials for violations of § 751 (a) should be simple affairs.” Yet we have written, reluctantly but we believe necessarily, a somewhat lengthy opinion supporting our conclusion, because in enacting the Federal Criminal Code Congress legislated in the light of a long history of case law that is frequently relevant in fleshing out the bare bones of a crime that Congress may have proscribed in a single sentence. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246 (1952).
I
All respondents requested jury trials and were initially scheduled to be tried jointly. At the last minute, however, respondent Cogdell secured a severance. Because the District Court refused to submit to the jury any instructions on respondents’ defense of duress or necessity and did not charge the jury that escape was a continuing offense, we must examine in some detail the evidence brought out at trial.
The prosecution’s case in chief against Bailey, Cooley, and Walker was brief. The Government introduced evidence that each of the respondents was in federal custody on August 26, 1976, that they had disappeared, apparently through a cell window, at approximately 5:35 a. m. on that date, and that they had been apprehended individually between September 27 and December 13, 1976.
Respondents’ defense of duress or necessity centered on the conditions in the jail during the months of June, July, and August 1976, and on various threats and beatings directed at them during that period. In describing the conditions at the jail, they introduced evidence of frequent fires in “Northeast One,” the maximum-security cellblock occupied by respondents prior to their escape. Construed in the light most favorable to them, this evidence demonstrated that the inmates of Northeast One, and on occasion the guards in that unit, set fire to trash, bedding, and other objects thrown from the cells. According to the inmates, the guards simply allowed the fires to burn until they went out. Although the fires apparently were confined to small areas and posed no substantial threat of spreading through the complex, poor ventilation caused smoke to collect and linger in the cellblock.
Respondents Cooley and Bailey also introduced testimony that the guards at the jail had subjected them to beatings and to threats of death. Walker attempted to prove that he was an epileptic and had received inadequate medical attention for his seizures.
Consistently during the trial, the District Court stressed that, to sustain their defenses, respondents would have to introduce some evidence that they attempted to surrender or engaged in equivalent conduct once they had freed themselves from the conditions they described. But the court waited for such evidence in vain. Respondent Cooley, who had eluded the authorities for one month, testified that his “people” had tried to contact the authorities, but “never got in touch with anybody.” App. 119. He also suggested that someone had told his sister that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would kill him when he was apprehended.
Respondent Bailey, who was apprehended on November 19, 1976, told a similar story. He stated that he “had the jail officials called several times,” but did not turn himself in because “I would still be under the threats of death.” Like Cooley, Bailey testified that “the FBI was telling my people that they was going to shoot me.” Id., at 169, 175-176.
Only respondent Walker suggested that he had attempted to negotiate a surrender. Like Cooley and Bailey, Walker testified that the FBI had told his “people” that they would kill him when they recaptured him. Nevertheless, according to Walker, he called the FBI three times and spoke with an agent whose name he could not remember. That agent allegedly assured him that the FBI would not harm him, but was unable to promise that Walker would not be returned to the D. C. jail. Id., at 195-200. Walker testified that he last called the FBI in mid-October. He was finally apprehended on December 13, 1976.
At the close of all the evidence, the District Court rejected respondents’ proffered instruction on duress as a defense to prison escape. The court ruled that respondents had failed as a matter of law to present evidence sufficient to support such a defense because they had not turned themselves in after they had escaped the allegedly coercive conditions. After receiving instructions to disregard the evidence of the conditions in the jail, the jury convicted Bailey, Cooley, and Walker of violating § 751 (a).
Two months later, respondent Cogdell came to trial before the same District Judge who had presided over the trial of his co-respondents. When Cogdell attempted to offer testimony concerning the allegedly inhumane conditions at the D. C. jail, the District Judge inquired into CogdelPs conduct between his escape on August 26 and his apprehension on September 28. In response to Cogdell’s assertion that he “may have written letters,” the District Court specified that Cogdell could testify only as to “what he did... [n]ot what he may have done.” App. 230. Absent such testimony, however, the District Court ruled that Cogdell could not present evidence of conditions at the jail. Cogdell subsequently chose not to testify on his own behalf, and was convicted by the jury of violating § 751 (a).
By a divided vote, the Court of Appeals reversed each respondent’s conviction and remanded for new trials. See 190 IT. S. App. D. C. 142, 585 F. 2d 1087 (1978); 190 U. S. App. D. C. 185, 585 F. 2d 1130 (1978). The majority concluded that the District Court should have allowed the jury to consider the evidence of coercive conditions in determining whether the respondents had formulated the requisite intent to sustain a conviction under § 751 (a). According to the majority, § 751 (a) required the prosecution to prove that a particular defendant left federal custody voluntarily, without permission, and “with an intent to avoid confinement.” 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 148, 585 F. 2d, at 1093. The majority then defined the word “confinement” as encompassing only the “normal aspects” of punishment prescribed by our legal system. Thus, where a prisoner escapes in order to avoid “non-confinement” conditions such as beatings or homosexual attacks, he would not necessarily have the requisite intent to sustain a conviction under § 751 (a). According to the majority:
“When a defendant introduces evidence that he was subject to such ‘non-confinement’ conditions, the crucial factual determination on the intent issue is... whether the defendant left custody only to avoid these conditions or whether, in addition, the defendant also intended to avoid confinement. In making this determination the jury is to be guided by the trial court’s instructions pointing out those factors that are most indicative of the presence or absence of an intent to avoid confinement.” 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 148, n. 17, 585 F. 2d, at 1093, n. 17 (emphasis in original).
Turning to the applicability of the defense of duress or necessity, the majority assumed that escape as defined by § 751 (a) was a “continuing offense” as long as the escapee was at large. Given this assumption, the majority agreed with the District Court that, under normal circumstances, an escapee must present evidence of coercion to justify his continued absence from custody as well as his initial departure. Here, however, respondents had been indicted for “flee[ing] and escaping]” “[o]n or about August 26, 1976,” and not for “leaving and staying away from custody.” 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 155, 585 F. 2d, at 1100 (emphasis in original). Similarly, “[t]he trial court’s instructions when read as a whole clearly give the impression that [respondents] were being tried only for leaving the jail on August 26, and not for failing to return at some later date.” Id., at 155, n. 50, 585 F. 2d, at 1100, n. 50. Under these circumstances, the majority believed that neither respondents nor the juries were acquainted with the proposition that the escapes in question were continuing offenses. This failure, according to the majority, constituted “an obvious violation of [respondents’] constitutional right to jury trial.” Id., at 156, 585 F. 2d, at 1101.
The dissenting judge objected to what he characterized as a revolutionary reinterpretation of criminal law by the majority. He argued that the common-law crime of escape had traditionally required only “general intent,” a mental state no more sophisticated than an “intent to go beyond permitted limits.” Id., at 177, 585 F. 2d, at 1122 (emphasis deleted). The dissent concluded that the District Court had properly removed from consideration each respondent’s contention that conditions and events at the D. C. jail justified his escape, because each respondent had introduced no evidence whatsoever justifying his continued absence from jail following that escape.
II
Criminal liability is normally based upon the concurrence of two factors, “an evil-meaning mind [and] an evil-doing hand....” Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S., at 251. In the present case, we must examine both the mental element, or mens rea, required for conviction under § 751 (a) and the circumstances under which the “evil-doing hand” can avoid liability under that section because coercive conditions or necessity negates a conclusion of guilt even though the necessary mens rea was present.
A
Few areas of criminal law pose more difficulty than the proper definition of the mens rea required for any particular crime. In 1970, the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws decried the “confused and inconsistent ad hoc approach” of the federal courts to this issue and called for “a new departure.” See 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws 123 (hereinafter Working Papers). Although the central focus of this and other reform movements has been the codification of workable principles for determining criminal culpability, s§e, e. g., American Law Institute, Model Penal Code §§ 2.01-2.13 (Prop. Off. Draft 1962) (hereinafter Model Penal Code); S. 1, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., §§301-303 (1976), a byproduct has been a general rethinking of traditional mens rea analysis.
At common law, crimes generally were classified as requiring either “general intent” or “specific intent.” This venerable distinction, however, has been the source of a good deal of confusion. As one treatise explained:
“Sometimes 'general intent’ is used in the same way as 'criminal intent’ to mean the general notion of mens rea, while'specific intent’ is taken to mean the mental state required for a particular crime. Or, 'general intent’ may be used to encompass all forms of the mental state requirement, while'specific intent’ is limited to the one mental state of intent. Another possibility is that 'general intent’ will be used to characterize an intent to do something on an undetermined occasion, and'specific intent’ to denote an intent to do that thing at a particular time and place.” W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law §28, pp. 201-202 (1972) (footnotes omitted) (hereinafter LaFave & Scott).
This ambiguity has led to a movement away from the traditional dichotomy of intent and toward an alternative analysis of mens rea. See id., at 202. This new approach, exemplified in the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, is based on two principles. First, the ambiguous and elastic term “intent” is replaced with a hierarchy of culpable states of mind. The different levels in this hierarchy are commonly identified, in descending order of culpability, as purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. See LaFave & Scott 194; Model Penal Code § 2.02. Perhaps the most significant, and most esoteric, distinction drawn by this analysis is that between the mental states of “purpose” and “knowledge.” As we pointed out in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 445 (1978), a person who causes a particular result is said to act purposefully if “ ‘he consciously desires that result, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct/ ” while he is said to act knowingly if he is aware “ ‘that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result.’ ”
In the case of most crimes, “the limited distinction between knowledge and purpose has not been considered important since ‘there is good reason for imposing liability whether the defendant desired or merely knew of the practical certainty of the results.’ ” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., supra, at 445, quoting LaFave & Scott 197. Thus, in Gypsum we held that a person could be held criminally liable under § 1 of the Sherman Act if that person exchanged price information with a competitor either with the knowledge that the exchange would have unreasonable anticompetitive effects or with the purpose of producing those effects. 438 U. S., at 444-445, and n. 21.
In certain narrow classes of crimes, however, heightened culpability has been thought to merit special attention. Thus, the statutory and common law of homicide often distinguishes, either in setting the “degree” of the crime or in imposing punishment, between a person who knows that another person will be killed as the result of his conduct and a person who acts with the specific purpose of taking another’s life. See LaFave & Scott 196-197. Similarly, where a defendant is charged with treason, this Court has stated that the Government must demonstrate that the defendant acted with a purpose to aid the enemy. See Haupt v. United States, 330 U. S. 631, 641 (1947). Another such example is the law of inchoate offenses such as attempt and conspiracy, where a heightened mental state separates criminality itself from otherwise innocuous behavior. See Model Penal Code § 2.02, Comments, p. 125 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955) (hereinafter MPC Comments).
In a general sense, “purpose” corresponds loosely with the common-law concept of specific intent, while “knowledge” corresponds loosely with the concept of general intent. See ibid.; LaFave & Scott 201-202. Were this substitution of terms the only innovation offered by the reformers, it would hardly be dramatic. But there is another ambiguity inherent in the traditional distinction between specific intent and general intent. Generally, even time-honored common-law crimes consist of several elements, and complex statutorily defined crimes exhibit this characteristic to an even greater degree. Is the same state of mind required of the actor for each element of the crime, or may some elements require one state of mind and some another? In United States v. Feola, 420 U. S. 671 (1975), for example, we were asked to decide whether the Government, to sustain a conviction for assaulting a federal officer under 18 U. S. C. § 111, had to prove that the defendant knew that his victim was a federal officer. After looking to the legislative history of § 111, we concluded that Congress intended to require only “an intent to assault, not an intent to assault a federal officer.” 420 U. S., at 684. What Feola implied, the American Law Institute stated: “[C]lear analysis requires that the question of the kind of culpability required to establish the commission of an offense be faced separately with respect to each material element of the crime.” MPC Comments 123. See also Working Papers 131; LaFave & Scott 194.
Before dissecting § 751 (a) and assigning a level of culpability to each element, we believe that two observations are in order. First, in performing such analysis courts obviously must follow Congress’ intent as to the required level of mental culpability for any particular offense. Principles derived from common law as well as precepts suggested by the American Law Institute must bow to legislative mandates. In the case of § 751 (a), however, neither the language of the statute nor the legislative history mentions the mens rea required for conviction.
Second, while the suggested element-by-element analysis is a useful tool for making sense of an otherwise opaque concept, it is not the only principle to be considered. The administration of the federal system of criminal justice is confided to ordinary mortals, whether they be lawyers, judges, or jurors. This system could easily fall of its own weight if courts or scholars become obsessed with hair-splitting distinctions, either traditional or novel, that Congress neither stated nor implied when it made the conduct criminal.
As relevant to the charges against Bailey, Cooley, and Walker, § 751 (a) required the prosecution to prove (1) that they had been in the custody of the Attorney General, (2) as the result of a conviction, and (3) that they had escaped from that custody. As for the charges against respondent Cogdell, § 751 (a) required the same proof, with the exception that his confinement was based upon an arrest for a felony rather than a prior conviction. Although § 751 (a) does not define the term “escape,” courts and commentators are in general agreement that it means absenting oneself from custody without permission. See, e. g., 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 148, 585 F. 2d, at 1093; id., at 177, 585 F. 2d, at 1122 (Wilkey, J., dissenting); United States v. Wilke, 450 F. 2d 877 (CA9 1971), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 918 (1972). See also 2 J. Bishop, Criminal Law § 1103, p. 819 (9th ed. 1923); 1 W. Burdick, Law of Crime 462-463 (1946); R. Perkins, Criminal Law 429 (1957); 3 F. Wharton, Criminal Law §2003, p. 2178 (11th ed. 1912).
Respondents have not challenged the District Court’s instructions on the first two elements of the crime defined by § 751 (a). It is undisputed that, on August 26, 1976, respondents were in the custody of the Attorney General as the result of either arrest on charges of felony or conviction. As for the element of “escape,” we need not decide whether a person could be convicted on evidence of recklessness or negligence with respect to the limits on his freedom. A court may someday confront a case where an escapee did not know, but should have known, that he was exceeding the bounds of his confinement or that he was leaving without permission. Here, the District Court clearly instructed the juries that the prosecution bore the burden of proving that respondents “knowingly committed an act which the law makes a crime” and that they acted “knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately....” App. 221-223, 231-233. At a minimum, the juries had to find that respondents knew they were leaving the jail and that they knew they were doing so without authorization. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the juries’ verdicts under this charge has never seriously been questioned, nor could it be.
The majority of the Court of Appeals, however, imposed the added burden on the prosecution to prove as a part of its case in chief that respondents acted “with an intent to avoid confinement.” While, for the reasons noted above, the word “intent” is quite ambiguous, the majority left little doubt that it was requiring the Government to prove that the respondents acted with the purpose — that is, the conscious objective — of leaving the jail without authorization. In a footnote explaining their holding, for example, the majority specified that an escapee did not act with the requisite intent if he escaped in order to avoid “ ‘non-confinement’ conditions” as opposed to “normal aspects of ‘confinement.’ ” 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 148, n. 17, 585 F. 2d, at 1093, n. 17.
We find the majority’s position quite unsupportable. Nothing in the language or legislative history of § 751 (a) indicates that Congress intended to require either such a heightened standard of culpability or such a narrow definition of confinement. As we stated earlier, the cases have generally held that, except in narrow classes of offenses, proof that the defendant acted knowingly is sufficient to support a conviction. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution fulfills its burden under § 751 (a) if it demonstrates that an escapee knew his actions would result in his leaving physical confinement without permission. Our holding in this respect comports with parallel definitions of the crime of escape both in the Model Penal Code and in a proposed revision of the Federal Criminal Code. See Model Penal Code §§2.02 (3), 242.6 (1); Report of Senate Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany S. 1, S. Rep. No. 94-00, pp. 333-334 (Comm. Print 1976). Moreover, comments accompanying the proposed revision of the Federal Criminal Code specified that the new provision covering escape “substantially carrie [d] forward existing law....” Id., at 332.
B
Respondents also contend that they are entitled to a new trial because they presented (or, in Cogdell’s case, could have presented) sufficient evidence of duress or necessity to submit such a defense to the jury. The majority below did not confront this claim squarely, holding instead that, to the extent that such a defense normally would be barred by a prisoner’s failure to return to custody, neither the indictment nor the jury instructions adequately described such a requirement. See 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 155-156, 585 F. 2d, at 1100-1101.
Common law historically distinguished between the defenses of duress and necessity. Duress was said to excuse criminal conduct where the actor was under an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, which threat caused the actor to engage in conduct violating the literal terms of the criminal law. While the defense of duress covered the situation where the coercion had its source in the actions of other human beings, the defense of necessity, or choice of evils, traditionally covered the situation where physical forces beyond the actor’s control rendered illegal conduct the lesser of two evils. Thus, where A destroyed a dike because B threatened to kill him if he did not, A would argue that he acted under duress, whereas if A destroyed the dike in order to protect more valuable property from flooding, A could claim a defense of necessity. See generally LaFave & Scott 374-384.
Modern cases have tended to blur the distinction between duress and necessity. In the court below, the majority discarded the labels “duress” and “necessity,” choosing instead to examine the policies underlying the traditional defenses. See 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 152, 585 F. 2d, at 1097. In particular, the majority felt that the defenses were designed to spare a person from punishment if he acted “under threats or conditions that a person of ordinary firmness would have been unable to resist,” or if he reasonably believed that criminal action “was necessary to avoid a harm more serious than that sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense.” Id., at 152-153, 585 F. 2d, at 1097-1098. The Model Penal Code redefines the defenses along similar lines. See Model Penal Code § 2.09 (duress) and § 3.02 (choice of evils).
We need not speculate now, however, on the precise contours of whatever defenses of duress or necessity are available against charges brought under § 751 (a). Under any definition of these defenses one principle remains constant: if there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, “a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm,” the defenses will fail. LaFave & Scott 379. Clearly, in the context of prison escape, the escapee is not entitled to claim a defense of duress or necessity unless and until he demonstrates that, given the imminence of the threat, violation of § 751 (a) was his only reasonable alternative. See United States v. Boomer, 571 F. 2d 543, 545 (CA10), cert. denied sub nom. Heft v. United States, 436 U. S. 911 (1978); People v. Richards, 269 Cal. App. 2d 768, 75 Cal. Rptr. 597 (1969).
In the present case, the Government contends that respondents’ showing was insufficient on two grounds. First, the Government asserts that the threats and conditions cited by respondents as justifying their escape were not sufficiently immediate or serious to justify their departure from lawful custody. Second, the Government contends that, once the respondents had escaped, the coercive conditions in the jail were no longer a threat and respondents were under a duty to terminate their status as fugitives by turning themselves over to the authorities.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the evidence of coercion and conditions in the jail was at least sufficient to go to the jury as an affirmative defense to the crime charged. As for their failure to return to custody after gaining their freedom, respondents assert that this failure should be but one factor in the overall determination whether their initial departure was justified. According to respondents, their failure to surrender “may reflect adversely on the bona fides of [their] motivation” in leaving the jail, but should not withdraw the question of their motivation from the jury’s consideration. Brief for Respondents 67. See also n. 3, supra.
We need not decide whether such evidence as that submitted by respondents was sufficient to raise a jury question as to their initial departures. This is because we decline to hold that respondents’ failure to return is “just one factor” for the jury to weigh in deciding whether the initial escape could be affirmatively justified. On the contrary, several considerations lead us to conclude that, in order to be entitled to an instruction on duress or necessity as a defense to the crime charged, an escapee must first offer evidence justifying his continued absence from custody as well as his initial departure and that an indispensable element of such an offer is testimony of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity had lost its coercive force.
First, we think it clear beyond peradventure that escape from federal custody as defined in § 751 (a) is a continuing offense and that an escapee can be held liable for failure to return to custody'as well as for his initial departure. Given the continuing threat to society posed by an escaped prisoner, “the nature of the crime involved is such that Congress must assuredly have intended that it be treated as a continuing one.” Toussie v. United States, 397 U. S. 112, 115 (1970). Moreover, every federal court that has considered this issue has held, either explicitly or implicitly, that § 751 (a) defines a continuing offense. See, e. g., United States v. Michelson, 559 F. 2d 567 (CA9 1977); United States v. Cluck, 542 F. 2d 728 (CA8), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 986 (1976); United States v. Joiner, 496 F. 2d 1314 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1002 (1974); United States v. Chapman, 455 F. 2d 746 (CA5 1972).
Respondents point out that Toussie calls for restraint in labeling crimes as continuing offenses. The justification for that restraint, however, is the tension between the doctrine of continuing offenses and the policy of repose embodied in statutes of limitations. See 397 U. S., at 114-115. This tension is wholly absent where, as in the case of § 751 (a), the statute of limitations is tolled for the period that the escapee remains at large.
The remaining considerations leading to our conclusion are, perhaps ironically, derived from the same concern for the statutory and constitutional right of jury trial upon which the majority of the Court of Appeals based its reasoning. There was no significant “variance” in the indictment merely because respondents had not been indicted under a theory of escape as a continuing offense and because the District Court did not explain this theory to the juries. We have held on several occasions that “an indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 117 (1974). These indictments, which track closely the language of § 751 (a), were undoubtedly sufficient under this standard. See 418 U. S., at 117. As for the alleged failure of the District Court to elaborate for the benefit of the jury on the continuing nature of the charged offense, we believe that, such elaboration was unnecessary where, as here, the evidence failed as a matter of law in a crucial particular to reach the minimum threshold that would have required an instruction on respondents’ theory of the case generally.
The Anglo-Saxon tradition of criminal justice, embodied in the United States Constitution and in federal statutes, makes jurors the judges of the credibility of testimony offered by witnesses. It is for them, generally, and not for appellate courts, to say that a particular witness spoke the truth or fabricated a cock-and-bull story. An escapee who flees from a jail that is in the process of burning to the ground may well be entitled to an instruction on duress or necessity, “ ‘for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt.’ ” United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 487 (1869). And in the federal system it is the jury that is the judge of whether the prisoner’s account of his reason for flight is true or false. But precisely because a defendant is entitled to have the credibility of his testimony, or that of witnesses called on his behalf, judged by the jury, it is essential that the testimony given or proffered meet a minimum standard as to each element of the defense so that, if a jury finds it to be true, it would support an affirmative defense — here that of duress or necessity.
We therefore hold that, where a criminal defendant is charged with escape and claims that he is entitled to an instruction on the theory of duress or necessity, he must proffer evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity had lost its coercive force. We have reviewed the evidence examined elaborately in the majority and dissenting opinions below, and find the case not even close, even under respondents’ versions of the facts, as to whether they either surrendered or offered to surrender at their earliest possible opportunity. Since we have determined that this is an indispensable element of the defense of duress or necessity, respondents were not entitled to any instruction on such a theory. Yague and necessarily self-serving statements of defendants or witnesses as to future good intentions or ambiguous conduct simply do not support a finding of this element of the defense.
Ill
In reversing the judgments of the Court of Appeals, we believe that we are at least as faithful as the majority of that court to its expressed policy of “allowing the jury to perform its accustomed role” as the arbiter of factual disputes. 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 151, 585 F. 2d, at 1096. The requirement of a threshold showing on the part of those who assert an affirmative defense to a crime is by no means a derogation of the importance of the jury as a judge of credibility. Nor is it based on any distrust of the jury’s ability to separate fact from fiction. On the contrary, it is a testament to the importance of trial by jury and the need to husband the resources necessary for that process by limiting evidence in a trial to that directed at the elements of the crime or at affirmative defenses. If, as we here hold, an affirmative defense consists of several elements and testimony supporting one element is insufficient to sustain it even if believed, the trial court and jury need not be burdened with testimony supporting other elements of the defense.
These cases present a good example of the potential for wasting valuable trial resources. In general, trials for violations of § 751 (a) should be simple affairs. The key elements are capable of objective demonstration; the mens rea, as discussed above, will usually depend upon reasonable inferences from those objective facts. Here, however, the jury in the trial of Bailey, Cooley, and Walker heard five days of testimony. It was presented with evidence of every unpleasant aspect of prison life from the amount of garbage on the cellblock floor, to the meal schedule, to the number of times the inmates were allowed to shower. Unfortunately, all this evidence was presented in a case where the defense’s reach hopelessly exceeded its grasp. Were we to hold, as respondents suggest, that the jury should be subjected to this potpourri even though a critical element of the proffered defenses was concededly absent, we undoubtedly would convert every trial under § 751 (a) into a hearing on the current state of the federal penal system.
Because the juries below were properly instructed on the mens rea required by §
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are individual farmers and farming entities in California who purchase water from respondent Westlands Water District (Westlands or District). Westlands receives its water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) under a 1963 contract between Westlands and the Bureau. Petitioners contend that the Bureau breached the contract in 1993 when it reduced the water supply to West-lands. Although petitioners are not parties to the contract, they claim that they are entitled to enforce it as intended third-party beneficiaries; that the United States waived its sovereign immunity from suits for breach of contract in a provision of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, § 221, 96 Stat. 1271, 43 U. S. C. §390uu; and hence that they may sue the United States in federal district court for breach of the 1963 contract. We conclude that, in enacting §390uu, Congress did not consent to petitioners’ suit.
I
The Reclamation Act of 1902 set in motion a massive program to provide federal financing, construction, and operation of water storage and distribution projects to reclaim arid lands in many Western States. California v. United States, 438 U. S. 645, 650 (1978). The California Central Valley Project (CVP), a system of dams, reservoirs, levees, canals, pumping stations, hydropower plants, and other infrastructure, distributes water throughout California’s vast Central Valley. United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725, 733 (1950).
The Bureau, located in the Department of the Interior, administers the CVP. In accordance with its standard practice for federal reclamation projects, the Bureau holds permits to appropriate water from the relevant state agency, here the California State Water Resources Control Board. See California, supra, at 652, and n. 7. The Bureau distributes the water in accordance with its statutory and contractual obligations. It contracts with state irrigation districts to deliver water and to receive reimbursement for the costs of constructing, operating, and maintaining the works.
In 1963, the United States agreed to a 40-year water service contract with Westlands, a political subdivision of the State of California. The 1963 contract provided, among other things, that the United States would furnish to the District specified annual quantities of water, App. 34-36, and that the District would accept and pay for the water at a maximum rate of $8 per acre-foot, id., at 38. Since 1978, the contract has generated extensive litigation. See Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist., 899 F. 2d 814, 817 (CA9 1990); O’Neill v. United States, 50 F. 3d 677, 681 (CA9 1995); 358 F. 3d 1137, 1141 (CA9 2004) (case below). In 1982, Congress enacted the Reclamation Reform Act, which included 43 U. S. C. § 390uu, the waiver of sovereign immunity at issue here.
The present case arose from water delivery reductions in the early 1990’s. Those reductions stemmed from environmental obligations imposed on the Bureau by the 1992 enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), 106 Stat. 4706. The CVPIA directed the Secretary of the Interior to “operate the [CVP] to meet all obligations under ... the Federal Endangered Species Act” (ESA), § 3406(b), and to dedicate annually a certain amount of CVP water to implement fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration, § 3406(b)(2). In the early 1990’s, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Sacramento River winter-run chi-nook salmon as a threatened species under the ESA, see 55 Fed. Reg. 46523 (1990); 50 CFR § 227.4(e) (1991); and, in 1993, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed the delta smelt as a threatened species, see 58 Fed. Reg. 12854-12855; 50 CFR § 17.11. The Bureau concluded that pumps used to deliver water south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta could harm these species. Brief for United States 10-11, and n. 7. To avert possible harm to these species and other wildlife, the Bureau concluded that it needed to reduce the water delivery. In the 1993-1994 water year, the Bureau reduced by 50 percent the contractual delivery of CVP water to water districts south of the Delta, including Westlands. Id., at 10; see also O’Neill, supra, at 681.
In 1993, Westlands and several other water districts challenged the Bureau’s 50-percent delivery reduction under the Administrative Procedure Act, the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. Westlands Water Dist. v. United States Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 850 F. Supp. 1388, 1394-1395 (ED Cal. 1994). Petitioner landowners and water users intervened as plaintiffs. Respondent Natural Resources Defense Council and other fishing and conservation organizations intervened as defendants. Id., at 1394. Ultimately, following negotiations among the State of California, the Federal Government, and urban, agricultural, and environmental interests, the water districts and all parties except petitioners stipulated to the dismissal of the districts’ complaint. 358 F. 3d, at 1142; App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a; Brief for United States ll.
Petitioners pressed forward with numerous claims. The District Court dismissed some of them and granted summary judgment for the Government on others, see 358 F. 3d, at 1142, leaving only the claim at issue here: that the United States had breached the 1963 contract by reducing the delivery of water and was liable for money damages. Petitioners contended that the United States had waived its sovereign immunity from their suit in the Reclamation Reform Act, 43 U. S. C. § 390uu. The District Court initially held that petitioners were intended third-party beneficiaries and that the language of § 390uu was broad enough to allow their suit, App. to Pet. for Cert. 26a, but on reconsideration changed its view. It held that, in light of intervening Circuit authority, Klamath Water Users Protective Assn. v. Patterson, 204 F. 3d 1206 (CA9 1999), petitioners were neither contracting parties nor intended third-party beneficiaries of the 1963 contract, and therefore could not benefit from §39Quu’s waiver. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a-34a.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in relevant part. It agreed with the District Court’s reading of the 1963 contract and § 390uu in light of Klamath. 358 F. 3d, at 1144-1147. The Court of Appeals noted that its decision might be at odds with H. F. Allen Orchards v. United States, 749 F. 2d 1571 (CA Fed. 1984), which had reached the opposite conclusion with respect to farmers who belonged to an irrigation district in Washington. 358 F. 3d, at 1147, n. 5. We granted certiorari. 543 U. S. 924 (2004).
I — I
This dispute centers on § 390uu, which waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain purposes. Section 390uu provides:
“Consent is given to join the United States as a necessary party defendant in any suit to adjudicate, confirm, validate, or decree the contractual rights of a contracting entity and the United States regarding any contract executed pursuant to Federal reclamation law. The United States, when a party to any suit, shall be deemed to have waived any right to plead that it is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and shall be subject to judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. Any suit pursuant to this section may be brought in any United States district court in the State in which the land involved is situated.”
Petitioners contend that they are intended third-party beneficiaries of the 1963 contract and therefore entitled to enforce the contract. Hence, they claim, their suit is one “to adjudicate .. . the contractual rights of a contracting entity and the United States” within the meaning of § 390uu. This argument founders on the principle that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. See, e.g., Department of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U. S. 255, 261 (1999); Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192 (1996). Construing § 390uu in light of this principle, we find it insufficient to waive sovereign immunity.
Section 390uu grants consent “to join the United States as a necessary party defendant in any suit to adjudicate” certain rights under a federal reclamation contract. (Emphasis added.) This language is best interpreted to grant consent to join the United States in an action between other parties — for example, two water districts, or a water district and its members — when the action requires construction of a reclamation contract and joinder of the United States is necessary. It does not permit a plaintiff to sue the United States alone.
Section 390uu’s use of the words “necessary party” supports this interpretation. Before 1966, the term “necessary” described the class of parties now called “Persons to be Joined if Feasible” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). See Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U. S. 102, 116-118, and n. 12 (1968) (recounting terminology change). Rule 19(a) requires a court to order joinder of a party if
“(1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
Though the Rule no longer describes such parties as “necessary,” “necessary party” is a term of art whose meaning par-aliéis Rule 19(a)’s requirements. See Black’s Law Dictionary 928 (5th ed. 1979) (defining “necessary parties” as “those persons who must be joined in an action because, inter alia, complete relief cannot be given to those already parties without their joinder,” and citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(a)).
The phrase “join ... as a necessary party defendant” in §390uu thus calls to mind Rule 19(a)’s requirements. We need not decide here whether the phrase limits the waiver of sovereign immunity to cases in which the United States could be joined under Rule 19(a). Regardless, the traditional concept of joinder of a necessary party supports interpreting § 390uu to permit joinder of the United States in an action rather than initiation of a suit solely against it.
Our conclusion draws force from the contrast between § 390uu’s language, which speaks in terms of joinder, and the broader phrasing of statutes that waive immunity from suits against the United States alone. For example, the Tucker Act grants the United States Court of Federal Claims “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1). The Little Tucker Act grants district courts original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Federal Claims, over “[a]ny ... civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded .. . upon any express or implied contract with the United States.” § 1346(a)(2). The contrast between 43 U. S. C. §390uu and the broader language of these statutes confirms that our construction ascribes the proper meaning to the limiting phrase “join ... as a necessary party defendant” in §390uu.
Petitioners’ suit cannot proceed under our interpretation of §390uu. For purposes of that provision, petitioners sought to sue the United States alone: They named as defendants the United States itself, as well as various federal entities and officials they viewed as responsible for the water delivery reduction (for example, the Bureau, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Secretary of the Interior). Petitioners’ suit, brought solely against the United States and its agents, is not an attempt to “join the United States as a necessary party defendant.” §390uu (emphasis added).
* * *
We hold that § 390uu does not waive immunity from petitioners’ suit: The statute does not waive immunity from suits directly against the United States, as opposed to joinder of the United States as a necessary party defendant to permit a complete adjudication of rights under a reclamation contract. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Westlands subsequently intervened on appeal.
The District Court invited petitioners several times to transfer their damages claims to the Court of Federal Claims, but petitioners did not accept those invitations. App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a.
We need not reach the contentions, advanced by respondents, that §390uu neither unequivocally grants consent to a money damages remedy, Brief for United States 23-25; Brief for Natural Resources Defense Council et al. '20-21, nor unequivocally grants consent to suit by noncon-tracting entities, id., at 22-23, and n. 8; Brief for Westlands Water District 44-46. As explained above, we find §390uu otherwise insufficiently clear to grant consent to petitioners’ suit.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the
This appeal is'the latest step in the long and fitful attempt. to devise a constitutionally valid reapportionment scheme for the State of Arizona. For the reasons given, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
In April 1964, shortly-before this Court’s decision in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964), and in its companion cases, suit was filed in the District Court for the District of Arizona attacking the then-existing state dis-tricting laws as unconstitutional. Following those decisions, the three-judge District Court ordered all proceed-; ings stayed “until the expiration of a period of 30 days-next following adjournment of the next session” of the Arizona Legislature. (App. 2-3, unreported.) Nearly ' a year later, on May. 18, 1965, after the legislature had failed to act, the court again deferred trial pending a special legislative session called by the Governor to deal with the necessity of reapportionment. The special session enacted Senate Bill 11, which among other things provided one senator for a county of 7,700 and another for a county of 55,000. The session did not undertake to reapportion the House. Trial was had in November 1965 and on February 2, 1966, the court enjoined enforcement of Senate Bill, 11, which, it held, “bears'evidence of having been thrown together .as a result of considerations wholly apart from those laid down as compulsory-by the decisions of the Supreme Court.” Klahr v. Goddard, 250 F. Supp. 537, 541 (Ariz. 1966). The plan, said the court, was “shot through with invidious discrimination.” Id., at 546. The court also held that the existing House plan produced disparities of nearly four to one, which was clearly impermissible under our decisions.
Noting that the legislature “has had ample opportunity” to produce a valid reapportionment plan, the court formulated its own plan as a “temporary and provisional reapportionment,” designed to govern the impending preparation for the 1966 elections. The plan was to be in effect “for the 1966 primary and general elections and for such further elections as may follow until such time as the Legislature itself may adopt different and valid plans for districting and reapportionmerit.” Id., at 543. It retained jurisdiction, as it has done since.
Some 16 months later, in June 1967, the Arizona Legislature enacted “Chapter 1, 28th Legislature,” which again attempted reapportionment of the State. Within the month, suit was filed charging that this Act also was unconstitutional, but the court deferred action pending the outcome of a referendum scheduled with the November 1968 election for the legislature and Congress. It ordered those elections to be held in accordance with its own 1966 plan, as supplemented. Klahr v. Williams, 289 F. Supp. 829 (Ariz. 1967). The legislative plan was approved by the voters in the referendum and signed into law by the Governor on January 17, 1969. A hearing on the plan was commenced the same day. The court concluded on July 22, 1969, that the plan, which set up “election districts” based on population and “legislative” subdistricts based on voter registration, would allow deviations among the legislative subdistricts of up to 40% from ideal until 1971, and up to 16% thereafter. The court properly concluded that this plan was invalid under Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526 (1969), and Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542 (1969), since the legislature had operated on the notion that a 16% deviation was de minimis and consequently, made no effort, to achieve greater equality. The court ordered its 1966 plan continued once again “until the Legislature shall have adopted different, valid, and effective plans for redistricting and reapportionment . . . .” (App. 85, unreported.) It refused to order the 1970 elections to be held at large, since there was “ample time” for the legislature “to meet its obligation” before the machinery for conducting the 1970 elections would be engaged.
' The legislature attempted a third time to enact a valid plan. It passed “Chapter 1, House Bill No.- 1, 29th Legislature,” which was signed. into law by the Governor on. January 22, 1970, and which is the plan involved in the decision from which this appeal is taken. Appellant challenged the bill, alleging that it “substantially disenfranchises, unreasonably and unnecessarily, a large number of the citizens of the state,” App.-106, and “creates legislative districts that are grossly unequal.” App. 108. Appellant at that time submitted his own plan for the court’s consideration. Appellant’s primary dispute with the new plan was that it substantially misconceived the current population distribution in Arizona. The court agreed that appellant’s plan, which utilized 1968 projections of 1960 and 1965 Arizona censuses, could “very likely [result in] a valid reapportionment plan” but it declined to implement the plan, since it was based on census tracts, rather than the existing precinct boundaries, and “the necessary reconstruction of the election precincts could not be accomplished in time” to serve the ■ 1970 ■ election, whose preliminary preparations were to begin in a few weeks. Klahr v. Williams, 313 F. Supp. 148, 150 (Ariz. 1970). At the same time, the court observed that its 1966 plan had fallen béhind contemporary constitutional requirements, due to more recent voter registration data (which increased the deviation between high and low districts to 47.09%) and the intervening decisions of this. Court in Kirkpatrick and Wells, supra, and Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73 (1966).
Turning to the legislature’s plan, the court found it wanting in several respects. First, though the result indicated population deviation between high and low districts of only 1.8%, the population formula used did not “truly represent the population within [the] precincts in either 1960 or 1968,” and thus “the figures produced . . . are not truly population figures.” 313 F. Supp., at 152. Second, the computer that devised the plan had been programmed to assure that the plan would not-require any -incumbent legislator to face any other incumbent for re-election. Third, the programming gave priority to one-party districts over districts drawn without regard to party strength. The court held that “the incumbency factor has no place in any reapportionment or redistricting” and found “inapposite” the “consideration of party strength as a factor . . . .Ibid.
The court was thus faced with a situation where both its 1966 plan and the legislature’s latest attempt fell short of the constitutional standard. At. that time, however, the 1970 elections were “close at hand.” The court concluded that another legislative effort was “out of the question” due to the time and felt that it could not itself devise a new plan without delaying primary elections, “a course which would involve serious risk of confusion and chaos.” Ibid. It considered at-large elections, but the prospect of electing 90 legislators at large was deemed so repugnant as to be justified only if the legislature’s actions had been “deliberate and inexcusable”; the court instead believed that the large population increase in Arizona since the last reliable census in 1960 was more to blame. Concluding that the 1970 elections would be the last to be held .before the 1970 census data became available for new plans, the court chose what it considered the lesser of two evils and ordered the elections to be conducted under the legislature’s plan. In its order to this effect, the court noted that it “assumes that the Arizona Legislature will by November 1, 1971, enact a valid plan of reapportionment,” but that “[u]pon failure of the Legislature so to do, any party to this action may apply to the court for appropriate relief.” Id., at 154.
The state officials did not seek review of the District Court’s judgment declaring Chapter 1 unconstitutional. Appellant, however, appealed to this Court. His notice of appeal was filed on June 18,'1970, his jurisdictional statement on August 17, 1970. The latter presented the single question whether it was error for the United States District Court to refuse to enjoin the enforcement of the Arizona Legislature’s most recent effort to reapportion the State. Appellees’ motion to dismiss or affirm was filed on November' 24. We noted probable jurisdiction on December 21, 400 U. S. 963.
Meanwhile, the 1970 elections were* held in accordance with the District Court’s decree. Appellees suggest that the issue presented is moot and appellant concedes “the 1970 general election has already been held so that that aspect of the wrong cannot be remedied.” Brief 8. But appellant now argues that however that may be, the District Court should now proceed to adopt a plan of reapportionment which would be displaced only upon the adoption of a valid plan by the legislature. Appellant doubts that postponing judicial action until after November 1 will give the District Court sufficient time, prior to June 1972, when the election process must begin in Arizona, to consider the. legislative plan and to prepare, its own plan if the legislative effort does, not comply with the Constitution. The feared result is that another election under an unconstitutional plan would be held in Arizona.
Reapportionment history in the State lends some substance to these fears, but as we have often noted, district-ing and apportionment are legislative tasks in the first instance, and the court did not err in giving the legislature a reasonable time to act based on the 1970 census figures which the court thought would be available in the summer of 1971. We agree with appellant that the District Court should make very sure that the 1972 elections are held under a constitutionally adequate apportionment plan. But the District Court knows better than we whether the November 1 deadline will afford it ample opportunity to assess the legality of a new apportionment statute if one is forthcoming and to prepare its own plan by June 1, 1972, if the official version proves insufficient. The 1970 census figures, if not now available, will be forthcoming soon; and appellant, if he is so inclined, can begin to assemble the necessary information and witnesses and himself prepare and have ready for submission what he deems to. be an adequate apportionment plan. Surely, had a satisfactory substitute for Chapter 1, held unconstitutional by the District Court, been prepared and ready the court would have ordered the 1970 elections held under that plan rather than the invalid legislative scheme. . And surely if appellant has ready for court use on November 1, 1971, a suitable alternative for an unacceptable legislative effort, or at least makes sure that the essential information is on hand, there is no justifiable ground for thinking the District Court could not, prior to June 1, 1972, complete its hearings and consideration of a new apportionment statute and, if that is rejected, adopt a plan of its own for use in the 1972 elections. Nor do we read the District Court decree as forbidding appellant from petitioning for reopening of the case prior to November 1, 1971, and presenting to the District Court the problem which it has now raised here but which we prefer at this juncture to leave in the hands of the District Court. The judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Throughout this litigation, congressional districting has been at issue as well and has suffered the same fate as reapportionment of the legislature. However, appeal has been • taken , here only with respect to the lower court’s decree goncerhing legislative reapportionment.
The court issued two supplemental decrees in 1966 which modified and clarified .the original order. 254 F. Supp. 997, 289 F. Supp. 827.
Apparently under Arizona law, a referendum is required before a bill can become law where, as here, sufficient signatures against the bill are filed with the Secretary of State. See Klahr v. Williams, 289 F. Supp. 829 (Ariz. 1967).
“The population factor in each of the election precincts comprising part of a legislative'district was obtained by instructing the computer to take the 1968 voter registration for the precinct and divide it by the 1968 voter registration for the county in which the precinct was located, thereby obtaining the percentage of registered voters of the county residing within the precinct. The computer was then directed to multiply that percentage figure by the 1960 census for the county in which the precinct was located, thereby obtaining the population factor for the precinct.” 313 F. Supp., at 151-152.
Though wé noted in Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 89 n. 16, that “[t]he fact that district boundaries may have been drawn in' a way that- minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness,”' it is sufficient to note here, that the District Court did not base' its decision solely on this factor.
E. g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 586 (1964):
“[Legislative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and . . judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.”
Appellant has contended here that the use of voter registration figures, rather than actual population, to determine district size operates to the detriment of the poor, blacks, Mexican-Americans, and American Indians. In light of our disposition of this case, we need only advert to our admonition in Burns v. Richardson, supra, that use of voter registration as a basis may “perpetuate under-representation of groups constitutionally entitled to participate in the electoral process,” 384 U. S., at 92, and is allowable only if it produces “a distribution of legislators not substantially different from that which would have resulted from the use of a permissible population basis.” Id., at 93. We presúme, of course, that any plan submitted, and certainly any- plan approved by the District Court, will be faithful to this requirement.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Kennedy 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.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted the writ to review the action of the Court of Appeals holding that the decision of the Regional Solicitor, acting for the Secretary of the Interior, disapproving the will of a Comanche Indian constitutes final and unreviewable agency action. We conclude that such decision is subject to judicial review.
George Chahsenah, a Comanche Indian, died on October 11, 1963, unmarried and without a surviving father, mother, brother, or sister. His estate consisted of interests in three Comanche allotments situated in Oklahoma under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. Shortly after Chahsenah’s death, the value of those interests was fixed at $34,867. On March 14, 1963, Chahsenah had made a will devising and bequeathing his estate to a niece, Viola Atewooftakewa Tate, and her three children, these devisees or their representatives being the petitioners herein. Chahsenah had resided with this niece a considerable portion of the later years of his life. His will made no mention of a surviving daughter, but stated that he was leaving nothing to his “heirs at law ... for the reason that they have shown no interest in me.”
The beneficiaries under the will sought to have it approved by the Secretary of the Interior, as required by 25 U. S. C. § 373. A hearing was had before an Examiner of Inheritance, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior. Dorita High Horse, claiming as sole surviving issue, and certain nieces and nephews of the testator contended that the will was not entitled to departmental approval, arguing that due to the effects of chronic alcoholism, cirrhosis of the liver, and diabetes, George Chahsenah was incompetent to make a will. Pursuant to the provisions of § 5 of the Act of February 28, 1891, 26 Stat. 795, 25 U. S. C. § 371, if Chah-senah had died intestate his putative daughter, Dorita High Horse, would have been an heir at law, whether or not her parents were married.
The Examiner found that the will of March 14, 1963, drawn on a form printed by the Department of the Interior for that purpose, was Chahsenah’s last will and testament and that it had been prepared by an attorney employed by the Department of the Interior who advised the testator concerning the will. He also found that at the time the will was made the attorney and the witnesses executed an affidavit attesting that the will was properly made and executed, and that the decedent was of sound and disposing mind and memory and not acting under undue influence, fraud, duress, or coercion at the time of its execution. The Examiner found that Dorita High Horse was George Chahsenah’s illegitimate daughter and his sole heir at law. He concluded, however, that the evidence presented by the contestants was not sufficient to outweigh the presumption of correctness attaching to a properly executed will, in addition to which were the unimpeached statements of the draftsman and witnesses that Chahsenah possessed testamentary capacity. The Examiner concluded that the testator’s failure to provide for Dorita High Horse was not unnatural since there was no evidence of any close relationship between the two during any part of their lives. The will was approved and distribution in accordance with its provisions was ordered.
A petition for rehearing, contending that the evidence did not support the Examiner’s conclusion regarding the decedent’s competency, was denied. An appeal was taken to the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, an officer having authority to make a final decision in the matter on behalf of the Secretary. He concluded that although the evidence supported the Examiner’s finding that decedent’s will met the technical requirements for a valid testamentary instrument, 25 U. S. C. § 373 vested in the Secretary broad authority to approve or disapprove the will. In exercising that discretion, the Regional Solicitor viewed his authority as requiring him to examine all the circumstances to determine whether “approval will most nearly achieve just and equitable treatment of the beneficiaries thereunder and the decedent’s heirs-at-law.” Under this standard he concluded that the decedent, an unemployed person addicted to alcohol and living on the income he received from his inherited land allotments, had not fulfilled his obligations to his illegitimate daughter and had ceased cohabiting with her mother shortly before Dorita’s birth, thus failing to provide her with a “normal home life during her childhood.” The Regional Solicitor concluded that although the daughter was a married adult and could not legally claim support monies from her father or his estate, “it is inappropriate that the Secretary perpetuate this utter disregard for the daughter’s welfare . . . .” Accordingly, he found that under the circumstances the Examiner’s approval of the will was not a reasonable exercise of the discretionary responsibility vested in the Secretary. He thereupon set aside the Examiner’s action, disapproved the will, and ordered the entire estate distributed by intestate succession to Dorita High Horse as sole heir at law.
The beneficiaries under the will brought an action against the Secretary of the Interior in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma contending that the action of the Regional Solicitor was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and that it exceeded the authority conferred upon the Secretary by 25 U. S. C. § 373. The plaintiffs sought to have the District Court review the Regional Solicitor’s action in accord with the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 701-706 (1964 ed., Supp. IV), arguing that the District Court had jurisdiction over the matter by virtue of either that Act or 28 U. S. C. § 1361. Dorita High Horse was allowed to intervene as a party defendant. Both the Secretary and Dorita High Horse moved for summary judgment, contending that the action of the Regional Solicitor was within the authority conferred upon the Secretary, and, as such, is made final and unreviewable by 25 U. S. C. § 373. They also contended that the Regional Solicitor’s decision was in accordance with the evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, and did not involve an abuse of discretion. Although the Secretary conceded that the District Court had jurisdiction to review the action of the Regional Solicitor, Dorita High Horse contended that neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor 28 U. S. C. § 1361 allowed judicial review.
The District Court held that while there was some question as to whether jurisdiction existed under the Administrative Procedure Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361 did provide a basis for jurisdiction, “in order to effectuate the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act by providing the review function which the act contemplates.” 277 F. Supp. 464, 465 n. 1. The court then reasoned that, unlike § 1 of the Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 855, 25 U. S. C. § 372, § 2, 36 Stat. 856, as amended by the Act of February 14, 1913, 37 Stat. 678, 25 U. S. C. § 373, contains no language conferring unreviewable finality upon a decision of the Secretary approving or disapproving an Indian’s will. The District Judge concluded that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 701 (1964 ed., Supp. IV), does not preclude judicial review of the Regional Solicitor’s action. On the merits he held that Congress had conferred upon adult Indians the right to make a will, limited only by the requirement that it be approved by the Secretary.
The District Court held that the review powers of the Secretary are not so broad as to defeat a plainly expressed and rationally based distribution by one who possessed testamentary capacity. The court concluded that the Regional Solicitor incorrectly viewed the Secretary's powers as authorizing disapproval of any will thought unwise or inequitable, and stated: “Congress has conferred the right to make a will upon the Indian and not upon the Secretary. The Secretary can no more use his approval powers to substitute his will for that of the Indian than he can dictate its terms.” 277 F. Supp., at 468. The case was remanded to the Secretary with directions to approve the will and distribute the estate in accordance with its provisions.
On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the Secretary’s action under 25 U. S. C. § 373 was unreviewable.
Two basic questions are presented here: First, whether the Secretary’s action is subject to judicial review; and second, if judicial review is available, whether on this record the Secretary’s decision on the validity of the will was within the scope of authority vested in him under 25 U. S. C. § 373.
I
The Administrative Procedure Act contemplates judicial review of agency action “except to the extent that— (1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. . . .” 6 U. S. C. § 701 (1964 ed., Supp. IV). Earlier in this Term in City of Chicago v. United States, 396 U. S. 162, 164 (1969), relying on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967), we noted that “we start with the presumption that aggrieved persons may obtain review of administrative decisions unless there is ‘persuasive reason to believe' that Congress had no such purpose.” Section 2 of the Act of 1910 contains no language displaying a congressional intention to make unreviewable the Secretary’s approval or disapproval of an Indian’s will.
The respondents argue that we should follow the course taken by the Court of Appeals, reading into § 2 the language of the first section of the 1910 Act, which declares that the Secretary’s decisions ascertaining the legal heirs of deceased Indians are “final and conclusive.” Cf. First Moon v. White Tail, 270 U. S. 243, 244 (1926). The respondents contend that §§ 1 and 2 of the 1910 Act must be read in pari materia because both deal with the Secretary’s power over the devolution of lands held in trust by the United States and both vest in the Secretary broad managerial and supervisory power over allotted lands.
We find this unpersuasive. First, while § 1 of the 1910 Act applies only to Indians possessed of allotments, § 2, as amended in 1913, also applies to all Indians having individual Indian monies or other properties held in trust by the United States. Thus, the coverage of these sections is not identical. Second, the 1910 Act is composed of some 33 sections, virtually all of which deal with the Secretary’s managerial and supervisory powers over Indian lands. Many of these provisions vest in the Secretary discretionary authority. For example, § 3 of the Act permits transfers of beneficial ownership of allotments by providing that allottees can relinquish allotments to their unallotted children if the Secretary “in his discretion” approves. 25 U. S. C. § 408. Yet neither this section nor any of the others in the enactment contains language cloaking the Secretary's actions with immunity from judicial review. If the respondents’ position were accepted and we implied the finality language of § 1 into § 2, it would be difficult to justify on a reading of the statute a later refusal to extend the “final and conclusive” clause to other sections, such as § 3. Congress quite plainly stated that the Secretary’s action under § 1 was not to be subject to judicial scrutiny. Similar language in § 2 would have made clear that Congress desired to work a like result under that section. Cf. City of Chicago v. United States, supra.
II
The Regional Solicitor accepted the findings and conclusions of the Examiner of Inheritance that the testator had testamentary capacity when he executed the instrument, that he was not unduly influenced in its execution, and that it was executed in compliance with the prescribed formalities. This removes from the case before us all questions except the scope of the Secretary’s power to grant or withhold approval of the instrument under 25 U. S. C. § 373.
The Regional Solicitor’s view of the scope of the Secretary’s power is reflected in his statement:
“When a purported will is submitted for approval and it has been determined that it meets the technical requirements for a valid will, further consideration must be given before approving or disapproving it to determine whether approval will most nearly achieve just and equitable treatment of the beneficiaries thereunder and the decedent’s heirs-at-law.” App. 84-85. (Emphasis added.)
The basis of the Regional Solicitor’s action emerges most clearly from his reliance on the legal relationship of the testator to his daughter and his failure to support her. From this he concluded that failure to provide for the daughter in the will did not meet the just and equitable “standard” that he considered the Secretary was authorized to apply in passing on an Indian will. The Regional Solicitor related the failure to support the daughter in her childhood to the absence of provision for her in the will and declared that the decedent “had an obligation to his daughter which was not discharged either during his lifetime or under the terms of his purported will. For this reason it is inappropriate that the Secretary perpetuate this utter disregard for the daughter’s welfare . . . .” (Emphasis added.) While thus stressing the natural ties with Dorita High Horse, the Regional Solicitor neither challenged nor gave weight to the predicate of the Examiner's determination which was that the decedent had a close and sustained familial relationship with his niece and had resided in her home, while, in contrast, he had virtually no contact with his natural daughter.
To sustain the administrative action performed on behalf of the Secretary would, on this record, be tantamount to holding that a public officer can substitute his preference for that of an Indian testator. We need not here undertake to spell out the scope of the Secretary’s power, but we cannot assume that Congress, in giving testamentary power to Indians respecting their allotted property with the one hand, was taking that power away with the other by vesting in the Secretary the same degree of authority to disapprove such a disposition.
In reaching our conclusions it is not necessary to accept the contention of the petitioners that the Secretary's authority is narrowly limited to passing on the formal sufficiency of a document claimed to be a will. The power to make testamentary dispositions arises by statute; here we deal with a special kind of property right under allotments from the Government. The right is not absolute; the allottee is the beneficial owner while the Government is trustee. 25 U. S. C. § 348. The Indian’s right to make inter vivos dispositions is limited and requires approval of the Secretary. The legislative history reflects the concern of the Government to protect Indians from improvident acts or exploitation by others, and comprehensive regulations govern the process of such inter vivos dispositions. No comparable regulations govern the right to make testamentary dispositions, and from this one might argue that the power of an Indian relating to testamentary disposition of allotted property is uninhibited. The legislative history on this score is perhaps no more or less reliable an indicator of what Congress intended than is usual when the scope of administrative discretion is in question.
Whatever may be the scope of the Secretary’s power to grant or withhold approval of a will under 25 U. S. C. § 373, we perceive nothing in the statute or its history or purpose that vests in a governmental official the power to revoke or rewrite a will that reflects a rational testamentary scheme with a provision for a relative who befriended the testator and omission of one who did not, simply because of a subjective feeling that the disposition of the estate was not “just and equitable.” The Regional Solicitor’s action was based on nothing more that we can discern than his concept of equity and in our view this was not the kind or degree of discretion Congress vested in him. Cf. Attocknie v. Udall, 261 F. Supp. 876 (D. C. W. D. Okla. 1966), reversed on other grounds, 390 F. 2d 636 (C. A. 10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 833 (1968).
The Secretary’s task is not always an easy one and perhaps is rendered more difficult by the absence of regulations giving guidelines. It is not difficult to conceive of dispositions so lacking in rational basis that the Secretary’s approval could reasonably be withheld under § 373 even though the same scheme of disposition by a non-Indian of unrestricted property might pass muster in a conventional probate proceeding; on this record, however, we see no basis for the decision of the Regional Solicitor and must hold it arbitrary and capricious. There being no suggestion that the record need or could be supplemented by added factual material, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to reinstate the judgment of the District Court.
Reversed and remanded.
Me. Justice Black, for the reasons set forth by the Court of Appeals in this case, 407 F. 2d 394, and in Heffelman v. Udall, 378 F. 2d 109 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1967), would affirm the judgments below.
The Court of Appeals decision, which held that the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma had erred in reviewing the Regional Solicitor’s action, is reported as High Horse v. Tate, 407 F. 2d 394.
The General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, as amended by Act of February 28, 1891, 26 Stat. 794, as amended by Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 855, 25 U. S. C. § 331 et seq., provides, inter alia, for the. allotment to individual Indians of parcels of land. The title to these lands is held by the United States in trust for the allottee, or his heirs, during the trust period, or any extension thereof. Chahsenah had inherited the interests he held at his death.
Section 2 of the Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 856, as amended by Act of February 14, 1913, 37 Stat. 678, 25 U. S. C. § 373, provides in pertinent part:
“Any persons of the age of twenty-one years having any right, title, or interest in any allotment held under trust or other patent containing restrictions on alienation or individual Indian moneys or other property held in trust by the United States shall have the right prior to the expiration of the trust or restrictive period, and before the issuance of a fee simple patent or the removal of restrictions, to dispose of such property by will, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, however, That no will so executed shall be valid or have any force or effect unless and until it shall have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior may approve or disapprove the will either before or after the death of the testator .... Provided also, That this section and section 372 of this title shall not apply to the Five Civilized Tribes or the Osage Indians.”
Reference to Chahsenah’s supposed alcohol addiction carries an intimation that the Regional Solicitor saw some want of testamentary capacity, a notion contrary to his approval of the Examiner’s finding of testamentary capacity and absence of undue influence.
The Regional Solicitor gratuitously volunteered that if any of the five previous wills made by the testator between 1956 and 1963 were presented he would disapprove them because they made no provision for Dorita High Horse. The record discloses no inquiry by him into the circumstances of the execution of those wills, the testator’s state of health at the time of their execution or his reasons for omitting provision for Dorita High Horse.
The plaintiffs supporting the will appear to have relied upon 5 U. S. C. §702 (1964 ed., Supp. IV), which provides:
“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”
28 U. S. C. §1361 provides:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”
We express no opinion as to the correctness of this determination. The complaint alleged that the amount in dispute was in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and that the dispute arose under the laws of the United States. Independently of the District Court’s ruling, it had jurisdiction over the complaint under 28 U. S. C. § 1331. Cf. Machinists v. Central Airlines, 372 U. S. 682, 685 n. 2 (1963); AFL v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 589-591 (1946).
That section provides in pertinent part:
“When any Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made, or may hereafter be made, dies before the expiration of the trust period and before the issuance of a fee simple patent, without having made a will disposing of said allotment as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of the Interior, upon notice and hearing, under such rules as he may prescribe, shall ascertain the legal heirs of such decedent, and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
There is a conflict in the circuits on this point. Compare Hayes v. Seaton, 106 U. S. App. D. C. 126, 128, 270 F. 2d 319, 321 (1959); Homovich v. Chapman, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 150, 153, 191 F. 2d 761, 764 (1951), with Heffelman v. Udall, 378 F. 2d 109 (C. A. 10th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 926 (1967); Attocknie v. Udall, 390 F. 2d 636 (C. A. 10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 833 (1968).
See also Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, ante, p. 150; Barlow v. Collins, ante, p. 159.
This is borne out by the Secretary’s interpretation of § 373 in an arguably “improvident” testamentary disposition. As to a will naming a Caucasian as a beneficiary, a memorandum, dated May 10, 1941, from the Solicitor’s Office to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, stated, inter alia,
“Whatever discretion the Secretary may have in the matter of approving or disapproving the will, it is clear that this discretion should not be exercised to the extent of substituting his will for that of the testator. . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), we held that a defendant is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his nontestifying codefendant’s confession naming him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant. Today we consider whether Bruton requires the same result when the co-defendant’s confession is redacted to omit any reference to the defendant, but the defendant is nonetheless linked to the confession by evidence properly admitted against him at trial.
I
Respondent Clarissa Marsh, Benjamin Williams, and Kareem Martin were charged with assaulting Cynthia Knighton and murdering her 4-year-old son, Koran, and her aunt, Ollie Scott. Respondent and Williams were tried jointly, over her objection. (Martin was a fugitive at the time of trial.) At the trial, Knighton testified as follows: On the evening of October 29, 1978, she and her son were at Scott’s home when respondent and her boyfriend Martin visited. After a brief conversation in the living room, respondent announced that she had come to “pick up something” from Scott and rose from the couch. Martin then pulled out a gun, pointed it at Scott and the Knightons, and said that “someone had gotten killed and [Scott] knew something about it.” Respondent immediately walked to the front door and peered out the peephole. The doorbell rang, respondent opened the door, and Williams walked in, carrying a gun. As Williams passed respondent, he asked, “Where’s the money?” Martin forced Scott upstairs, and Williams went into the kitchen, leaving respondent alone with the Knightons. Knighton and her son attempted to flee, but respondent grabbed Knighton and held her until Williams returned. Williams ordered the Knightons to lie on the floor and then went upstairs to assist Martin. Respondent, again left alone with the Knightons, stood by the front door and occasionally peered out the peephole. A few minutes later, Martin, Williams, and Scott came down the stairs, and Martin handed a paper grocery bag to respondent. Martin and Williams then forced Scott and the Knightons into the basement, where Martin shot them. Only Cynthia Knighton survived.
In addition to Knighton’s testimony, the State introduced (over respondent’s objection) a confession given by Williams to the police shortly after his arrest. The confession was redacted to omit all reference to respondent — indeed, to omit all indication that anyone other than Martin and Williams participated in the crime. The confession largely corroborated Knighton’s account of the activities of persons other than respondent in the house. In addition, the confession described a conversation Williams had with Martin as they drove to the Scott home, during which, according to Williams, Martin said that he would have to kill the victims after the robbery. At the time the confession was admitted, the jury was admonished not to use it in any way against respondent. Williams did not testify.
After the State rested, respondent took the stand. She testified that on October 29, 1978, she had lost money that Martin intended to use to buy drugs. Martin was upset, and suggested to respondent that she borrow money from Scott, with whom she had worked in the past. Martin and respondent picked up Williams and drove to Scott’s house. During the drive, respondent, who was sitting in the backseat, “knew that [Martin and Williams] were talking” but could not hear the conversation because “the radio was on and the speaker was right in [her] ear.” Martin and respondent were admitted into the home, and respondent had a short conversation with Scott, during which she asked for a loan. Martin then pulled a gun, and respondent walked to the door to see where the car was. When she saw Williams, she opened the door for him. Respondent testified that during the robbery she did not feel free to leave and was too scared to flee. She said that she did not know why she prevented the Knightons from escaping. She admitted taking the bag from Martin, but said that after Martin and Williams took the victims into the basement, she left the house without the bag. Respondent insisted that she had possessed no prior knowledge that Martin and Williams were armed, had heard no conversation about anyone’s being harmed, and had not intended to rob or kill anyone.
During his closing argument, the prosecutor admonished the jury not to use Williams’ confession against respondent. Later in his argument, however, he linked respondent to the portion of Williams’ confession describing his conversation with Martin in the car. (Respondent’s attorney did not object to this.) After closing arguments, the judge again instructed the jury that Williams’ confession was not to be considered against respondent. The jury convicted respondent of two counts of felony murder in the perpetration of an armed robbery and one count of assault with intent to commit murder. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, People v. Marsh, No. 46128 (Dec. 17, 1980), and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, 412 Mich. 927 (1982).
Respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254. She alleged that her conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and that introduction of Williams’ confession at the joint trial had violated her rights under the Confrontation Clause. The District Court denied the petition. Civ. Action No. 88-CV-2665-DT (ED Mich., Oct. 11, 1984). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. 781 F. 2d 1201 (1986). The Court of Appeals held that in determining whether Bruton bars the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession, a court must assess the confession’s “inculpatory value” by examining not only the face of the confession, but also all of the evidence introduced at trial. 781 F. 2d, at 1212. Here, Williams’ account of the conversation in the car was the only direct evidence that respondent knew before entering Scott’s house that the victims would be robbed and killed. Respondent’s own testimony placed her in that car. In light of the “paucity” of other evidence of malice and the prosecutor’s linkage of respondent and the statement in the car during closing argument, admission of Williams’ confession “was powerfully incriminating to [respondent] with respect to the critical element of intent.” Id., at 1213. Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded, the Confrontation Clause was violated. We granted certiorari, 476 U. S. 1168 (1986), because the Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicts with those of other Courts of Appeals which have declined to adopt the “evidentiary linkage” or “contextual implication” approach to Bruton questions, see, e. g., United States v. Belle, 593 F. 2d 487 (CA3 1979) (en banc).
II
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, extended against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of a criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The right of confrontation includes the right to cross-examine witnesses. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 404, 406-407 (1965). Therefore, where two defendants are tried jointly, the pretrial confession of one cannot be admitted against the other unless the confessing defendant takes the stand.
Ordinarily, a witness whose testimony is introduced at a joint trial is not considered to be a witness “against” a defendant if the jury is instructed to consider that testimony only against a codefendant. This accords with the almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions, Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307, 325, n. 9 (1985), which we have applied in many varying contexts. For example, in Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), we held that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), can be introduced to impeach that defendant’s credibility, even though they are inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, so long as the jury is instructed accordingly. Similarly, in Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554 (1967), we held that evidence of the defendant’s prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement, so long as the jury was instructed it could not be used for purposes of determining guilt. Accord, Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 438-439, n. 6 (1983). See also Tennessee v. Street, 471 U. S. 409, 414-416 (1985) (instruction to consider accomplice’s incriminating confession only for purpose of assessing truthfulness of defendant’s claim that his own confession was coerced); Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U. S. 341, 347 (1981) (instruction not to consider erroneously admitted eyewitness identification evidence); Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954) (instruction to consider unlawfully seized physical evidence only in assessing defendant’s credibility). In Bruton, however, we recognized a narrow exception to this principle: We held that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant. We said:
“[Tjhere are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial. . . .” 391 U. S., at 135-136 (citations omitted).
There is an important distinction between this case and Bruton, which causes it to fall outside the narrow exception we have created. In Bruton, the codefendant’s confession “expressly implicat[ed]” the defendant as his accomplice. Id., at 124, n. 1. Thus, at the time that confession was introduced there was not the slightest doubt that it would prove “powerfully incriminating.” Id., at 135. By contrast, in this case the confession was not incriminating on its face, and became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial (the defendant’s own testimony).
Where the necessity of such linkage is involved, it is a less valid generalization that the jury will not likely obey the instruction to disregard the evidence. Specific testimony that “the defendant helped me commit the crime” is more vivid than inferential incrimination, and hence more difficult to thrust out of mind. Moreover, with regard to such an-explicit statement the only issue is, plain and simply, whether the jury can possibly be expected to forget it in assessing the defendant’s guilt; whereas with regard to inferential incrimination the judge’s instruction may well be successful in dissuading the jury from entering onto the path of inference in the first place, so that there is no incrimination to forget. In short, while it may not always be simple for the members of a jury to obey the instruction that they disregard an incriminating inference, there does not exist the overwhelming probability of their inability to do so that is the foundation of Bruton’s exception to the general rule.
Even more significantly, evidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce. If limited to facially incriminating confessions, Bruton can be complied with by redaction — a possibility suggested in that opinion itself. Id., at 134, n. 10. If extended to confessions incriminating by connection, not only is that not possible, but it is not even possible to predict the admissibility of a confession in advance of trial. The “contextual implication” doctrine articulated by the Court of Appeals would presumably require the trial judge to assess at the end of each trial whether, in light of all of the evidence, a nontestifying codefendant’s confession has been so “powerfully incriminating” that a new, separate trial is required for the defendant. This obviously lends itself to manipulation by the defense— and even without manipulation will result in numerous mistrials and appeals. It might be suggested that those consequences could be reduced by conducting a pretrial hearing at which prosecution and defense would reveal the evidence they plan to introduce, enabling the court to assess compliance with Bruton ex ante rather than ex post. If this approach is even feasible under the Federal Rules (which is doubtful — see, e. g., Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 14), it would be time consuming and obviously far from foolproof.
One might say, of course, that a certain way of assuring compliance would be to try defendants separately whenever an incriminating statement of one of them is sought to be used. That is not as facile or as just a remedy as might seem. Joint trials play a vital role in the criminal justice system, accounting for almost one-third of federal criminal trials in the past five years. Memorandum from David L. Cook, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, to Supreme Court Library (Feb. 20, 1987) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Many joint trials — for example, those involving large conspiracies to import and distribute illegal drugs — involve a dozen or more codefendants. Confessions by one or more of the defendants are commonplace — and indeed the probability of confession increases with the number of participants, since each has reduced assurance that he will be protected by his own silence. It would impair both the efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system to require, in all these cases of joint crimes where incriminating statements exist, that prosecutors bring separate proceedings, presenting the same evidence again and again, requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience (and sometimes trauma) of testifying, and randomly favoring the last-tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution’s case beforehand. Joint trials generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding inconsistent verdicts and enabling more accurate assessment of relative culpability— advantages which sometimes operate to the defendant’s benefit. Even apart from these tactical considerations, joint trials generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts. The other way of assuring compliance with an expansive Bruton rule would be to forgo use of codefendant confessions. That price also is too high, since confessions “are more than merely ‘desirable’; they are essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.” Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 426 (1986) (citation omitted).
The rule that juries are presumed to follow their instructions is a pragmatic one, rooted less in the absolute certitude that the presumption is true than in the belief that it represents a reasonable practical accommodation of the interests of the state and the defendant in the criminal justice process. On the precise facts of Bruton, involving a facially incriminating confession, we found that accommodation inadequate. As our discussion above shows, the calculus changes when confessions that do not name the defendant are at issue. While we continue to apply Bruton where we have found that its rationale validly applies, see Cruz v. New York, ante, p. 186, we decline to extend it further. We hold that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession with a proper limiting instruction when, as here, the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.
In the present case, however, the prosecutor sought to undo the effect of the limiting instruction by urging the jury to use Williams’ confession in evaluating respondent’s case. See supra, at 205, and n. 2. On remand, the court should consider whether, in light of respondent’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s comments, the error can serve as the basis for granting a writ of habeas corpus. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The redacted confession in its entirety read:
“On Sunday evening, October the 29th, 1978, at about 6:30 p.m., I was over to my girl friend’s house at 237 Moss, Highland Park, when I received a phone call from a friend of mine named Kareem Martin. He said he had been looking for me and James Coleman, who I call Tom. He asked me if I wanted to go on a robbery with him. I said okay. Then he said he’d be by and pick me up. About 16 or 20 minutes later Kareem came by in his black Monte Carlo car. I got in the ear and Kareem told me he was going to stick up this crib, told me the place was a numbers house. Kareem said there would be over $5,000 or $10,000 in the place. Kareem said he would have to take them out after the robbery. Kareem had a big silver gun. He gave me a long barrelled [sic] .22 revolver. We then drove over to this house and parked the car across the big street near the house. The plan was that I would wait in the car in front of the house and then I would move the car down across the big street because he didn’t want anybody to see the car. Okay, Kareem went up to the house and went inside. A couple of minutes later I moved the car and went up to the house. As I entered, Kareem and this older lady were in the dining room, a little boy and another younger woman were sitting on the couch in the front room. I pulled my pistol and told the younger woman and the little boy to lay on the floor. Kareem took the older lady upstairs. He had a pistol, also. I stayed downstairs with the two people on the floor. After Kareem took the lady upstairs I went upstairs and the lady was laying on the bed in the room to the left as you get up the stairs. The lady had already given us two bags full of money before we ever got upstairs. Kareem had thought she had more money and that’s why we had went upstairs. Me and Kareem started searching the rooms but I didn’t find any money. I came downstairs and then Kareem came down with the lady. I said, ‘Let’s go, let’s go.’ Kareem said no. Kareem then took the two ladies and little boy down the basement and that’s when I left to go to the car. I went to the car and got in the back seat. A couple of minutes later Kareem came to the car and said he thinks the girl was still living because she was still moving and he didn’t have any more bullets. He asked me how come I didn’t go down the basement and I said I wasn’t doing no shit like that. He then dropped me back off at my girl’s house in Highland Park and I was supposed to get together with him today, get my share of the robbery after he had counted the money. That’s all.” App. in No. 84-1777 (CA6), pp. 88-90.
The prosecutor said:
“It’s important in light of [respondent’s] testimony when she says Kareem drives over to Benjamin Williams’ home and picks him up to go over. What’s the thing that she says? Well, I’m sitting in the back seat of the car.’ ‘Did you hear any conversation that was going on in the front seat between Kareem and Mr. Williams?’ ‘No, couldn’t hear any conversation. The radio was too loud.’ I asked [sic] you whether that is reasonable. Why did she say that? Why did she say she couldn’t hear any conversation? She said, T know they were having conversation but I couldn’t hear it because of the radio.’ Because if she admits that she heard the conversation and she admits to the plan, she’s guilty of at least armed robbery. So she can’t tell you that.” Id., at 164.
The dissent is mistaken in believing we “assum[e] that [Williams’] confession did not incriminate respondent.” Post, at 215, n. 3. To the contrary, the very premise of our discussion is that respondent would have been harmed by Williams’ confession if the jury had disobeyed its instructions. Our disagreement pertains not to whether the confession incriminated respondent, but to whether the trial court could properly assume that the jury did not use it against her.
The dissent notes that “all of the cases in this Court that involved joint trials conducted after Bruton was decided, in which compliance with the rule of that case was at issue, appear to have originated in a state court.” Post, at 219. It concludes from this that “[fjederal prosecutors seem to have had little difficulty” in implementing Bruton as the dissent believes it must be implemented. Ibid. Since the cases in question number only a handful, the fact that they happened to be state cases may signify nothing more than that there are many times more state prosecutions than federal. There is assuredly no basis to believe that federal prosecutors have been applying the dissent’s interpretation of Bruton. Indeed the contrary proposition — as well as the harmfulness of that interpretation to federal law enforcement efforts — is suggested by the fact that the Solicitor General has appeared here as amicus to urge reversal for substantially the reasons we have given. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae.
We express no opinion on the admissibility of a confession in which the defendant’s name has been replaced with a symbol or neutral pronoun.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927 (1995), we held that the Fourth Amendment incorporates the common-law requirement that police officers entering a dwelling must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting forcible entry. At the same time, we recognized that the “flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests,” id., at 934, and left “to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” id., at 936.
In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that police officers are never required to knock and announce their presence when executing a search warrant in a felony drug investigation. In so doing, it reaffirmed a pre-Wilson holding and concluded that Wilson did not preclude this per se rule. We disagree with the court’s conclusion that the Fourth Amendment permits a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for this entire category of criminal activity. But because the evidence presented to support the officers’ actions in this case establishes that the decision not to knock and announce was a reasonable one under the circumstances, we affirm the judgment of the Wisconsin court.
I
On December 31, 1991, police officers in Madison, Wisconsin, obtained a warrant to search Steiney Richards’ motel room for drugs and related paraphernalia. The search warrant was the culmination of an investigation that had uncovered substantial evidence that Richards was one of several individuals dealing drugs out of hotel rooms in Madison. The police requested a warrant that would have given advance authorization for a “no-knock” entry into the motel room, but the Magistrate explicitly deleted those portions of the warrant. App. 7, 9.
The officers arrived at the motel room at 3:40 a.m. Officer Pharo, dressed as a maintenance man, led the team. With him were several plainclothes officers and at least one man in uniform. Officer Pharo knocked on Richards’ door and, responding to the query from inside the room, stated that he was a maintenance man. With the chain still on the door, Richards cracked it open. Although there is some dispute as to what occurred next, Richards acknowledges that when he opened the door he saw the man in uniform standing behind Officer Pharo. Brief for Petitioner 6. He quickly slammed the door closed and, after waiting two or three seconds, the officers began kicking and ramming the door to gain entry to the locked room. At trial, the officers testified that they identified themselves as police while they were kicking the door in. App. 40. When they finally did break into the room, the officers caught Richards trying to escape through the window. They also found cash and cocaine hidden in plastic bags above the bathroom ceiling tiles.
Richards sought to have the evidence from his motel room suppressed on the ground that the officers had failed to knock and announce their presence prior to forcing entry into the room. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the officers could gather from Richards’ strange behavior when they first sought entry that he knew they were police officers and that he might try to destroy evidence or to escape. Id., at 54. The judge emphasized that the easily disposable nature of the drugs the police were searching for further justified their decision to identify themselves as they crossed the threshold instead of announcing their presence before seeking entry. Id., at 55. Richards appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and that court affirmed. 201 Wis. 2d 845, 549 N. W. 2d 218 (1996).
The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not delve into the events underlying Richards’ arrest in any detail, but accepted the following facts: “[0]n December 31, 1991, police executed a search warrant for the motel room of the defendant seeking evidence of the felonious crime of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance in violation of Wis. Stat. § 161.41(lm) (1991-92). They did not knock and announce prior to their entry. Drugs were seized.” Id., at 849, 549 N. W. 2d, at 220.
Assuming these facts, the court proceeded to consider whether our decision in Wilson required the court to abandon its decision in State v. Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d 410, 511 N. W. 2d 591 (1994), cert. denied, 515 U. S. 1102 (1995), which held that “when the police have a search warrant, supported by probable cause, to search a residence for evidence of delivery of drugs or evidence of possession with intent to deliver drugs, they necessarily have reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances exist” to justify a no-knock entry. 201 Wis. 2d, at 852, 549 N. W. 2d, at 221. The court concluded that nothing in Wilson’s acknowledgment that the knock- and-announce rule was an element of the Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” requirement would prohibit application of a per se exception to that rule in a category of cases. 201 Wis. 2d, at 854-855, 549 N. W. 2d, at 220.
In reaching this conclusion, the Wisconsin court found it reasonable — after considering criminal conduct surveys, newspaper articles, and other judicial opinions — to assume that all felony drug crimes will involve “an extremely high risk of serious if not deadly injury to the police as well as the potential for the disposal of drugs by the occupants prior to entry by the police.” Id., at 847-848, 549 N. W. 2d, at 219. Notwithstanding its acknowledgment that in “some cases, police officers will undoubtedly decide that their safety, the safety of others, and the effective execution of the warrant dictate that they knock and announce,” id., at 863, 549 N. W. 2d, at 225, the court concluded that exigent circumstances justifying a no-knock entry are always present in felony drug cases. Further, the court reasoned that the violation of privacy that occurs when officers who have a search warrant forcibly enter a residence without first announcing their presence is minimal, given that the residents would ultimately be without authority to refuse the police entry. The principal intrusion on individual privacy interests in such a situation, the court concluded, comes from the issuance of the search warrant, not the manner in which it is executed. Id., at 864-865, 549 N. W. 2d, at 226. Accordingly, the court determined that police in Wisconsin do not need specific information about dangerousness, or the possible destruction of drugs in a particular case, in order to dispense with the knock-and-announce requirement in felony drug cases.
Justice Abrahamson concurred in the judgment because, in her view, the facts found by the trial judge justified a no-knock entry. Id,., at 866-868, 549 N. W. 2d, at 227. Specifically, she noted that Richards’ actions in slamming the door when he saw the uniformed man standing behind Officer Pharo indicated that he already knew that the people knocking on his door were police officers. Under these circumstances, any further announcement of their presence would have been a useless gesture. Id., at 868-869, n. 3, 549 N. W. 2d, at 228, n. 3. While agreeing with the outcome, Justice Abrahamson took issue with her colleagues’ affirmation of the blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement in drug felony cases. She observed that the constitutional reasonableness of a search has generally been a matter left to the court, rather than to the officers who conducted the search, and she objected to the creation of a blanket rule that insulated searches in a particular category of crime from the neutral oversight of a reviewing judge. Id., at 868-875, 549 N. W. 2d, at 228-230.
II
We recognized in Wilson that the knock-and-announce requirement could give way “under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence,” or “where police officers have reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given.” 514 U. S., at 936. It is indisputable that felony drug investigations may frequently involve both of these circumstances. The question we must resolve is whether this fact justifies dispensing with case-by-case evaluation of the manner in which a search was executed.
The Wisconsin court explained its blanket exception as necessitated by the special circumstances of today’s drug culture, 201 Wis. 2d, at 863-866, 549 N. W. 2d, at 226-227, and the State asserted at oral argument that the blanket exception was reasonable in “felony drug cases because of the convergence in a violent and dangerous form of commerce of weapons and the destruction of drugs.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 26. But creating exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule based on the “culture” surrounding a general category of criminal behavior presents at least two serious concerns.
First, the exception contains considerable overgeneralization. For example, while drug investigation frequently does pose special risks to officer safety and the preservation of evidence, not every drug investigation will pose these risks to a substantial degree. For example, a search could be conducted at a time when the only individuals present in a residence have no connection with the drug activity and thus will be unlikely to threaten officers or destroy evidence. Or the police could know that the drugs being searched for were of a type or in a location that made them impossible to destroy quickly. In those situations, the asserted governmental interests in preserving evidence and maintaining safety may not outweigh the individual privacy interests intruded upon by a no-knock entry. Wisconsin’s blanket rule imper-missibly insulates these cases from judicial review.
A second difficulty with permitting a criminal-category exception to the knock-and-announce requirement is that the reasons for creating an exception in one category can, relatively easily, be applied to others. Armed bank robbers, for example, are, by definition, likely to have weapons, and the fruits of their crime may be destroyed without too much difficulty. If a per se exception were allowed for each category of criminal investigation that included a considerable — albeit hypothetical — risk of danger to officers or destruction of evidence, the knock-and-announce element of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement would be meaningless.
Thus, the fact that felony drug investigations may frequently present circumstances warranting a no-knock entry cannot remove from the neutral scrutiny of a reviewing court the reasonableness of the police decision not to knock and announce in a particular case. Instead, in each case, it is the duty of a court confronted with the question to determine whether the facts and circumstances of the particular entry justified dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement.
In order to justify a “no-knock” entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence. This standard — as opposed to a probable-cause requirement — strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interests affected by no-knock entries. Cf. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U. S. 325, 337 (1990) (allowing a protective sweep of a house during an arrest where the officers have “a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene”); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 (1968) (requiring a reasonable and articulable suspicion of danger to justify a patdown search). This showing is not high, but the police should be required to make it whenever the reasonableness of a no-knock entry is challenged.
III
Although we reject the Wisconsin court’s blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement, we conclude that the officers’ no-knock entry into Richards’ motel room did not violate the Fourth Amendment. We agree with the trial court, and with Justice Abrahamson, that the circumstances in this case show that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Richards might destroy evidence if given further opportunity to do so.
The judge who heard testimony at Richards’ suppression hearing concluded that it was reasonable for the officers executing the warrant to believe that Richards knew, after opening the door to his motel room the first time, that the men seeking entry to his room were the police. App. 54. Once the officers reasonably believed that Richards knew who they were, the court concluded, it was reasonable for them to force entry immediately given the disposable nature of the drugs. Id., at 55.
In arguing that the officers’ entry was unreasonable, Richards places great emphasis on the fact that the Magistrate who signed the search warrant for his motel room deleted the portions of the proposed warrant that would have given the officers permission to execute a no-knock entry. But this fact does not alter the reasonableness of the officers’ decision, which must be evaluated as of the time they entered the motel room. At the time the officers obtained the warrant, they did not have evidence sufficient, in the judgment of the Magistrate, to justify a no-knock warrant. Of course, the Magistrate could not have anticipated in every particular the circumstances that would confront the officers when they arrived at Richards’ motel room. These actual circumstances — petitioner’s apparent recognition of the officers combined with the easily disposable nature of the drugs— justified the officers’ ultimate decision to enter without first announcing their presence and authority.
Accordingly, although we reject the blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for felony drug investigations, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Several other state courts — in eases that predate our decision in Wilson — have adopted similar rules, concluding that simple probable cause to search a home for narcotics always allows the police to forgo the knock- and-announce requirement. See, e. g., People v. Lujan, 484 P. 2d 1238, 1241 (Colo. 1971) (en banc); Henson v. State, 236 Md. 519, 523-524, 204 A. 2d 516, 519-520 (1964); State v. Loucks, 209 N. W. 2d 772, 777-778 (N. D. 1973). Cf. People v. De Lago, 16 N. Y. 2d 289, 292, 213 N. E. 2d 659, 661 (1965) (similar rule for searches related to gambling operations), cert. denied, 383 U. S. 963 (1966).
This Court has encountered before the links between drugs and violence, see, e. g., Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 702 (1981), and the likelihood that drug dealers will attempt to dispose of drugs before police seize them, see, e. g., Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 28, n. 3 (1963).
Although our decision in Wilson did not address this issue directly, it is instructive that in that case — which involved a felony drug investigation — we remanded to the state court for further factual development to determine whether the no-knock entry was reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Two amicus briefs in Wilson suggested that we adopt just the sort of per se rule the Wisconsin court propounded here. Brief for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 10-11, Brief for Wayne County, Michigan, as Amicus Curiae 39-46, in Wilson v. Arkansas, O. T. 1994, No. 5707. Although the respondent did not argue for a categorical rule, the petitioner, in her reply brief, did address the arguments put forward by the dmicus briefs, Reply Brief for Petitioner in Wilson v. Arkansas, O. T. 1994, No. 5707, p. 11, and amici supporting the petitioner also presented arguments against a categorical rule. Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae in Wilson v. Arkansas, O. T. 1994, No. 5707, p. 29, n. 44. Thus, while the prospect of a categorical rule was one to which we were alerted in Wilson, we did not choose to adopt such a rule at that time.
It is always somewhat dangerous to ground exceptions to constitutional protections in the social norms of a given historical moment. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness “is to preserve that degree of respect for the privacy of persons and the inviolability of their property that existed when the provision was adopted — even if a later, less virtuous age should become accustomed to considering all sorts of intrusion ‘reasonable.’” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U. S. 366, 380 (1993) (Scalia, J,, concurring).
The State asserts that the intrusion on individual interests effectuated by a no-knock entry is minimal because the execution of the warrant itself constitutes the primary intrusion on individual privacy and that the individual privacy interest cannot outweigh the generalized governmental interest in effective and safe law enforcement. Brief for Respondent 21-24. See also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16 (“occupants’ privacy interest is necessarily limited to the brief interval between the officers’ announcement and their entry”). While it is true that a no-knoek entry is less intrusive than, for example, a warrantless search, the individual interests implicated by an unannounced, forcible entry should not be unduly minimized. As we observed in Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 930-932 (1995), the common law recognized that individuals should be provided the opportunity to comply with the law and to avoid the destruction of property occasioned by a forcible entry. These interests are not inconsequential.
Additionally, when police enter a residence without announcing their presence, the residents are not given any opportunity to prepare themselves for such an entry. The State pointed out at oral argument that, in Wisconsin, most search warrants are executed during the late night and early morning hours. Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. The brief interlude between announcement and entry with a warrant may be the opportunity that an individual has to pull on clothes or get out of bed.
We note that the attorneys general of 26 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territory of Guam filed an amicus brief taking the position that the officers’ decision was reasonable under the specific facts of this ease, but rejecting Wisconsin’s per se rule. See Brief for Ohio et al. as Amici Curiae.
A number of States give magistrate judges the authority to issue “no-knoek” warrants if the officers demonstrate ahead of time a reasonable suspicion that entry without prior announcement will be appropriate in a particular context. See, e. g., 725 Ill. Comp. Stat., eh. 725, § 5/108-8 (1992); Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-411 (1995); Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §1228 (Supp. 1997); S. D. Codified Laws §23A-35-9 (1988); Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-210 (1995). But see State v. Arce, 83 Ore. App. 185, 730 P. 2d 1260 (1986) (magistrate has no authority to abrogate knock-and-announce requirement); State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1994) (same).
The practice of allowing magistrates to issue no-knock warrants seems entirely reasonable when sufficient cause to do so can be demonstrated ahead of time. But, as the facts of this case demonstrate, a magistrate’s decision not to authorize a no-knoek entry should not be interpreted to remove the officers’ authority to exercise independent judgment concerning the wisdom of a no-knock entry at the time the warrant is being executed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The ultimate question in these three cases is whether the United States constitutionally may deport a legally resident alien because of membership in the Communist Party which terminated before enactment of the Alien Registration Act, 1940.
Harisiades, a Greek national, accompanied hisTfather to the United States in 1916, when thirteen years of age, and has resided here since. He has taken a wife and sired two children, all citizens. He joined the Communist Party in 1925, when it was known as the Workers Party, and served as an organizer, Branch Executive Committeeman, secretary of its Greek Bureau, and editor of its paper “Empros.” The party discontinued his membership, along with that of other aliens, in 1939, but he has continued association with members. He was familiar with the principles and philosophy of the Communist Party and says he stilf believes in them. He disclaims personal belief in use of force and violence and asserts that the party favored their'use only in defense. A warrant for his deportation because of his membership was issued in 1930 but was not served until 1946. The delay was due to inability to locate him because of his use of a number of aliases. After hearings, he was ordered deported on the grounds that after entry he had been a mémber of an organization which advocates overthrow of the Government by force and violence and distributes printed matter so advocating. He sought release by habeas corpus, which was denied by the District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
Mascitti, a citizen of Italy, came to this country in 1920, at the age of sixteen. He married a resident alien and has one American-born child. He was a member of the Young Workers Party, the Workers Party and the Communist Party between 1923 and 1929. His testimony was that he knew the party advocated a proletarian dictatorship, to be established by force and violence if the capitalist class resisted. He heard some speakers advocate violence, in which he says he did not personally believe, and he was not clear as to the party policy. He resigned in 1929, apparently because he lost sympathy with or interest in the party! A warrant for his deportation issued and was served in 1946. After the usual administrative hearings he was ordered deported on the samé grounds as Harisiades. He sought relief by declaratory judgment, which was denied without opinion by a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia. His case 'comes to this Court by direct appeal.
Mrs. Coleman, a native of Russia, was admitted to the United States in 1914, when thirteen years of age. She married an American citizen and has three children, citizens by birth.' She admits, being a member of the Communist Party for about a year, beginning in 1919, and 'again from 1928 to 1930, and again from 1936 to 1937 or 1938. She held no office and her activities were not significant. She disavowed much knowledge of party principles and program, claiming she joined each time because of some injustice the party was then fighting. The reasons she gives for leaving the party are her health and the party’s discontinuance of alien memberships. She has been ordered deported because after entry she becamé a member of an-organization advocating overthrow of the Government by force -and violence. She sought an injunction on constitutional grounds, among others: Relief was denied, without opinion, by a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia and: her case also bornes here by direct appeal.
Validity of the hearing procedures is questioned for noncompliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which we think is here inapplicable. Admittedly, each of these deportations is authorized and required by the letter, spirit and intention of the statute. But the Act is assailed on three grounds: (1) that it deprives the aliens of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (2) that it abridges their freedoms of speech and assembly in contravention of the First Amendment; and (3) that it is an ex post facto law which Congress is forbidden to pass by Art. I, § 9, cl. 3 of the Constitution.
We have in each case a finding, approved by the court below, that the Communist Party during the period of the alien’s membership taught and advocated overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence. Those findings are not questioned here.
I.
These aliens ask us to forbid their expulsion by a departure from the long-accepted application fo such cases of the Fifth Amendment provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Their basic contention is that admission for permanent residence confers a “vested right” on the alien, equal to that of the citizen, to remain within the country, and that the alien is entitled to constitutional protection in that matter to the same extent as the citizen. Their second line of defense is that if any power to deport domiciled aliens exists it is so dispersed that the judiciary must concur .in the grounds for its exercise to the extent of finding them reasonable. The argument goes on to the contention that the grounds prescribed by the Act of 1940 bear no reasonable relation to protection of legitimate interests of the United States and concludes that the Act should be declared invalid. Admittedly these propositions are hot founded in precedents of this Court.
For over thirty years each of these aliens has enjoyed such advantages as accrue from residence here without renouncing his foreign allegiance or formally acknowledging adherence to the Constitution he now invokes. Each was admitted to the United States, upon passing formidable exclusionary hurdles, in the hope that, after what may be called a probationary period, he would desire and be found desirable for citizenship. Each has been offered naturalization, with all of the rights and privileges of citizenship, conditioned only upon open and.honest assumption of undivided allegiance to our Government. But acceptance was and is not compulsory. Each has been permitted to prolong his original nationality indefinitely.
So long as one thus perpetuates a dual status as.an American inhabitant but foreign citizen, he. may derive advantages from two sources of law — American and international. He may claim protection against our Government unavailable to the citizen. As an alien he retains a claim upon the state of his citizenship to diplomatic intervention on his behalf, a patronage often of considerable valúe. The state of origin of each of these aliens could presently enter diplomatic remonstrance against these deportations if they were inconsistent with international law, the prevailing custom among nations or their own practices.
The alien retains immunities from burdens which the citizen • must shoulder. By withholding his allegiance from the United States, he leaves outstanding a foreign call on his loyalties which international law not. only permits our Government to recognize but commands it to respect. In deference to it certain dispensations from conscription for any military service have been granted foreign nationals. They cannot, -consistently with our international commitments, be compelled “to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country.” In addition to such general immunities they may enjoy particular' treaty privileges.
Under our law, the alien in several respects stands on . an equal footing with citizens, but in others has never been conceded legal parity with the citizen. Most importantly, to protract this ambiguous status within-^the country is not his right but is a matter of permission and tolerance; The Government’s power to terminate its hospitality has been asserted and sustained by this Court since the question first arose.
War, of course, is the most usual occasion for extensive resort to the power. Though the resident alien may be personally loyal to the United States, if his nation becomes our enemy his allegiance prevails over his personal preference and makes him also our enemy, liable to expulsion or internment, and his property becomes subject to seizure and perhaps confiscation. But it does not require war to bring the power of deportation into éxistence or to authorize its exercise. Congressional apprehension of foreign or internal dangers short of war may lead to its use. So long as the alien elects to continue the ambiguity of his allegiance his domicile here is held by a precarious tenure.
That aliens remain vulnerable to expulsion after long residence is a practice that bristles with severities. But it is a weapon of defense and reprisal confirmed by international law as a power inherent in every sovereign state. Such is the traditional power of the Nation over the alien and we leave the law on the subject as we find it.
This brings us to the alternative defense under the Due Process Clause — that, granting the power, it is so unreasonably and harshly exercised by this enactment that it should be held unconstitutional.
In historical context the Act before us stands out.as an extreme application of the expulsion power. There is no denying that as world convulsions have driven us toward a closed society the expulsion power has been exercised with increasing severity, manifest in multiplication of grounds for deportation, in expanding the subject classes from illegal entrants to legal residents, and in greatly lengthening the period of residence after which one may be expelled. This is said to have reached a point where it is the duty of this Court to call a halt upon the political branches of the Government.
It is pertinent to observe that any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.
These restraints upon the judiciary, occasioned by different events, do not control today’s decision but they are pertinent. It is not necessary and probably, not possible to delineate a fixed and precise line of separation in these matters between political, and judicial power under the Constitution. Certainly, however, nothing in the structure of our Government or the text of our Constitution would- warrant judicial review by standards which would require us to equate our political judgment .with that óf Congress. '
Under the conditions which produced this Act, can we declare that congressional alarm about a coalition of Communist power without and Communist conspiracy within the United States is either a fantasy or a pretense? This Act was approved by President Roosevelt June 28, 1940, when a world war was threatening to involve'us, as soon it did. . Communists in the .United States were exerting évery effort to defeat and delay our preparations. Certainly no-responsible American would say that there were then or are now no possible grounds on which Congress might believe that Communists in our. midst are inimical to our security.
- Congress received evidence that the Communist move? ment here has -been heavily laden with • aliens and that Soviet control of the American Communist Party has been largely through alien Communists. It would be easy for. those of us who do not have security responsibility to say that those who do are taking Communism too seriously and overestimating its danger. But we have an Act of one Congress which, for a decade, subsequent Congresses have never repealed but have strengthened and extended. We, in our private opinions, need not concur ' in Congress’ policies to hold its enactments constitutional, judicially we must tolerate what personally we may regard as a legislative mistake.
We are urged, because the policy inflicts severe and undoubted hardship on affected individuals, to find a re-. straint in the Due Process Clause. But the Due Process Clause does not shield the citizen from conscription and the consequent calamity of being separated from family, friends, home' and business while he is transported to foreign lands to stem the tide bf Communism. If Communist aggression creates such hardships for loyal citizens, it is hard to find justification for holding that the Constitution requires that its hardships must be spared the Communist alien. When citizens raised the. Constitution as a shield against expulsion from their homes and places of business, the Court refused to find hardship a cause for' judicial intervention.
. We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. However desirable world-wide amelioration of the lot of aliens, we think it is peculiarly a subject for international diplomacy. It should not be initiated by judicial decision which can only deprive our own Government of a power of defense and reprisal without obtaining for Américañ 'citizens abroad any reciprocal privileges or immunities. Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treaty-making powers.
We . hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.. These aliens aré not entitled to judicial relief unless some other constitutional limitation has been transgressed, to which inquiry we turn.
II.
The First Amendment is invoked as a barrier;, against this enactment. The elaim is that in joining an organization advocating ovérthrow of government by force and violence the alien has merely exercised freedoms of speech, press and assembly which that Amendment guarantees to him.
The assumption is that the First Amendment allows Congress to make no distinction between advocating change in the existing order by lawful elective processes and advocating change by force and violence, that freedom for the one includes freedom for the other, and that when teaching of violence is denied so is freedom of speech.
Our Constitution sought to leave no excuse for violent attack on the status quo by providing a legal alternative— attack by ballot. • To arm all men'for orderly change, the Constitution put in their hands a right to influence' the electorate by press, speech and assembly. This means freedom to advocate or promote Communism by means of the ballot box, but it does not include the practice or incitement of violence.
True, it often is difficult to determine whether ambiguous speech is advocacy of political methods or subtly shades into a methodical but prudent incitement to violence. Communist governments avoid the inquiry by suppressing everything distasteful. Some would have us avoid the difficulty by going to the opposite extreme of permitting incitement to violent overthrow at least unless it seems certain to succeed immediately. We apprehend that the Constitution enjoins upon us the duty, however difficult, of distinguishing between the two. Different formulae have been applied in different situations and the test applicable to the Communist Party has been stated too recently to make further discussion at this timé profitable. We think the First Amendment does not prevent the deportation of these aliens.
III.
The remaining claim is that this Act conflicts with Art. I, § 9, of the Constitution forbidding ex post facto enactments. An impression of retroactivity results from reading as a new and isolated enactment what is actually a continuation of prior legislation.
During all the years since 1920 Congress has maintained a standing admonition to aliens, on pain of deportation, riot to become members of any organization that advocates overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, a category repeatedly held to include the Communist Party. These aliens violated that prohibition and incurred liability to deportation. ■ They were not caught unawares by a change of law. There can be no contention that they were not adequately forewarned both that their conduct was prohibited and of its consequences.
In 1939, this Court decided Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, in which it was held that Congress, in the stat. ute as it then stood, had not clearly expressed an intent that Communist Party membership remained cause for deportation after it ceased. The Court concluded that in the absence of such expression only contemporaneous membership would authorize deportation.
The reaction of the Communist- Party was to drop aliens from membership, at least in .form, in order to imriiunize them from the consequences of their party membership.
The reaction of Congress was that the Court had misunderstood its legislation. In the. Act here before us it supplied unmistakable language that past violators of its prohibitions continued to be deportable in spite of resignation or expulsion from the party. It regarded the fact that an alien defied our laws to join the Communist Party as an indication that he had developed little comprehension of the principles or practice of representative government or else was unwilling to abide by them.
However, even if the Act were found to be retroactive, to strike it down would require us to overrule the construction of the ex post facto provision which has been followed by this Court from earliest times. It always has been considered that that which it forbids is penal legislation which imposes or increases criminal punishment for conduct lawful previous to its enactment. Deportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified-as a civil rather than a criminal procedure. Both of these, doctrines as original proposals might be de~ batable, but both have been considered closed for many years and a body of statute and decisional law has been built upon them. In Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U. S. 585, 591, Mr. Justice Holmes, for the Court, said: “It is’.thoroughly established that Congress has power to order the deportation of aliens whose presence in the country it deems hurtful. The determination by facts that might constitute a crime under local law is not a conviction of crime, nor is the deportátion a punishment; it is simply a refusal by the Government to harboir persons whom it does not want. The coincidence of the local penal law with the policy of Congress is an accident. . . . The prohibition of ex post facto laws in Article I, § 9, has.no application . . . and with regard to the petitioner it is not. necessary to construe the statute as having any retrospective effect.” Later, the Court said, “It is well settled that deportation, while it may be burdensome and severe for the alien, is not a punishment. . . . The inhibition against the passage-of an ex post facto law by Congress in § 9 of Article I of the Constitution applies only to. criminal laws . . . and not to a deportation act like this '. . . .” Mahler v. Ehy, 264 U. S. 32, 39.
It is urged against the foregoing opinions that in a few cases the ex post facto prohibition had been applied to what appeared to be civil disabilities. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; Pierce v. Carskadon, 16 Wall. 234. The Court has since explained that those cases proceeded from the view that novel disabilities there imposed upon citizens were really criminal penalties for which civil form was a disguise, Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U. S. 381, 385. Those cases were known to the Justices who promulgated the above-quoted opinions but have never been considered to govern deportation. The facts of this case afford no basis for reconsidering or modifying the. long-settled doctrine.
It is contended that this poliey allows no escape by reformation. We are urged to apply some doctrine of atonement and redemption. Congress might well have, done so, but it is not for the judiciary, to usurp the function of. granting absolution or pardon. ;We cannot do so fór dépórtable ex-convicts, even though they have .served a term of imprisonment calculated to bring about their .reformation.
When the Communist Party as a matter of party strategy formally expelled alien members en masse, it destroyed any significance that discontinued membership might otherwise have as indication of change of heart by the individual. Congress may have believed that the party tactics threw upon the Government an almost impossible burden, if it attempted to. separate those who sincerely: renounced Communist principles of force and violence from those who left the party the better to serve it. Congress, exercising the wide discretion that it alone has in these matters, declined to accept that as the Government’s burden.
We find noné of tne constitutional objections to the Act well founded. The judgments accordingly are
Affirmed.
Mr.. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
54 Stat. 670, 8 U. S. C. § 137.
90 F. Supp. 397.
187 F. 2d 137.
Petitioner Harisiades and appellant Coleman contend that the proceedings against them-must be nullified for failure to conform to thé requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, 5 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. However, § 12 of the Act, 60 Stat. 244, 5 U. S. C. § 1011; provides that “. . . no procedural requirement shall be mandatory as to any agency proceeding initiated prior to -the effective, date of such requirement.” The proceedings against Harisiades and Coleman were instituted before the effective date of the. Act.. Harisiades also contends that, the Administrative Procedure Act aside, he was denied procedural due process in that in his 1946-1947 hearings the same individual acted both as presiding officer and examining' officer. However, it appears that the officer here performed both functions with Harisiades’ consent. He, therefore, has no standing to raise the objection now.
40 Stat. 548, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 732 (a) (13), (16), (17), (18), (19);61 Stat. 122, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 735. But a certificate of naturalization is subject to revocation on the ground of fraud or other illegality in the procurement. 54 Stat. 1158, 8 U. S. C. § 738; Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654.
§ 2 of the Selective Draft Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 76, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 202; § 3 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 303; § 4 (a) of the Selective Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 454 (a). Cf. Moser v. United States, 341 U. S. 41.
Article 23, 1907 Hague Convention, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 36 Stat. 2301-2302.
Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, 64.
This Court has held that the Constitution assures him a large-measure of equal economic opportunity, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33; he may invoke the writ of habeas corpus to protect' his personal liberty, Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 660; in criminal proceedings against him he must be accorded the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228; and, unless he is an enemy alien, his property cannot be taken without just compensation. Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481.
He cannot stand for election to many public offices. For instance, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, § 3, cl. 3, of the Constitution respectively require that candidates for election to the House of Representatives and Senate be citizens. See Borcliard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, 63. . The states, to whom is entrusted the authority to set qualifications of voters, for most--purposes require citizenship as a condition precedent to the voting , franchise, The alien’s .right to travel temporarily outside' the United States is subject to restrictions not applicable to citizens. 43 Stat. 158, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 210. If he is arrested on a charge of entering the country illegally, the Burden is his to prove ‘‘his right to enter or remain” — no 'presumptions accrue in his favoT by his presence here. 39 Stat. 889, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 155 (a).
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 707, 711-714, 730; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 545-546; Li Sing v. United States, 180 U. S. 486, 494-495; Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U. S. 296, 302; The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 97; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 261; Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272, 275; Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U. S. 549, 556-557; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U. S. 585, 591.
40 Stat. 531, 50 U. S. C. § 21.
40 Stat. 411, 50 U. S. C. App. § 2 (c); 40 Stat. 415, 50 U. S. C. App. § 6; 62 Stat. 1246, 50 U. S. C. App. § 39; Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 342 U. S. 308.
“. . . [I]n strict law, a State can expel even domiciled aliens-without so much as giving the reasons, the refusal of the expelling State to supply the reasons for expulsion to the home State of the expelled alien does not constitute an illegal, but only a very unfriendly act.” 1 Oppenheim, International Law (3d ed., Roxburgh, 1920), 498-502, at 499. But cf. 1 Oppenheim, International Law (7th ed., Lauterpacht, 1948), 630-634, at 631. See also 4 Moore, International Law Digest, 67-96, citing examples; Wheaton's International Law (6th ed., Keith, 1929), 210-211; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698.
An open door to the immigrant was the early federal policy. It began to close in 1884 when Orientals were excluded. 23 Stat. 115. Thereafter, Congress has intermittently added to the excluded classes, and as rejections at the border multiplied illegal entries increased. To combat these, recourse was had-to deportation in the Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 1086. However, that Act could be applied to an illegal entrant only within one year after his entry.’ Although that time limitation was subsequently extended, 32 Stat. 1218; 34 Stat. 904-905, until after the turn of the century expulsion was used only as an auxiliary remedy to enforce exclusion.
Congress, in 1907, provided for deportation of legally resident aliens, but the statute reached only women found engaging in prostitution, and deportation proceedings were authorized only within three years after entry.
From those early steps, the policy has been extended. In 1910; new classes of resident aliens were listed for deportation, including for the. first time political offenders such as anarchists and those believing in or advocating the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. 36 Stat. 264. In 1917, aliens who were found after entry to be advocating anarchist doctrines or the overthrow of the Government by force and violence were made subject to deportation, a-dive-year- time limit being retained. 39 Stat. 889. A year later, deportability because of membership in described subversive organizations was introduced. 40 Stat. 1012; 41 Stat. 1008. When this Court, in 1939, held that that Act reached only aliens who were members when the proceedings against them were instituted, Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, Congress promptly enacted the statute before us, making deportation mandatory for all aliens who at any time past have been members of the proscribed organizations. In so doing it also eliminated th.e time limit for institution of proceedings thereunder. Alien Registration Act, 1940, 54 Stat. 670, 673.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 319-322; Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 111; U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 4; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 42; Pacific Telephone Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250. In respect to the war power over even citizens, see Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 R. S. 81, 92; Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 217-218. That English courts also refuse to review grounds for deportation orders appears from Rex v. Home Secretary; Ex parte Bressler, 27 Cox Cr. Ca. 655.
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81; Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494.
Ibid.
40 Stat. 1012.
Colder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390; Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227, 242.
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 730; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U. S. 585, 591; Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149, 154.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case, 444 U. S. 939, to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that petitioners, the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York and the Commissioner of Education, were required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to afford a hearing to respondent, Mary Tomanio, before denying her request for a waiver of professional licensing examination requirements. In so doing, the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claims that both the statute of limitations and the doctrine of estoppel by judgment barred respondent’s maintenance of an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the federal courts. We find it necessary to consider only the defense based on the statute of limitations, since the resolution of that issue is virtually foreordained in favor of petitioners by our prior cases when the indisputably lengthy series of events which ultimately brought this case here is described.
I
Respondent has practiced chiropractic medicine in the State of New York since 1958. Prior to 1963, the State did not require chiropractic practitioners to be licensed. But in that year the State enacted a statute which required state licensing, and established three separate methods by which applicants could obtain a license to practice chiropractic in the State of New York. 1963 N. Y. Laws, ch. 780, codified as amended, N. Y. Educ. Law §§ 6506 (5), 6554, 6556 (McKinney 1972 and Supp. 1979-1980). First, the statute established education and examination requirements for applicants who had not previously engaged in chiropractic practice. An alternative qualifying examination was made available to individuals already engaged in practice in New York on the date that the licensing statute became effective. Finally, the Act established a third means for current practitioners to qualify without taking any state-administered examination. Under § 6506 (5), they could obtain a waiver of “education, experience and examination requirements for a professional license . . . provided the board of regents shall be satisfied that the requirements of such article have been substantially met.”
Respondent has been unsuccessful in her efforts to obtain a license to practice in New York. On seven separate occasions between 1964 and 1971, she attempted to qualify by taking the special examinations designed for current practitioners. Respondent failed, by a narrow margin, to ever receive a passing score on the examinations. After this series of failures, she applied to the Board of Regents for waiver of the examination requirements pursuant to § 6506 (5). This application was based upon her claim that she had failed the examinations by only a very narrow margin, that she was licensed in the States of Maine and New Hampshire, and that she had passed an examination given by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. On November 22, 1971, the Board notified respondent that they had voted to deny her application for a waiver at a meeting held on November 19. Respondent was not afforded an evidentiary hearing on the denial of the waiver or given a statement of reasons for it.
In January 1972, respondent commenced a proceeding in the New York state courts attacking the decision of the Board of Regents not to grant a waiver as arbitrary and capricious, and seeking an order directing the Board to license her. She did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Board’s decision in this judicial proceeding. The trial court granted the requested relief, but its order was reversed by the Appellate Division. In November 1975, the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division holding that the Board of Regents had not abused their discretion in denying respondent’s application for a waiver. Tomanio v. Board of Regents, 38 N. Y. 2d 724, 343 N. E. 2d 755 (1975), aff’g 43 App, Div. 2d 643, 349 N. Y. S. 2d 806 (3d Dept. 1973).
Seven months later, on June 25, 1976, respondent instituted this action in Federal District Court under 42 U, S. C. § 1983. Respondent alleged that the refusal of petitioners to grant her a license to practice violated due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioners invoked res judicata and the statute of limitations as affirmative defenses to respondent’s action.
The District Court rejected these defenses. First, the court found that res judicata would not bar consideration of a § 1983 claim in federal court if the constitutional claim was not actually litigated and determined in the prior state-court proceeding. Since respondent had not raised any constitutional challenge to the Board’s action in state court, the trial court ruled that res judicata did not preclude the federal action.
The District Court also found that the § 1983 action was not barred by the statute of limitations. Respondent’s claim arose in November 1971 when her application for waiver was denied, more than three years prior to the date on which the suit in federal court was commenced. Although the District Court found that a 3-year New York statute of limitations was applicable to respondent’s action, the court held that it was appropriate to toll the running of that statute during the pendency of her state-court litigation. Relying on Mizell v. North Broward Hospital District, 427 F. 2d 468 (CA5 1970), the judge concluded that a federal tolling rule was appropriate, reasoning that
“[i]n my judgment, the present overburdening of the federal courts and the increased filings of civil rights complaints are factors that mitigate in favor of encouraging the utilization of effective and feasible administrative and judicial remedies, which exist under state law, in certain situations.”
Since respondent had diligently pursued her state-court remedy after the denial of waiver, and then diligently pursued her federal action after a final dismissal of her state-law claims in the New York State Court of Appeals, the judge found that “it cannot be said that plaintiff has slept on her rights.” On the merits of the federal constitutional claim, the District Court found that respondent was entitled to a hearing before the Board, relief which was more limited than she had sought. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court in its rejection of estoppel by judgment and the statute of limitations defense, finding that the tolling of the statute was justified “in the interests of advancing the goals of federalism.” 603 F. 2d 255. The court also agreed with the ruling of the District Court that respondent was entitled, as a matter of federal constitutional law, to a hearing before the Board on her eligibility for waiver of the examination requirements.
In unraveling this tangle of federal and state claims, and federal- and state-court judgments, we have decided that the case is best disposed of by resolving the statute of limitations question, which we believe has been all but expressly resolved against the respondent by our decisions in Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584 (1978); Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454 (1975); and Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). Under the reasoning of these decisions, the federal courts were obligated not only to apply the analogous New York statute of limitations to respondent’s federal constitutional claims, but also to apply the New York rule for tolling that statute of limitations.
II
Congress did not establish a statute of limitations or a body of tolling rules applicable to actions brought in federal court under § 1983 — a void which is commonplace in federal statutory law. When such a void occurs, this Court has repeatedly “borrowed” the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action. Limitation borrowing was adopted for civil rights actions filed in federal court as early as 1914, in O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318. Although the Court of Appeals found that respondent’s action was governed by a 3-year New York statute of limitations, the court did not apply the New York rules governing the circumstances under which that statute of limitations could be tolled.
In § 1983 actions, however, a state statute of limitations and the coordinate tolling rules are more than a technical obstacle to be circumvented if possible. In most cases, they are binding rules of law. In 42 U. S. C. § 1988, Congress “quite clearly instructs [federal courts] to refer to state statutes” when federal law provides no rule of decision for actions brought under § 1983. Robertson v. Wegmann, supra. See also Carlson v. Green, ante, at 22, n. 10. As we held in Robertson, by its terms, § 1988 authorizes federal courts to disregard an otherwise applicable state rule of law only if the state law is “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
In another action subject to § 1988, we held that the state statute of limitations and the state tolling rules governed federal actions brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1981 except when “inconsistent with the federal policy underlying the cause of action under consideration.” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., supra, at 465. We there restated the general principle that since there was no specifically stated or otherwise relevant federal statute of limitations for the federal substantive claim created by Congress in that case, “the controlling period would ordinarily be the most appropriate one provided by state law.” 421 U. S., at 462, and eases cited therein. We went on to observe that this “borrowing” logically included rules of tolling:
“Any period of limitation ... is understood fully only in the context of the various circumstances that suspend it from running against a particular cause of action. Although any statute of limitations is necessarily arbitrary, the length of the period allowed for instituting suit inevitably reflects a value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones. In virtually all statutes of limitations the chronological length of the limitation period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling, revival, and questions of application. In borrowing a state period of limitation for application to a federal cause of action, a federal court is relying on the State’s wisdom in setting a limit, and exceptions thereto, on the prosecution of a closely analogous claim.” Id., at 463-464.
As Robertson and Johnson make clear, therefore, resolution of this case requires us to identify the New York rule of tolling and determine whether that rule is “inconsistent” with federal law.
Ill
New York has codified the limitations of actions and the circumstances under which those limitations can be tolled together. N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law §§ 201-218 (McKinney 1972 and Supp. 1979-1980). The general rule is set forth unambiguously in § 201 (McKinney 1972): “An action . . . must be commenced within the time specified in this article. . . . No court shall extend the time limited by law for the commencement of an action.” The statute codifies a number of the tolling rules developed at common law. No section of the law provides, however, that the time for filing a cause of action is tolled during the period in which a litigant pursues a related, but independent cause of action. If a plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims in succession, rather than concurrently, the legislature has required the plaintiff either to obtain a judicial stay of the time for commencing an action, or to litigate at risk. See § 204. The New York Legislature has apparently determined that the policies of repose underlying the statute of limitations should not be displaced by whatever advantages inure, whether to the plaintiff or the system, in a scheme which encourages the litigation of one cause of action prior to another.
Respondent's failure to comply with the New York statute of limitations, therefore, precluded maintenance of this action unless New York’s tolling rule is “inconsistent” with the policies underlying § 1983. In order to gauge consistency, of course, the state and federal policies which the respective legislatures sought to foster must be identified and compared. On many prior occasions, we have emphasized the importance of the policies underlying state statutes of limitations. Statutes of limitations are not simply technicalities. On the contrary, they have long been respected as fundamental to a well-ordered judicial system. Making out the substantive elements of a claim for relief involves a process of pleading, discovery, and trial. The process of discovery and trial which results in the finding of ultimate facts for or against the plaintiff by the judge or jury is obviously more reliable if the witness or testimony in question is relatively fresh. Thus in the judgment of most legislatures and courts, there comes a point at which the delay of a plaintiff in asserting a claim is sufficiently likely either to impair the accuracy of the fact-finding process or to upset settled expectations that a substantive claim will be barred without respect to whether it is meritorious. By the same token, most courts and legislatures have recognized that there are factual circumstances which justify an exception to these strong policies of repose. For example, defendants may not, by tactics of evasion, prevent the plaintiff from litigating the merits of a claim, even though on its face the claim is time-barred. These exceptions to the statute of limitations are generally referred to as “tolling” and, as more fully discussed in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454 (1975), are an integral part of a complete limitations policy.
The importance of policies of repose in the federal, as well as in the state, system is attested to by the fact that when Congress has provided no statute' of limitations for a substantive claim which is created, this Court has nonetheless “borrowed” what it considered to be the most analogous state statute of limitations to bar tardily commenced proceedings. Supra, at 483-484. This is obviously a judicial recognition of the fact that Congress, unless it has spoken to the contrary, did not intend by the mere creation of a “cause of action” or “claim for relief” that any plaintiff filing a complaint would automatically prevail if only the necessary elements of the federal substantive claim for relief could be established. Thus, in general, state policies of repose cannot be said to be disfavored in federal law. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to determine whether Congress has departed from the general rule in § 1983.
In Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584 (1978), the Court first emphasized that “a state statute cannot be considered 'inconsistent’ with federal law merely because the statute causes the plaintiff to lose the litigation. If success of the § 1983 action were the only benchmark, there would be no reason at all to look to state law, for the appropriate rule would then always be the one favoring the plaintiff, and its source would be essentially irrelevant.” Id., at 593. The Court went on to identify two of the principal policies embodied in § 1983 as deterrence and compensation. Neither of these policies is significantly affected by this rule of limitations since plaintiffs can still readily enforce their claims, thereby recovering compensation and fostering deterrence, simply by commencing their actions within three years.
Uniformity has also been cited as a federal policy which sometimes necessitates the displacement of an otherwise applicable state rule of law. Carlson v. Green, ante, p. 14; Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 362 (1977). The need for uniformity, while paramount under some federal statutory schemes, has not been held to warrant the displacement of state statutes of limitations for civil rights actions. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., supra. In Robertson v. Wegmann, supra, we held:
“[W]hatever the value of nationwide uniformity in areas of civil rights enforcement where Congress has not spoken, in the areas to which § 1988 is applicable Congress has provided direction, indicating that state law will often provide the content - of the federal remedial rule. This statutory reliance on state law obviously means that there will not be nationwide uniformity on these issues.” 436 U. S., at 594, n. 11.
The Court of Appeals and the District Court in this case apparently believed that policies of federalism would be undermined by the adoption of the New York tolling rule since litigants would not be encouraged to resort to state remedies prior to the maintenance of a federal civil rights action under § 1983. The conclusion of the lower courts that this result would be “inconsistent” with federal law is at odds with the reasoning in our prior opinions in this field as well as at odds with federalism itself.
On several prior occasions, we have reasoned that when Congress intended to establish a remedy separate and independent from other remedies that might also be available, a state rule which does not allow a plaintiff to litigate such alternative claims in succession, without risk of a time bar, is not “inconsistent.” In Johnson v. Railway Express, supra, the Court found that a state rule which did not toll the statute of limitations applicable to a claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1981 during the pendency of a charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was not inconsistent with § 1981 because Congress had “retained § 1981 as a remedy . . . separate from and independent of the . . . procedures of Title VII.” 421 U. S., at 466. The Court premised its conclusion that Title VII and § 1981 were separate and independent on the fact that Congress had not required resort to Title VII as a prerequisite to an action under § 1981 and did not “expect that a § 1981 court action usually would be resorted to only upon a completion of Title VII procedures. . . .” 421 U. S., at 461. Adopting the same reasoning, we held in Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U. S. 229 (1976), that it would not be inconsistent with Title VII to decline to toll the statute of limitations during labor grievance or arbitration procedures because “contractual rights under a collective-bargaining agreement and the statutory right provided by Congress under Title VII ‘have legally independent origins and are equally available to the aggrieved employee.’ ” Id,., at 236, quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 52 (1974). Applying the converse of this reasoning, this Court found in Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. EEOC, supra, that it would be inconsistent with federal law to apply a state statute of limitations to actions instituted by the EEOC under Title VII since the EEOC was “required by law to refrain from commencing a civil action until it ha[d] discharged its administrative duties.” 432 U. S., at 368.
The District Court’s conclusion that state remedies should be utilized before resort to the federal courts may be an entirely sound and sensible observation, but in our opinion it does not square with what must be presumed to be congressional intent in creating an independent federal remedy. Unless that remedy is structured to require previous resort to state proceedings, so that the claim may not even be maintained in federal court unless such resort be had, see Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522 (1972), it cannot be assumed that Congress wishes to hold open the independent federal remedy during any period of time necessary to pursue alternative state-court remedies. It is difficult to conclude that a state policy of repose which likewise does not encourage litigants to resort to other available remedies is inconsistent with such congressional intent. We find the congressional intent here to be virtually indistinguishable from that found in Johnson v. Railway Express, supra, and Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., supra, to be consistent with a rule prohibiting tolling.
As in those cases, there is no question that respondent’s i 1983 action was “separate and independent” from the state judicial remedy pursued in state court. This Court has not interpreted § 1983 to require a litigant to pursue state judicial remedies prior to commencing an action under this section. In Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S., at 183, we held: “It is no answer that the State has a law which if enforced would give relief. The federal remedy is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked.” Thus the very independence of § 1983 reveals that the New York rule precluding tolling in the circumstances of this case is not “inconsistent” with the provisions of § 1983.
Finally, we do not believe that this construction of congressional intent is overridden, as the Court of Appeals found, “in the interests of advancing the goals of federalism.” We believe that the application of the New York law of tolling is in fact more consistent with the policies of “federalism” invoked by the Court of Appeals than a rule which displaces the state rule in favor of an ad hoc federal rule. The result reached by the District Court and Court of Appeals might encourage more plaintiffs with both state and federal constitutional claims to initially bring an action in the state courts. But it would just as surely frustrate the often complex combination of limitations and tolling provisions enacted by the State in question. While New York might have chosen a tolling rule designed to encourage prior resort to state-law remedies, it has not. Here New York has expressed by statute its disfavor of tolling its statute of limitations for one action while an independent action is being pursued. Considerations of federalism are quite appropriate in adjudicating federal suits based on 42 U. S. C. § 1983. See, e. g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). But the Court of Appeals’ rule allowing tolling can scarcely be deemed a triumph of federalism when it necessitates a rejection of the rule actually chosen by the New York Legislature.
Since we therefore hold that respondent’s action was barred by the New York statute of limitations, we find it unnecessary to reach petitioners’ other contentions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed
This waiver section is available to all applicants for professional licenses and not just those seeking admission to the practice of chiropractic.
In 1972, respondent also took, and failed, the examinations administered to applicants without prior experience in practice.
See, e. g., the authorities cited in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 462 (1975).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit established a number of years ago that New York’s 3-year time limitation for actions “to recover upon a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute,” N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law §214(2) (McKinney Supp. 1979-1980), governs §1983 actions brought in Federal District Court in New York. Romer v. Leary, 425 F. 2d 186 (1970); Meyer v. Frank, 550 F. 2d 726, cert. denied, 434 U. S. 830 (1977). While petitioners suggest that §217 (McKinney 1972) of the New York statutes of limitations, requiring the commencement of proceedings to review administrative action within four months, more appropriately governs this action, we need only hold that the Court of Appeals erred by tolling the 3-year limitation. The respondent does not maintain that a limitation period longer than three years governs this action. Thus we may assume for the purposes of this opinion that the 3-year period was applicable since respondent is in any event barred.
Section 1988 provides:
“The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of this [Chapter and Title 18], for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.”
See, e. g., § 207 (McKinney 1972) (tolling during defendant’s absence fr.om State or residence under false name); § 208 (McKinney Supp. 1979— 1980) (tolling during period in which plaintiff is under a disability such as infancy, insanity, or imprisonment).
Section 204 (b) does provide that if a plaintiff attempts to submit a claim for arbitration, but it is ultimately held that there is no obligation to arbitrate, the limitations period will not run during the time between the date of demand and the date of the judgment providing that arbitration is unavailable. This section does not provide for general tolling during arbitration, but only in situations where the plaintiff is unable to obtain an adjudication on the merits because the remedy is legally unavailable.
We note that respondent does not maintain that any provision of New York law operated to toll the statute of limitations.
The remedy pursued by plaintiff in state court was a state judicial remedy authorizing actions against administrative bodies to review “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. . . N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law §7803 (McKinney 1963). While the parties and the courts below were in agreement that a constitutional challenge to the agency action could have been brought under Art. 78, only the state-law claims were pursued by respondent in that proceeding.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are companion cases to Speiser v. Randall and Prince v. City and County of San Francisco, ante, p. 513. The petitioners claimed the property-tax exemption provided by Art. XIII, § 1%, of the California Constitution for real property and buildings used solely and exclusively for religious worship. The Los Angeles assessor denied the exemptions because each petitioner refused to subscribe, and struck from the prescribed application form, the oath that they did not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States and of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means nor advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities. Each petitioner sued in the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles to recover taxes paid under protest and for declaratory relief. Both contended that the exaction of the oath pursuant to § 19 of Art. XX of the State Constitution and § 32 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code was forbidden by the Federal Constitution. The court upheld the validity of the provisions in the action brought by petitioner First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, and the Supreme Court of California affirmed. 48 Cal. 2d 419, 311 P. 2d 508. We granted certiorari. 355 U. S. 853. The Superior Court in the action brought by petitioner Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church, Inc., upheld the validity of the provisions under the Federal Constitution but held that § 32 of the Revenue and Taxation Code violated the California Constitution because it excluded or exempted householders from the requirement. The Supreme Court of California reversed, 48 Cal. 2d 899, 311 P. 2d 540, and we granted certiorari, 355 U. S. 854.
In addition to the contentions advanced by the appellants in Speiser v. Randall, the petitioners argue that the provisions are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment as abridgments of religious freedom and as violations of the principle of separation of church and state. Our disposition of the cases, however, makes consideration of these questions unnecessary. For the reasons expressed in Speiser v. Randall, we hold that the enforcement of § 19 of Art. XX of the State Constitution through procedures which place the burdens of proof and persuasion on the taxpayer is a violation of due process.
The judgments are reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the result.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Black, joined by Mr. Justice Douglas, see ante, p. 529.]
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
. Plaintiff-respondent Nancy Drew Suders alleged sexually harassing conduct by her supervisors, officers of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), of such severity she was forced to resign. The question presented concerns the proof burdens parties bear when a sexual harassment/constructive discharge claim of that character is asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To establish hostile work environment, plaintiffs like Su-ders must show harassing behavior “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [their] employment.” Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 67 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 22 (1993) (“[T]he very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their... gender... offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality.”). Beyond that, we hold, to establish “constructive discharge,” the plaintiff must make a further showing: She must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response. An employer may defend against such a claim by showing both (1) that it had installed a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of sexual harassment, and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of that employer-provided preventive or remedial apparatus. This affirmative defense will not be available to the employer, however, if the plaintiff quits in reasonable response to an employer-sanctioned adverse action officially changing her employment status or situation, for example, a humiliating demotion, extreme cut in pay, or transfer to a position in which she would face unbearable working conditions. In so ruling today, we follow the path marked by our 1998 decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, and Faragker v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775.
I
Because this case was decided against Suders in the District Court on the PSP’s motion for summary judgment, we recite the facts, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, in the light most favorable to Suders. In March 1998, the PSP hired Suders as a police communications operator for the McConnellsburg barracks. Suders v. Easton, 325 F. 3d 432, 436 (CA3 2003). Suders’ supervisors were Sergeant Eric D. Easton, Station Commander at the McConnellsbúrg barracks, Patrol Corporal William D. Baker, and Corporal Eric B. Prendergast. Ibid. Those three supervisors subjected Suders to a continuous barrage of sexual harassment that ceased only when she resigned from the force. Ibid.
Easton “would bring up [the subject of] people having sex with animals” each time Suders entered his office. Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). He told Prendergast, in front of Suders, that young girls should be given instruction in how to gratify men with oral sex. Ibid. Easton also would sit down near Suders, wearing spandex shorts, and spread his legs apart. Ibid. Apparently imitating a move popularized by television wrestling, Baker repeatedly made an obscene gesture in Suders’ presence by grabbing his genitals and shouting out a vulgar comment inviting oral sex. Id., at 437. Baker made this gesture as many as five-to-ten times per night throughout Suders’ employment at the barracks. Ibid. Suders once told Baker she “ ‘d[id]n’t think [he] should be doing this’ Baker responded by jumping on a chair and again performing the gesture, with the accompanying vulgarity. Ibid. Further, Baker would “rub his rear end in front of her and remark ‘I have a nice ass, don’t I?’ ” Ibid. Prendergast told Suders “‘the village idiot could do her job’ wearing black gloves, he would pound on furniture to intimidate her. Ibid.
In June 1998, Prendergast accused Suders of taking a missing accident file home with her. Id., at 438. After that incident, Suders approached the PSP’s Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, Virginia Smith-Elliott, and told her she “might need some help.” Ibid. Smith-Elliott gave Suders her telephone number, but neither woman followed up on the conversation. Ibid. On August 18, 1998, Suders contacted Smith-Elliott again, this time stating that she was being harassed and was afraid. Ibid. Smith-Elliott told Suders to file a complaint, but did not tell her how to obtain the necessary form. Smith-Elliott’s response and the manner in which it was conveyed appeared to Suders insensitive and unhelpful. Ibid.
Two days later, Suders’ supervisors arrested her for theft, and Suders resigned from the force. The theft arrest occurred in the following circumstances. Suders had several times taken a computer-skills exam to satisfy a PSP job requirement. Id., at 438-439. Each time, Suders’ supervisors told her that she had failed. Id., at 439. Suders one day came upon her exams in a set of drawers in the women’s locker room. She concluded that her supervisors had never forwarded the tests for grading and that their reports of her failures were false. Ibid. Regarding the tests as her property, Suders removed them from the locker room. Ibid.; App. 11, 119-120. Upon finding that the exams had been removed, Suders’ supervisors devised a plan to arrest her for theft. 325 F. 3d, at 438-439. The officers dusted the drawer in which the exams had been stored with a theft-detection powder that turns hands blue when touched. Id., at 439. As anticipated by Easton, Baker, and Prendergast, Suders attempted to return the tests to the drawer, whereupon her hands turned telltale blue. Ibid. The supervisors then apprehended and handcuffed her, photographed her blue hands, and commenced to question her. Ibid. Suders had previously prepared a written resignation, which she tendered soon after the supervisors detained her. Ibid. Nevertheless, the supervisors initially refused to release her. Instead, they brought her to an interrogation room, gave her warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and continued to question her. 325 F. 3d, at 439. Su-ders reiterated that she wanted to resign, and Easton then let her leave. Ibid. The PSP never brought theft charges against her.
In September 2000, Suders sued the PSP in Federal District Court, alleging, inter alia, that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and constructively discharged, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. App. 1, 12-13. At the close of discovery, the District Court granted the PSP’s motion for summary judgment. Suders’ testimony, the District Court recognized, sufficed to permit a trier of fact to conclude that the supervisors had created a hostile work environment. App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a. The court nevertheless held that the PSP was not vicariously liable for the supervisors’ conduct. Id., at 80a.
In so concluding, the District Court referred to our 1998 decision in Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 77a-78a. In Faragher, along with Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, decided the same day, the Court distinguished between supervisor harassment unaccompanied by an adverse official act and supervisor harassment attended by “a tangible employment action.” Id., at 765; accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 808. Both decisions hold that an employer is strictly liable for supervisor harassment that “culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment.” Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765; accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 808. But when no tangible employment action is taken, both decisions also hold, the employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence: “The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasónably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the. employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765; accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 807.
Suders’ hostile work environment claim was untenable as a matter of law, the District Court stated, because, she “unreasonably failed to avail herself of the PSP’s internal procedures for reporting any harassment.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 80a. Resigning just two days after she first mentioned anything about harassment to Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Smith-Elliott, the court noted, Suders had “never given [the PSP] the opportunity to respond to [her] complaints.” Ibid. The District Court did not address Suders’ constructive discharge claim.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for disposition on the merits. 325 F. 3d, at 462. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Suders had presented evidence sufficient for a trier of fact to conclude that the supervisors had engaged in a “pattern of sexual harassment that was pervasive and regular.” Id., at 442. But the appeals court disagreed with the District Court in two fundamental respects. First, the Court of Appeals held that, even assuming the PSP could assert the affirmative defense described in Ellerth and Faragher, genuine issues of material fact existed concerning the effectiveness of the PSP’s “program... to address sexual harassment claims.” 325 P. 3d, at 443. Second, the appeals court held that the District Court erred in failing to recognize that Suders had stated a claim of constructive discharge due to the hostile work environment. Ibid.
A plaintiff alleging constructive discharge in violation of Title VII, the Court of Appeals stated, must establish:
“(1) he or she suffered harassment or discrimination so intolerable that a reasonable person in the same position would have felt compelled to resign... ; and (2) the employee’s reaction to the workplace situation — that is, his or her decision to resign — was reasonable given the totality of circumstances....” Id., at 445.
Viewing the complaint in that context, the court determined that Suders had raised genuine issues of material fact relating to her claim of constructive discharge. Id., at 446.
The Court of Appeals then made the ruling challenged here: It held that “a constructive discharge, when proved, constitutes a tangible employment action.” Id., at 447. Under Ellerth and Faragher, the court observed, such an action renders an employer strictly liable and precludes employer recourse to the affirmative defense announced in those decisions. 325 F. 3d, at 447. The Third Circuit recognized that the Courts of Appeals for the Second and Sixth Circuits had ruled otherwise. A constructive discharge resulting from a supervisor-created hostile work environment, both Circuits had held, does not qualify as a tangible employment action, and therefore does not stop an employer from invoking the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. 325 F. 3d, at 452-453 (citing Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R. Co., 191 F. 3d 283, 294 (CA2 1999), and Turner v. Dowbrands, Inc., No. 99-3984, 2000 WL 924599, *1 (CA6, June 26, 2000) (unpublished)). The Third Circuit, however, reasoned that a constructive discharge “‘constitutes a significant change in employment status’ by ending the employer-employee relationship” and “also inflicts the same type of ‘direct economic harm’ ” as the tangible employment actions Ellerth and Faragher offered by way of example (discharge, demotion, undesirable reassignment). 325 F. 3d, at 460 (quoting Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 761, 762). Satisfied that Suders had “raised genuine issues of material fact as to her claim of constructive discharge,” and that the PSP was “precluded from asserting the affirmative defense to liability advanced in support of its motion for summary judgment,” the Court of Appeals remanded Suders’ Title VII claim for trial. 325 F. 3d, at 461.
This Court granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1046 (2003), to resolve the disagreement among the Circuits on the question whether a constructive discharge brought about by supervisor harassment ranks as a tangible employment action and therefore precludes assertion of the affirmative defense articulated in Ellerth and Faragher. Compare 325 F. 3d, at 461 (constructive discharge qualifies as a tangible employment action); Jaros v. LodgeNet Entertainment Corp., 294 F. 3d 960, 966 (CA8 2002) (same), with Caridad, 191 F. 3d, at 294 (constructive discharge does not qualify as a tangible employment action); Turner, 2000 WL 924599, *1 (same), and Reed v. MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc., 333 F. 3d 27, 33 (CA1 2003) (constructive discharge qualifies as a tangible employment action only when effected through a supervisor’s official act); Robinson v. Sappington, 351 F. 3d 317, 336 (CA7 2003) (same). We conclude that an employer does not have recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense when a supervisor’s official act precipitates the constructive discharge; absent sueh a “tangible employment action,” however, the defense is available to the employer whose supervisors are charged with harassment. We therefore vacate the Third Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
II
A
Under the constructive discharge doctrine, an employee’s reasonable decision to resign because of unendurable working conditions is assimilated to a formal discharge for remedial purposes. See 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 838-839 (3d ed. 1996) (hereinafter Lindemann & Grossman). The inquiry is objective: Did working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign? See C. Weirich et al., 2002 Cumulative Supplement to Lindemann & Grossman 651-652, and n. 1 (collecting cases) (hereinafter Weirich).
The constructive discharge concept originated in the labor-law field in the 1930’s; the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) developed the doctrine to address situations in which employers coerced employees to resign, often by creating intolerable working conditions, in retaliation for employees’ engagement in collective activities. Lieb, Constructive Discharge Under Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act: A Study in Undue Concern Over Motives, 7 Indus. Rel. L. J. 143, 146-148 (1985); see In re Sterling Corset Co., 9 N. L. R. B. 858, 865 (1938) (first case to use term “constructive discharg[e]”). Over the next two decades, Courts of Appeals sustained NLRB constructive discharge rulings. See, e.g., NLRB v. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, 140 F. 2d 404, 405 (CA5 1944) (first Circuit case to hold supervisor-caused resignation an unfair labor practice); NLRB v. Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corp., 201 F. 2d 238, 243 (CA1 1953) (first Circuit case to allow backpay award for constructive discharge). By 1964, the year Title VII was enacted, the doctrine was solidly established in the federal courts. See Comment, That’s It, I Quit: Returning to First Principles in Constructive Discharge Doctrine, 23 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 401, 410 (2002).
The Courts of Appeals have recognized constructive discharge claims in a wide range of Title VII cases. See, e. g., Robinson, 351 F. 3d, at 336-337 (sexual harassment); Moore v. KUKA Welding Systems & Robot Corp., 171 F. 3d 1073, 1080 (CA6 1999) (race); Bergstrom-Ek v. Best Oil Co., 153 F. 3d 851, 858-859 (CA8 1998) (pregnancy); Amirmokri v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 60 F. 3d 1126, 1132-1133 (CA4 1995) (national origin); Derr v. Gulf Oil Corp., 796 F. 2d 340, 343 (CA10 1986) (sex); Young v. Southwestern Sav. & Loan Assn., 509 F. 2d 140, 143-144 (CA5 1975) (religion). See also Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F. 2d 885, 887 (CA3 1984) (“[Application of the constructive discharge doctrine to Title VII cases has received apparently universal recognition among the courts of appeals which have addressed that issue.”); 3 L. Larson, Labor and Employment Law §59.05[8] (2003) (collecting cases). And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with implementing Title VII, has stated: An employer “is responsible for a constructive discharge in the same manner that it is responsible for the outright discriminatory discharge of a charging party.” 2 EEOC Compliance Manual §612.9(a) (2002).
Although this Court has not had occasion earlier to hold that a claim for constructive discharge lies under Title VII, we have recognized constructive discharge in the labor-law context, see Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 894 (1984) (NLRB may find employer engaged in unfair labor practice “when, for the purpose of discouraging union activity,... [the employer] creates working conditions so intolerable that the employee has no option but to resign — a so-called ‘constructive discharge.’”). Furthermore, we have stated that “Title VII is violated by either explicit or constructive alterations in the terms or conditions of employment.” Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 752. See also Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S., at 64 (“The phrase ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ [in Title VII] evinces a congressional intent to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in employment.” (some internal quotation marks omitted)). We agree with the lower courts and the EEOC that Title VII encompasses employer liability for a constructive discharge.
B
This case concerns an employer’s liability for one subset of Title VII constructive discharge claims: constructive discharge resulting from sexual harassment, or “hostile work environment,” attributable to a supervisor. Our starting point is the framework Ellerth and Faragher established to govern employer liability for sexual harassment by supervisors. As earlier noted, see supra, at 137-138, those decisions delineate two categories of hostile work environment claims: (1) harassment that “culminates in a tangible employment action,” for which employers are strictly liable, Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765; accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 808, and (2) harassment that takes place in the absence of a tangible employment action, to which employers may assert an affirmative defense, Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765; accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 807. With the background set out above in mind, we turn to the key issues here at stake: Into which Ellerth/Faragher category do hostile-environment constructive discharge claims fall — and what proof burdens do the parties bear in such cases.
In Ellerth and Faragher, the plaintiffs-employees sought to hold their employers vicariously liable for sexual harassment by their supervisors, even though the plaintiffs “suffer[ed] no adverse, tangible job consequences.” Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 747. Setting out a framework for employer liability in those decisions, this Court noted that Title VII’s definition of “employer” includes the employer’s “agent[s],” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(b). See Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 754. We viewed that definition as a direction to “interpret Title VII based on agency principles.” Ibid. The Restatement (Second) of Agency (1957) (hereinafter Restatement), the Court noted, states (in its black-letter formulation) that an employer is liable for the acts of its agent when the agent “ ‘was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation.’”. Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 758 (quoting Restatement § 219(2)(d)); accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 801.
We then identified “a class of cases where, beyond question, more than the mere existence of the employment relation aids in commission of the harassment: when a supervisor takes a tangible employment action against the subordinate.” Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 760. A tangible employment action, the Court explained, “constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Id., at 761. Unlike injuries that could equally be inflicted by a co-worker, we stated, tangible employment actions “fall within the special province of the supervisor,” who “has been empowered by the company as... [an] agent to make economic decisions affecting other employees under his or her control.” Id., at 762. The tangible employment action, the Court elaborated, is, in essential character, “an official act of the enterprise, a company act.” Ibid. It is “the means by which the supervisor brings the official power of the enterprise to bear on subordinates.” Ibid. Often, the supervisor will “use [the company’s] internal processes” and thereby “obtain the imprimatur of the enterprise.” Ibid. Ordinarily, the tangible employment decision “is documented in official company records, and may be subject to review by higher level supervisors.” Ibid. In sum, we stated, “when a supervisor takes a tangible employment action against a subordinate^]... it would be implausible to interpret agency principles to allow an employer to escape liability.” Id., at 762-763.
When a supervisor’s harassment of a subordinate does not culminate in a tangible employment action, the Court next explained, it is “less obvious” that the agency relation is the driving force; Id., at 763. We acknowledged that a supervisor’s “power and authority invests his or her harassing conduct with a particular threatening character, and in this sense, a supervisor always is aided by the agency relation.” Ibid. But we also recognized that “there are acts of harassment a supervisor might commit which might be the same acts a coemployee would commit, and there may be some circumstances where the supervisor’s status [would] mak[e] little difference.” Ibid.
An “aided-by-the-agency-relation” standard, the Court suggested, was insufficiently developed to press into service as the standard governing cases in which no tangible employment action is in the picture. Looking elsewhere for guidance, we focused on Title VII’s design “to encourage the creation of antiharassment policies and effective grievance mechanisms.” Id., at 764. The Court reasoned that tying the liability standard to an employer’s effort to install effective grievance procedures would advance Congress’ purpose “to promote conciliation rather than litigation” of Title VII controversies. Ibid. At the same time, such linkage of liability limitation to effective preventive and corrective measures could serve Title VII’s deterrent purpose by “encour-ag[ing] employees to report harassing conduct before it becomes severe or pervasive.” Ibid. Accordingly, we held that when no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may defeat vicarious liability for supervisor harassment by establishing, as an affirmative defense, both that “the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior,” and that “the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Id., at 765; accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 807.
Ellerth and Faragher also clarified the parties’ respective proof burdens in hostile environment cases. Title VII, the Court noted, “borrows from tort law the avoidable consequences doctrine,” Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 764, under which victims have “a duty ‘to use such means as are reasonable under the circumstances to avoid or minimize the damages’ that result from violations of the statute,” Faragher, 524 U. S., at 806 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 231, n. 15 (1982)). The Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense accommodates that doctrine by requiring plaintiffs reasonably to stave.off avoidable harm. But both decisions place the burden squarely on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avoid or reduce harm. Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765; accord Faragher, 524 U. S., at 807; cf. C. McCormick, Law of Damages 130 (1935) (defendant has burden of persuading factfinder “plaintiff could reasonably have reduced his loss or avoided injurious consequences”).
1
The constructive discharge here at issue stems from, and can be regarded as an aggravated case of, sexual harassment or hostile work environment. For an atmosphere of sexual harassment or hostility to be actionable, we reiterate, see supra, at 133-134, the offending behavior “must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Meritor, 477 U. S., at 67 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A hostile-environment constructive discharge claim entails something more: A plaintiff who advances such a compound claim must show working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. See, e.g., Breeding v. Arthur J Gallagher & Co., 164 F. 3d 1151, 1160 (CA8 1999) (“[Although there may be evidence from which a jury could find sexual harassment,... the facts alleged [for constructive discharge must be]... so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to quit.”); Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 126 F 3d 1010, 1015 (CA7 1997) (“[Ujnless conditions are beyond ‘ordinary’ discrimination, a complaining employee is expected to remain on the job while seeking redress.”).
Suders’ claim is of the same genre as the hostile work environment claims the Court analyzed in Ellerth and Faragher, Essentially, Suders presents a “worse case” harassment see-nario, harassment ratcheted up to the breaking point. Like the harassment considered in our pathmarking decisions, harassment so intolerable as to cause a resignation may be effected through co-worker conduct, unofficial supervisory conduct, or official company acts. Unlike an actual termination, which is always effected through an official act of the company, a constructive discharge need not be. A constructive discharge involves both an employee’s decision to leave and precipitating conduct: The former involves no official action; the latter, like a harassment claim without any constructive discharge assertion, may or may not involve official action. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24.
To be sure, a constructive discharge is functionally the same as an actual termination in damages-enhancing respects. See supra, at 147, n. 8. As the Third Circuit observed, both “en[d] the employer-employee relationship,” and both “inflic[t]... direct economic harm.” 325 F. 3d, at 460 (internal quotation marks omitted). But when an official act does not underlie the constructive discharge, the Ellerth and Faragher analysis, we here hold, calls for extension of the affirmative defense to the employer. As those leading decisions indicate, official directions and declarations are the acts most likely to be brought home to the employer, the measures over which the employer can exercise greatest control. See Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 762. Absent “an official act of the enterprise,” ibid., as the last straw, the employer ordinarily would have no particular reason to suspect that a resignation is not the typical kind daily occurring in the work force. And as Ellerth and Faragher further point out, an official act reflected in company records — a demotion or a reduction in compensation, for example — shows “beyond question” that the supervisor has used his managerial or controlling position to the employee’s disadvantage. See Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 760. Absent such an official act, the extent to which the supervisor’s misconduct has been aided by the agency relation, as we earlier recounted, see supra, at 145, is, less certain. That uncertainty, our precedent establishes, see supra, at 145-146, justifies affording the employer the chance to establish, through the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, that it should not be held vicariously liable.
The Third Circuit drew the line differently. Under its formulation, the affirmative defense would be eliminated in all hostile-environment constructive discharge cases, but retained, as Ellerth and Faragher require, in “ordinary” hostile work environment cases, i. e., cases involving no tangible employment action. That placement of the line, anomalously, would make the graver claim of hostile-environment constructive discharge easier to prove than its lesser included component, hostile work environment. Moreover, the Third Circuit’s formulation, that court itself recognized, would make matters complex, indeed, more than a little confusing to jurors. Creation of a hostile work environment is a necessary predicate to a hostile-environment constructive discharge case. Juries would be so informed. Under the Third Circuit’s decision, a jury, presumably, would be cautioned to consider the affirmative-defense evidence only in reaching a decision on the hostile work environment claim, and to ignore or at least downplay that same evidence in deciding the closely associated constructive discharge claim. It makes scant sense thus to alter the decisive instructions from one claim to the next when the only variation between the two claims is the severity of the hostile working conditions. Cf. Faragher, 524 U. S., at 801 (affirming “the virtue of categorical clarity”).
We note, finally, two recent Court of Appeals decisions that indicate how the “official act” (or “tangible employment action”) criterion should play out when constructive discharge is alleged. Both decisions advance the untangled approach we approve in this opinion. In Reed v. MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc., 333 F. 3d 27 (CA1 2003), the plaintiff claimed a constructive discharge based on her supervisor’s repeated sexual comments and an incident in which he sexually assaulted her. The First Circuit held that the alleged wrongdoing did not preclude the employer from asserting the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. As the court explained in Reed, the supervisor’s behavior involved no official actions. Unlike, “e. g., an extremely dangerous job assignment to retaliate for spurned advances,” 333 F. 3d, at 33, the supervisor’s conduct in Reed “was exceedingly unofficial and involved no direct exercise of company authority”; indeed, it was “exactly the kind of wholly unauthorized conduct for which the affirmative defense was designed,” ibid. In contrast, in Robinson v. Sappington, 351 F. 3d 317 (CA7 2003), after the plaintiff complained that she was sexually harassed by the judge for whom she worked, the presiding judge decided to transfer her to another judge, but told her that “her first six months [in the new post] probably would be ‘hell,’ ” and that it was in her “‘best interest to resign.’” Id., at 324. The Seventh Circuit held that the employer was precluded from asserting the affirmative defense to the plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim. The Robinson plaintiff’s decision to resign, the court explained, “resulted, at least in part, from [the presiding judge’s] official actio[n] in transferring” her to a judge who resisted placing her on his staff. Id., at 337. The courts in Reed and Robinson properly recognized that Ellerth and Faragher, which divided the universe of supervisor-harassment claims according to the presence or absence of an official act, mark the path constructive discharge claims based on harassing conduct must follow.
2
In its summation, the Third Circuit qualified its holding that a constructive discharge itself “constitutes a tangible employment action within the meaning of Ellerth and Faragher.” 325 F. 3d, at 462. The affirmative defense Ellerth and Faragher delineated, the court said, might be imported into the anterior issue whether “the employee’s decision to resign was reasonable under the circumstances.” 325 F. 3d, at 462. As the Third Circuit expressed its thinking:
“[I]t may be relevant to a claim of constructive discharge whether an employer had an effective remedial scheme in place, whether an employer attempted to investigate, or otherwise to address, plaintiff’s complaints, and whether plaintiff took advantage of alternatives offered by antiharassment programs.” Ibid.
These considerations, the Third Circuit recognized, “are, of course, the same considerations relevant to the affirmative defense in Ellerth and Faragher.” Ibid.
The Third Circuit left open when and how the Ellerth/ Faragher considerations would be brought home to the fact trier. It did not address specifically the allocation of pleading and persuasion burdens. It simply relied on “the wisdom and expertise of trial judges to exercise their gatekeep-ing authority when assessing whether all, some, or none of the evidence relating to employers’ antiharassment programs and to employees’ exploration of alternative avenues warrants introduction at trial.” 325 F. 3d, at 463.
We see no cause for leaving the district courts thus unguided. Following Ellerth and Faragher, the plaintiff who alleges no tangible employment action has the duty to mitigate harm, but the defendant bears the burden to allege and prove that the plaintiff failed in that regard. See supra, at 146. The plaintiff might elect to allege facts relevant to mitigation in her pleading or to present those facts in her case in chief, but she would do so in anticipation of the employer’s affirmative defense, not as a legal requirement.
* * *.
We agree with the Third Circuit that the case, in its current posture, presents genuine issues of material fact concerning Suders’ hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims. We hold, however, that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the affirmative defense described in Ellerth and Faragher never available in constructive discharge cases. Accordingly, we vacate the Third Circuit’s judgment and remand the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by this litigation is whether a warehouseman's proposed sale of goods entrusted to him for storage, as permitted by New York Uniform Commercial Code § 7-210 (McKinney 1964) , is an action properly attributable to the State of New York. The District Court found that the warehouseman’s conduct was not that of the State, and dismissed this suit for want of jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). 404 F. Supp. 1059 (SDNY 1975). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in reversing the judgment of the District Court, found sufficient state involvement with the proposed sale to invoke the provisions of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 553 F. 2d 764 (1977). We agree with the District Court, and we therefore reverse.
I
According to her complaint, the allegations of which we must accept as true, respondent Shirley Brooks and her family were evicted from their apartment in Mount Vernon, N. Y., on June 13, 1973. The city marshal arranged for Brooks’ possessions to be stored by petitioner Flagg Brothers, Inc., in its warehouse. Brooks was informed of the cost of moving and storage, and she instructed the workmen to proceed, although she found the price too high. On August 25, 1973, after a series of disputes over the validity of the charges being claimed by petitioner Flagg Brothers, Brooks received a letter demanding that her account be brought up to date within 10 days “or your furniture will be sold.” App. 13a. A series of subsequent letters from respondent and her attorneys produced no satisfaction.
Brooks thereupon initiated this class action in the District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, seeking damages, an injunction against the threatened sale of her belongings, and the declaration that such a sale pursuant to § 7-210 would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. She was later joined in her action by Gloria Jones, another resident of Mount Vernon whose goods had been stored by Flagg Brothers following her eviction. The American Warehousemen’s Association and the International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses, Inc., moved to intervene as defendants, as did the Attorney General of New York and others seeking to defend the constitutionality of the challenged statute. On July 7, 1975, the District Court, relying primarily on our decision in Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345 (1974), dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under § 1983.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. The majority noted that Jackson had suggested that state action might be found in the exercise by a private party of “ ‘some - / power delegated to it by the State which is traditionally associated with sovereignty;’ ” 553 F. 2d, at 770, quoting 419 U. S., at 353. The majority found:
“[B]y enacting § 7-210, New York not only delegated to the warehouseman a portion of its sovereign monopoly power over binding conflict resolution [citations omitted], but also let him, by selling stored goods, execute a lien and thus perform a function which has traditionally been that of the sheriff.” 553 F. 2d, at 771.
The court, although recognizing that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had reached a contrary conclusion in dealing with an identical California statute in Melara v. Kennedy, 541 F. 2d 802 (1976), concluded that this delegation of power constituted sufficient state action to support federal jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). The dissenting judge found the reasoning of Melara persuasive.
We granted certiorari, 434 U. S. 817, to resolve the conflict over this provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, in effect in 49 States and the District of Columbia, and to address the important question it presents concerning the meaning of “state action” as that term is associated with the Fourteenth Amendment.
II
A claim upon which relief may be granted to respondents against Flagg Brothers under § 1983 must embody at least two elements. Respondents are first bound to show that they have been deprived of a right “secured by the Constitution and the laws” of the United States. They must secondly show that Flagg Brothers deprived them of this right acting “under color of any statute” of the State of New York. It is clear that these two elements denote two separate areas of inquiry. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 150 (1970).
Respondents allege in their complaints that “the threatened sale of the goods pursuant to New York Uniform Commercial Code § 7-210” is an action under color of state law. App. 14a, 47a. We have previously noted, with respect to a private individual, that “[wjhatever else may also be necessary to show that a person has acted 'under color of [a] statute’ for purposes of § 1983, ... we think it essential that he act with the knowledge of and pursuant to that statute.” Adickes, supra, at 162 n. 23. Certainly, the complaints can be fairly read to allege such knowledge on the part of Flagg Brothers. However, we need not determine whether any further showing is necessary, since it is apparent that neither respondent has alleged facts which constitute a deprivation of any right “secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.
A moment’s reflection will clarify the essential distinction between the two elements of a § 1983 action. Some rights established either by the Constitution or by federal law are protected from both governmental and private deprivation. See, e. g., Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 422-424 (1968) (discussing 42 U. S. C. § 1982). ' Although a private person may cause a deprivation of such a right, he may be subjected to liability under § 1983 only when he does so under color of law. Cf. 392 U. S., at 424-425, and n. 33. However, most rights secured by the Constitution are protected only against infringement by governments. See, e. g., Jackson, 419 U. S., at 349; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 17-18 (1883). Here, respondents allege that Flagg Brothers has deprived them of their right, secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from state deprivations of property without due process of law. Thus, they must establish not only that Flagg Brothers acted under color of the challenged statute, but also that its actions are properly attributable to the State of New York.
It must be noted that respondents have named no public officials as defendants in this action. The city marshal, who supervised their evictions, was dismissed from the case by the consent of all the parties. This total absence of overt official involvement plainly distinguishes this case from earlier decisions imposing procedural restrictions on creditors’ remedies such as 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). In those cases, the Court was careful to point out that the dictates of the Due Process Clause “attac[h] only to the deprivation of an interest encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection.” Fuentes, supra, at 84. While as a factual matter any person with sufficient physical power may deprive a person of his property, only a State or a private person whose action “may be fairly treated as that of the State itself,” Jackson, supra, at 351, may deprive him of “an interest encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection,” Fuentes, supra, at 84. Thus, the only issue presented by this case is whether Flagg Brothers’ action may fairly be attributed to the State of New York. We conclude that it may not.
Ill
Respondents’ primary contention is that New York has delegated to Flagg Brothers a power “traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Jackson, supra, at 352. They argue that the resolution of private disputes is a traditional function of civil government, and that the State in § 7-210 has delegated this function to Flagg Brothers. Respondents, however, have read too much into the language of our previous cases. While many functions have been traditionally performed by governments, very few have been “exclusively reserved to the State.”
One such area has been elections. While the Constitution protects private rights of association and advocacy with regard to the election of public officials, our cases make it clear that the conduct of the elections themselves is an exclusively public function. This principle was established by a series of cases challenging the exclusion of blacks from participation in primary elections in Texas. Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932). Although the rationale of these cases may be subject to some dispute, their scope is carefully defined. The doctrine does not reach to all forms of private political activity, but encompasses only state-regulated elections or- elections conducted by organizations which in practice produce “the uncontested choice of public officials.” Terry, supra, at 484 (Clark, J., concurring). As Mr. Justice Black described the situation in Terry, supra, at 469: “The only election that has counted in this Texas county for more than fifty years has been that held by the Jaybirds from which Negroes were excluded.”
A second line of cases under the public-function doctrine originated with Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501 (1946). Just as the Texas Democratic Party in Smith and the Jaybird Democratic Association in Terry effectively performed the entire public function of selecting public officials, so too the Gulf Shipbuilding Corp. performed all the necessary municipal functions in the town of Chickasaw, Ala., which it owned. Under those circumstances, the Court concluded it was bound to recognize the right of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses to distribute religious literature on its streets. The Court expanded this municipal-function theory in Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U. S. 308 (1968), to encompass the activities of a private shopping center. It did so over the vigorous dissent of Mr. Justice Black, the author of Marsh. As he described the basis of the Marsh decision:
“The question is, Under what circumstances can private property be treated as though it were public? The answer that Marsh gives is when that property has taken on all the attributes of a town, i. e., 'residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a “business block” on which business places are situated. 326 U. S., at 502.” 391 U. S., at 332 (dissenting opinion).
This Court ultimately adopted Mr. Justice Black's interpretation of the limited reach of Marsh in Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507 (1976), in which it announced the overruling of Logan Valley.
These two branches of the public-function doctrine have in common the feature of exclusivity. Although the elections held by the Democratic Party and its affiliates were the only meaningful elections in Texas, and the streets owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corp. were the only streets in Chickasaw, the proposed sale by Flagg Brothers under § 7-21Ó is not the only means of resolving this purely private dispute. Respondent Brooks has never alleged that state law barred her from seeking a waiver of Flagg Brothers' right to sell her goods at the time she authorized their storage. Presumably, respondent Jones, who alleges that she never authorized the storage of her goods, could have sought to replevy her goods at any time under state law. See N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 7101 et seq. (McKinney 1963). The challenged statute itself provides a damages remedy against the warehouseman for violations of its provisions. N. Y. U. C. C. § 7-210 (9) (McKinney 1964). This system of rights and remedies, recognizing the traditional place of private arrangements in ordering relationships in the commercial world, can hardly be said to have delegated to Flagg Brothers an exclusive prerogative of the sovereign.
Whatever the particular remedies available under New York law, we do not consider a more detailed description of them necessary to our conclusion that the settlement of disputes between debtors and creditors is not traditionally an exclusive public function. Cf. United States v. Kras, 409 U. S. 434, 445-446 (1973). Creditors and debtors have had available to them historically a far wider number of choices than has one who would be an elected public official, or a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses who wished to distribute literature in Chickasaw", Ala., at the time Marsh was decided. Our analysis requires no parsing of the difference between various commercial liens and other remedies to support the conclusion that this entire field of activity is outside the scope of Terry and Marsh. This is true whether these commercial rights and remedies are created by statute or decisional law. To rely upon the historical antecedents of a particular practice would result in the constitutional condemnation in one State of a remedy found perfectly permissible in another. Compare Cox Bakeries v. Timm Moving & Storage, 554 F. 2d 356, 358-359 (CA8 1977), with Melara, 541 F. 2d, at 805-806, and n. 7. Cf. Bell v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 226, 334-335 (1964) (Black, J., dissenting).
Thus, even if we were inclined to extend the sovereign-function doctrine outside of its present carefully confined bounds, the field of private commercial transactions would be a particularly inappropriate area into which to expand it. We conclude that our sovereign-function cases do not support a finding of state action here.
Our holding today impairs in no way the precedential value of such cases as Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455 (1973), or Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U. S. 556 (1974), which arose in the context of state and municipal programs which benefited private schools engaging in racially discriminatory admissions practices following judicial decrees desegregating public school systems. And we would be remiss if we did not note that there are a number of state and municipal functions not covered by our election cases or governed by the reasoning of Marsh which have been administered with a greater degree of exclusivity by States and municipalities than has the function of so-called “dispute resolution.” Among these are such functions as education, fire and police protection, and tax collection. We express no view as to the extent, if any, to which a city or State might be free to delegate to private parties the performance of such functions and thereby avoid the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment. The mere recitation of these possible permutations and combinations of factual situations suffices to caution us that their resolution should abide the necessity of deciding them.
IV
Respondents further urge that Flagg Brothers’ proposed action is properly attributable to the State because the State has authorized and encouraged it in enacting § 7-210. Our cases state “that a State is responsible for the . . . act of a private party when the State, by its law, has compelled the act.” Adickes, 398 U. S., at 170. This Court, however, has never held that a State’s mere acquiescence in a private action converts that action into that of the State. The Court rejected a similar argument in Jackson, 419 U. S., at 357:
“Approval by a state utility commission of such a request from a regulated utility, where the commission has not put its own weight on the side of the proposed practice by ordering it, does not transmute a practice initiated by the utility and approved by the commission into 'state action.’.” (Emphasis added.)
The clearest demonstration of this distinction appears in Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (1972), which held that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, although not responsible for racial discrimination voluntarily practiced by a private club, could not by law require the club to- comply with its own discriminatory rules. These cases clearly rejected the notion that our prior cases permitted the imposition of Fourteenth Amendment restraints on private action by the simple device of characterizing the State’s inaction as “authorization” or “encouragement.” See id., at 190 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
It is quite immaterial that the State has embodied its decision not to act in statutory form. If New York had no commercial statutes at all, its courts would still be faced with the decision whether to prohibit or to permit the sort of sale threatened here the first time an aggrieved bailor came before them for relief. A judicial decision to deny relief would be no less an “authorization” or “encouragement” • of that sale than the legislature’s decision embodied in this statute. It was recognized in the earliest interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment “that a State may act through different agencies, — either by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities; and the prohibitions of the amendment extend to all action of the State” infringing rights protected thereby. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880). If the mere denial of judicial relief is considered sufficient encouragement to make the State responsible for those private acts, all private deprivations of property would be converted into public acts whenever the State, for whatever reason, denies relief sought by the putative property owner.
Not only is this notion completely contrary to that “essential dichotomy,” Jackson, supra, at 349, between public and private acts, but it has been previously rejected by this Court. In Evans v. Abney, 396 U. S. 435, 458 (1970), our Brother Brennan in dissent contended that a Georgia statutory provision authorizing the establishment of trusts for racially restricted parks conferred a “special power” on testators taking advantage of the provision. The Court nevertheless concluded that the State of Georgia was in no way responsible for the purely private choice involved in that case. By the same token, the State of New York is in no way responsible for Flagg Brothers’ decision, a decision which the State in § 7-210 permits but does not compel, to threaten to' sell these respondents’ belongings.
Here, the State of New York has not compelled the sale of a bailor’s goods, but has merely announced the circumstances under which its courts will not interfere with a private sale. Indeed, the crux of respondents’ complaint is not that the State has acted, but that it has refused to act. This statutory refusal to act is no different in principle from an ordinary statute of limitations whereby the State declines to provide a remedy for private deprivations of property after the passage of a given period of time.
We conclude that the allegations of these complaints do not establish a violation of these respondents’ Fourteenth Amendment rights by either petitioner Flagg Brothers or the State of New York. The District Court properly concluded that their complaints failed to state a claim for relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The judgment of the Court of Appeals holding otherwise is Reversed.
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The challenged statute reads in full:
“§ 7 — 210. Enforcement of Warehouseman’s Lien
“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a warehouseman’s lien may be enforced by public or private sale of the goods in bloc or in parcels, at any time or place and on any terms which are commercially reasonable, after notifying all persons known to claim an interest in the goods. Such notification must include a statement of the amount due, the nature of the proposed sale and the time and place of any public sale. The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a different time or in a different method from that selected by the warehouseman is not of itself sufficient to establish that the sale was not made in a commercially reasonable manner. If the warehouseman either sells the goods in the usual manner in any recognized market therefor, or if he sells at the price current in such market at the time of his sale, or if he has otherwise sold in conformity with commercially reasonable practices among dealers in the type of goods sold, he has sold in a commercially reasonable manner. A sale of more goods than apparently necessary to be offered to insure satisfaction of the obligation is not commercially reasonable except in cases covered by the preceding sentence.
“(2) A warehouseman’s lien on goods other than goods stored by a merchant in the course of his business may be enforced only as follows:
“(a) All persons known to claim an interest in the goods must be notified.
“(b) The notification must be delivered in person or sent by registered or certified letter to the last known address of any person to be notified.
“(c) The notification must include an itemized statement of the claim, a description of the goods subject to the lien, a demand for payment within a specified time not less than ten days after receipt of the notification, and a conspicuous statement that unless the claim is paid within that time the goods will be advertised for sale and sold by auction at a specified time and place.
“(d) The sale must conform to the terms of the notification.
“(e) The sale must be held at the nearest suitable place to that where the goods are held or stored.
“ (f) After the expiration of the time given in the notification, an advertisement of the sale must be published onoe a week for two weeks consecutively in a newspaper of general circulation where the sale is to be held. The advertisement must include a description of the goods, the name of the person on whose account they are being held, and the time and place of the sale. The sale must take place at least fifteen days after the first publication. If there is no newspaper of general circulation where the sale is to be held, the advertisement must be posted at least ten days before the sale in not less than six conspicuous places in the neighborhood of the proposed sale.
“(3) Before any sale pursuant to this section any person claiming a right in the goods may pay the amount necessary to satisfy the lien and the reasonable expenses incurred under this section. In that event the goods must not be sold, but must be retained by the warehouseman subject to the terms of the receipt and this Article.
“(4) The warehouseman may buy at any public sale pursuant to this section.
“(5) A purchaser in good faith of goods sold to enforce a warehouseman’s lien takes the goods free of any rights of persons against whom the lien was valid, despite noncomplianoe by the warehouseman with the requirements of this section.
“(6) The warehouseman may satisfy his lien from the proceeds of any sale pursuant to this section but must hold the balance, if any, for delivery on demand to any person to whom he would have been bound to deliver the goods.
“(7) The rights provided by this section shall be in addition to all other rights allowed by law to a creditor against his debtor.
“ (8) Where a lien is on goods stored by a merchant in the course of his business the lien may be enforced in accordance with either subsection (1) or (2).
“(9) The warehouseman is liable for damages caused by failure to comply with the requirements for sale under this section and in case of willful violation is liable for conversion.”
In his order granting the motions to intervene, Judge Gurfein noted that respondent Brooks’ goods had been returned to her, but he found that her action had been saved from mootness by her claim for damages. 63 F. R. D. 409, 412 (SDNY 1974). We have no occasion to consider the correctness of that decision, since we have concluded, n. 3, infra, that the claim of respondent Jones remains alive.
Jones died prior to the court’s decision. However, the court concluded that, under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, her claim survived for the benefit of her estate, since a comparable claim would survive under applicable New York law. 553 F. 2d, at 768 n. 7. For simplicity, Jones will be referred to as a respondent herein.
The court also noted that Jones had recovered most of her possessions after the District Court’s dismissal of her action. Unlike Brooks, she paid the charges demanded by Flagg Brothers, but did so “only because of alleged threats of sale and the twenty-month detention of the goods.” Ibid.
At this point in the litigation, it is clear that Flagg Brothers has not sold and will not sell the belongings of either respondent. Although injunctive relief against such sale is therefore no longer available, we must reach the merits of the claim if either respondent can demonstrate that she has suffered "monetary damage by reason of the workings of § 7-210. See, e. g., Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U. S. 301, 305-306 (1964). The affidavit submitted with Jones’ complaint alleges that Flagg Brothers charged her an auctioneer’s fee, pursuant to § 7-210 (3), which she has now paid. If she is correct that the warehouseman’s invocation of the statute constitutes a violation by the State itself of the Fourteenth Amendment, she would surely be entitled to recover that fee. We express no opinion as to whether she could prove other damages causally related to the threatened use of the sale provisions.
Even if there is “state action,” the ultimate inquiry in a Fourteenth Amendment case is, of course, whether that action constitutes a denial or deprivation by the State of rights that the Amendment protects.
Of course, where the defendant is a public official, the two elements of a § 1983 action merge. “The involvement of a state official . . . plainly provides the state action essential to show a direct violation of petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment . . . rights, whether or not the actions of the police were officially authorized, or lawful.” Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 152 (1970) (citations omitted).
Indeed, the majority in Terry produced three separate opinions, none of which commanded a majority of the Court.
In construing the public-function doctrine in the election context, the Court has given special consideration to the fact that Congress, in 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (a) (1), has made special provision to protect equal access to the ballot. Terry, 345 U. S., at 468 (opinion of Black, J.); Smith, 321 U. S., at 651. No such congressional pronouncement speaks to the ordinary commercial transaction presented here.
Respondents also contend that Evans v. Newton, 382 U. S. 296 (1966), establishes that the operation of a park for recreational purposes is an exclusively public function. We doubt that Newton intended to establish any such broad doctrine in the teeth of the experience of several American entrepreneurs who amassed great fortunes by operating parks for recreational purposes. We think Newton rests on a finding of ordinary state action under extraordinary circumstances. The Court’s opinion emphasizes that the record showed “no change in the municipal maintenance and concern over this facility,” id.., at 301, after the transfer of title to private trustees. That transfer had not been shown to have eliminated the actual involvement of the city in the daily maintenance and care of the park.
Unlike the parade of horribles suggested by our Brother Stevens in dissent, post, at 170, this case does not involve state authorization of private breach of the peace.
It is undoubtedly true, as our Brother Stevens says in dissent, post, at 169, that “respondents have a property interest in the possessions that the warehouseman proposes to sell.” But that property interest is not a monolithic, abstract concept hovering in the legal stratosphere. It is a bundle of rights in personalty, the metes and bounds of which are determined by the decisional and statutory law of the State of New York. The validity of the property interest in these possessions which respondents previously acquired from some other private person depends on New York law, and the manner in which that same property interest in these same possessions may be lost or transferred to still another private person likewise depends on New York law. It would intolerably broaden, beyond the scope of any of our previous cases, the notion of state action under the Fourteenth Amendment to hold that the mere existence of a body of property law in a State, whether decisional or statutory, itself amounted to “state action” even though no state process or state officials were ever involved in enforcing that body of law.
This situation is clearly distinguishable from cases such as North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U. S. 601 (1975); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972); and Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969). In each of those cases a government official participated in the physical deprivation of what had concededly been the constitutional plaintiff’s property under state law before the deprivation occurred. The constitutional protection attaches not because, as in North Georgia Finishing, a clerk issued a ministerial writ out of the court, but because as a result of that writ the property of the debtor was seized and impounded by the affirmative command of the law of Georgia. The creditor in North Georgia Finishing had not simply sought to pursue the collection of his debt by private means permissible under Georgia law; he had invoked the authority of the Georgia court, which in turn had ordered the garnishee not to pay over money which previously had been the property of the debtor. See Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948).
The “consent” inquiry in Fuentes occurred only after the Court had concluded that state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was supplied by the participation in the seizure on the part of the sheriff. The consent inquiry was directed to whether there had been a waiver of the constitutional right to due process which had been triggered by state deprivation of propertjr. But our Brother Stevens puts the cart before the horse; he concludes that the respondents’ lack of consent to the deprivations triggers affirmative constitutional protections which the State is bound to provide. Thus what was a mere coda to the constitutional analysis in Fuentes becomes the major theme of the dissent.
It may well be, as my Brother Stevens’ dissent contends, that “[t]he power to order legally binding surrenders of property and the constitutional restrictions on that power are necessary correlatives in our system.” Post, at 178-179. But here New York, unlike Florida in Fuentes, Georgia in North Georgia Finishing, and Wisconsin in Sniadach, has not ordered respondents to surrender any property whatever. It has merely enacted a statute which provides that a warehouseman conforming to the provisions of the statute may convert his traditional lien into good title. There is no reason whatever to believe that either Flagg Brothers or respondents could not, if they wished, seek resort to the New York courts in order to either compel or prevent the “surrenders of property” to which that dissent refers, and that the compliance of Flagg Brothers with applicable New York property law would be reviewed after customary notice and hearing in such a proceeding.
The fact that such a judicial review of a self-help remedy is seldom encountered bears witness to the important part that such remedies have played in our system of property rights. This is particularly true of the warehouseman’s hen, which is the source of this provision in the Uniform Commercial Code which is the law in 49 States and the District of Columbia. The lien in this case, particularly because it is burdened by procedural constraints and provides for a compensatory remedy and judicial relief against abuse, is not atypical of creditors’ liens historically, whether created by statute or legislatively enacted. The conduct of private actors in relying on the rights established under these liens to resort to self-help remedies does not permit their conduct to be ascribed to the State. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192 (1944); Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225 (1956).
This is not to say that dispute resolution between creditors and debtors involves a category of human affairs that is never subject to constitutional constraints. We merely address the public-function doctrine as respondents would apply it to this case.
Self-help of the type involved in this case is not significantly different from creditor remedies generally, whether created by common law or enacted by legislatures. New York’s statute has done nothing more than authorize (and indeed limit) — without participation by any public official— what Flagg Brothers would tend to do, even in the absence of such authorization, i. e., dispose of respondents’ property in order to free up its valuable storage space. The proposed sale pursuant to the lien in this case is not a significant departure from traditional private arrangements.
See also Davis v. Richmond, 512 F. 2d 201, 203 (CA1 1975):
“[W]e are disinclined to decide the issue of state involvement on the basis of whether a particular class of creditor did or did not enjoy the same freedom to act in Elizabethan or Georgian England.”
Contrary to MR. Justice SteveNs’ suggestion, post, at 172 n. 8, this Court has never considered the private exercise of traditional police functions. In Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 130 (1964), the State contended that the deputy sheriff in question had acted only as a private security employee, but this Court specifically found that he “purported to exercise the authority of a deputy sheriff.” Id., at 135. Griffin thus sheds no light on the constitutional status of private police forces, and we express no opinion here.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
The question here is whether Art. I, § 26, of the California Constitution denies “to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Section 26 of Art. I, an initiated measure submitted to the people as Proposition 14 in a statewide ballot in 1964, provides in part as follows:
“Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.”
The real property covered by § 26 is limited to residential property and contains an exception for state-owned real estate.
The issue arose in two separate actions in the California courts, Mulkey v. Reitman and Prendergast v. Snyder. In Reitman, the Mulkeys, who are husband and wife and respondents here, sued under § 51 and § 52 of the California Civil Code alleging that petitioners had refused to rent them an apartment solely on account of their race. An injunction and damages were demanded. Petitioners moved for summary judgment on the ground that §§51 and 52, insofar as they were the basis for the Mulkeys’ action, had been rendered null and void by the adoption of Proposition 14 after the filing of the complaint. The trial court granted the motion and respondents took the case to the California Supreme Court.
In the Prendergast case, respondents, husband and wife, filed suit in December 1964 seeking to enjoin eviction from their apartment; respondents alleged that the eviction was motivated by racial prejudice and therefore would violate § 51 and § 52 of the Civil Code. Petitioner Snyder cross-complained for a judicial declaration that he was entitled to terminate the month-to-month tenancy even if his action was based on racial considerations. In denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court found it unnecessary to consider the validity of Proposition 14 because it concluded that judicial enforcement of an eviction based on racial grounds would in any event violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The cross-complaint was dismissed with prejudice and petitioner Snyder appealed to the California Supreme Court which considered the case along with Mulkey v. Reitman. That court, in reversing the Reitman case, held that Art. I, § 26, was invalid as denying the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 64 Cal. 2d 529, 413 P. 2d 825. For similar reasons, the court affirmed the judgment in the Prendergast case. 64 Cal. 2d 877, 413 P. 2d 847. We granted certiorari because the eases involve an important issue arising under the Fourteenth Amendment. 385 U. S. 967.
We affirm the judgments of the California Supreme Court. We first turn to the opinion of that court in Reitman, which quite properly undertook to examine the constitutionality of § 26 in terms of its “immediate objective,” its “ultimate effect” and its “historical context and the conditions existing prior to its enactment.” Judgments such as these we have frequently undertaken ourselves. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 235 U. S. 151; Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 267; Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153; Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U. S. 350; Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399. But here the California Supreme Court has addressed itself to these matters and we should give careful consideration to its views because they concern the purpose, scope, and operative effect of a provision of the California Constitution.
First, the court considered whether § 26 was concerned at all with private discriminations in residential housing. This involved a review of past efforts by the California Legislature to regulate such discriminations. The Unruh Act, Civ. Code §§ 51-52, on which respondents based their cases, was passed in 1959. The Hawkins Act, formerly Health & Safety Code §§ 35700-35741, followed and prohibited discriminations in publicly assisted housing. In 1961, the legislature enacted proscriptions against restrictive covenants. Finally, in 1963, came the Rum-ford Fair Housing Act, Health & Safety Code §§ 35700-35744, superseding the Hawkins Act and prohibiting racial discriminations in the sale or rental of any private dwelling containing more than four units. That act was enforceable by the State Fair Employment Practice Commission.
It was against this background that Proposition 14 was enacted. Its immediate design and intent, the California court said, were “to overturn state laws that bore on the right of private sellers and lessors to discriminate,” the Unruh and Rumford Acts, and “to forestall future state action that might circumscribe this right.” This aim was successfully achieved: the adoption of Proposition 14 “generally nullifies both the Rumford and Unruh Acts as they apply to the housing market,” and establishes “a purported constitutional right to privately discriminate on grounds which admittedly would be unavailable under the Fourteenth Amendment should state action be involved.”
Second, the court conceded that the State was permitted a neutral position with respect to private racial discriminations and that the State was not bound by the Federal Constitution to forbid them. But, because a significant state involvement in private discriminations could amount to unconstitutional state action, Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715, the court deemed it necessary to determine whether Proposition 14 invalidly involved the State in racial discriminations in the housing market. Its conclusion was that it did.
To reach this result, the state court examined certain prior decisions in this Court in which discriminatory state action was identified. Based on these cases, Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153, 156; Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, 254; McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, it concluded that a prohibited state involvement could be found “even where the state can be charged with only encouraging,” rather than commanding discrimination. Also of particular interest to the court was Mr. Justice Stewart’s concurrence in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715, 726, where it was said that the Delaware courts had construed an existing Delaware statute as “authorizing” racial discrimination in restaurants and that the statute was therefore invalid. To the California court “[t]he instant case presents an undeniably analogous situation” wherein the State had taken affirmative action designed to make private discriminations legally possible. Section 26 was said to have changed the situation from one in which discrimination was restricted “to one wherein it is encouraged, within the meaning of the cited decisions”; § 26 was legislative action “which authorized private discrimination” and made the State “at least a partner in the instant act of discrimination . . . .” The court could “conceive of no other purpose for an application of section 26 aside from authorizing the perpetration of a purported private discrimination . . . .” The judgment of the California court was that § 26 unconstitutionally involves the State in racial discriminations and is therefore invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment.
There is no sound reason for rejecting this judgment. Petitioners contend that the California court has misconstrued the Fourteenth Amendment since the repeal of any statute prohibiting racial discrimination, which is constitutionally permissible, may be said to “authorize” and “encourage” discrimination because it makes legally permissible that which was formerly proscribed. But, as we understand the California court, it did not posit a constitutional violation on the mere repeal of the Unruh and Rumford Acts. It did not read either our cases or the Fourteenth Amendment as establishing an automatic constitutional barrier to the repeal of an existing law prohibiting racial discriminations in housing; nor did the court rule that a State may never put in statutory form an existing policy of neutrality with respect to private discriminations. What the court below did was first to reject the notion that the State was required to have a statute prohibiting racial dis-criminations in housing. Second, it held the intent of § 26 was to authorize private racial discrimina-tions in the housing market, to repeal the Unruh and Rumford Acts and to create a constitutional right to discriminate on racial grounds in the sale and leasing of real property. Hence, the court dealt with § 26 as though it expressly authorized and constitutionalized the private right to discriminate. Third, the court assessed the ultimate impact of § 26 in the California environment and concluded that the section would encourage and significantly involve the State in private racial discrimination contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
The California court could very reasonably conclude that § 26 would and did have wider impact than a mere repeal of existing statutes. Section 26 mentioned neither the Unruh nor Rumford Act in so many words. Instead, it announced the constitutional right of any person to decline to sell or lease his real property to anyone to whom he did not desire to sell or lease. Unruh and Rumford were thereby pro tanto repealed. But the section struck more deeply and more widely. Private dis-criminations in housing were now not only free from Rumford and Unruh but they also enjoyed a far different status than was true before the passage of those statutes. The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State’s basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government. Those practicing racial discriminations need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources. All individuals, partnerships, corporations and other legal entities, as well as their agents and representatives, could now discriminate with respect to their residential real property, which is defined as any interest in real property of any kind or quality, “irrespective of how obtained or financed,” and seemingly irrespective of the relationship of the State to such interests in real property. Only the State is excluded with respect to property owned by it.
This Court has never attempted the “impossible task” of formulating an infallible test for determining whether the State “in any of its manifestations” has become significantly involved in private discriminations. “Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances” on a case-by-case basis can a “nonobvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance.” Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715, 722. Here the California court, armed as it was with the knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning the passage and potential impact of § 26, and familiar with the milieu in which that provision would operate, has determined that the provision would involve the State in private racial discriminations to an unconstitutional degree. We accept this holding of the California court.
The assessment of § 26 by the California court is similar to what this Court has done in appraising state statutes or other official actions in other contexts. In McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, the Court dealt with a statute which, as construed by the Court, authorized carriers to provide cars for white persons but not for Negroes. Though dismissal of the complaint on a procedural ground was affirmed, the Court made it clear that such a statute was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because a carrier refusing equal service to Negroes would be “acting in the matter under the authority of a state law.” This was nothing less than considering a permissive state statute as an authorization to discriminate and as sufficient state action to violate the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of that case. Similarly, in Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73, the Court was faced with a statute empowering the executive committee of a political party to prescribe the qualifications of its members for voting or for other participation, but containing no directions with respect to the exercise of that power. This was authority which the committee otherwise might not have had and which was used by the committee to bar Negroes from voting in primary elections. Reposing this power in the executive committee was said to insinuate the State into the self-regulatory, decision-making scheme of the voluntary association; the exercise of the power was viewed as an expression of state authority contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715, the operator-lessee of a restaurant located in a building owned by the State and otherwise operated for public purposes, refused service to Negroes. Although the State neither commanded nor expressly authorized or encouraged the discriminations, the State had “elected to place its power, property and prestige behind the admitted discrimination” and by “its inaction . . . has . . . made itself a party to the refusal of service . . which therefore could not be considered the purely private choice of the restaurant operator.
In Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244, and in Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153, the Court dealt with state statutes or regulations requiring, at least in some respects, segregation in facilities and services in restaurants. These official provisions, although obviously unconstitutional and unenforceable, were deemed in themselves sufficient to disentitle the State to punish, as trespassers, Negroes who had been refused service in the restaurants. In neither case was any proof required that the restaurant owner had actually been influenced by the state statute or regulation. Finally, in Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 267, the Court interpreted public statements by New Orleans city officials as announcing that the city would not permit Negroes to seek desegregated service in restaurants. Because the statements were deemed to have as much coercive potential as the ordinance in the Peterscm case, the Court treated the city as though it had actually adopted an ordinance forbidding desegregated service in public restaurants.
None of these cases squarely controls the case we now have before us. But they do illustrate the range of situations in which discriminatory state action has been identified. They do exemplify the necessity for a court to assess the potential impact of official action in determining whether the State has significantly involved itself with invidious discriminations. Here we are dealing with a provision which does not just repeal an existing law forbidding private racial discriminations. Section 26 was intended to authorize, and does authorize, racial discrimination in the housing market. The right to discriminate is now one of the basic policies of the State. The California Supreme Court believes that the section will significantly encourage and involve the State in private discriminations. We have been presented with no persuasive considerations indicating that these judgments should be overturned.
Affirmed.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides as follows:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The following is the full text of § 26: “Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.
“ ‘Person’ includes individuals, partnerships, corporations and other legal entities and their agents or representatives but does not include the State or any subdivision thereof with respect to the sale, lease or rental of property owned by it.
“ ‘Real property’ consists of any interest in real property of any kind or quality, present or future, irrespective of how obtained or financed, which is used, designed, constructed, zoned or otherwise devoted to or limited for residential purposes whether as a single family dwelling or as a dwelling for two or more persons or families living together or independently of each other.
“This Article shall not apply to the obtaining of property by eminent domain pursuant to Article I, Sections 14 and 14% of this Constitution, nor to the renting or providing of any accommodations for lodging purposes by a hotel, motel or other similar public place engaged in furnishing lodging to transient guests.
“If any part or provision of this Article, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Article, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To.this end the provisions of this Article are severable.” (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 26.)
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 and 52 provide in part as follows:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of this State are free and equal, and no matter what their race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
“Whoever denies, or who aids, or incites such denial, or whoever makes any discrimination, distinction or restriction on account of color, race, religion, ancestry, or national origin, contrary to the provisions of Section 51 of this code, is liable for each and every such offense for the actual damages, and two hundred fifty dollars ($250) in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51 of this code.”
The trial court considered the case to be controlled by Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson, 204 Cal. App. 2d 242, 22 Cal. Rptr. 309, which in turn placed major reliance on Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, and Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249.
Respondents’ complaint was dismissed without prejudice based on the trial court’s finding that petitioner would not seek eviction without the declaratory relief he had requested.
See n. 3, supra.
In addition to the ease we now have before us, two other cases decided the same day by the California Supreme Court are instructive concerning the range and impact of Art. I, § 26, of the California Constitution. In Hill v. Miller, 413 P. 2d 852, on rehearing, 64 Cal. 2d 757, 415 P. 2d 33, a Negro tenant sued to restrain an eviction from a leased, single-family dwelling. The notice to quit served by the owner had expressly recited: “The sole reason for this notice is that I have elected to exercise the right conferred upon me by Article I Section 26, California Constitution, to rent said premises to members of the Caucasian race.” Although the California court had invalidated § 26, the court ruled against the Negro plaintiff because the Unruh Act did not cover single-family dwellings. Thus the landlord’s reliance on § 26 was superfluous.
In Peyton v. Barrington Plaza Corp., 64 Cal. 2d 880, 413 P. 2d 849, a Negro physician sued to require the defendant corporation to lease him an apartment in Barrington Plaza which was described in the opinion as follows:
“that defendant received a $17,000,000, low interest rate loan under the National Housing Act to construct Barrington Plaza; that such sum represents 90 percent of the construction costs of the plaza; that the development is a part of the urban redevelopment program undertaken by the City of Los Angeles; that Barrington Plaza is the largest apartment development in the western United States, providing apartment living for 2,500 people; that it includes many retail shops and professional services within its self-contained facilities; that it provides a fall-out shelter, completely stocked by the federal government with emergency supplies; that the plaza replaced private homes of both Caucasians and non-Caucasians; that the city effected zoning changes to accommodate the development; that the defendant’s securities were sold, its construction contracts were let, its building permits were issued and its shops and professional services established all pursuant to state or local approval, cooperation and authority.”
The defendant defended the action and moved for judgment on the pleadings based on Art. I, § 26, of the California Constitution. The motion was granted but the judgment was reversed based on the decision in Mulkey v. Reitman.
This ease was a sequel to Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, which outlawed statutory disqualification of Negroes from voting in primary elections.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is here for the third time. Petitioner was convicted on four counts of wilfully attempting to evade and defeat federal income taxes. When this case was first here we knew nothing about the facts concerning the phase of the case now before us. It was alleged in the petitioner’s motion and affidavits supporting his motion for a new trial that during the trial one juror, Smith, had been approached by one Satterly, an outsider, with a suggestion that the juror could make some easy money if he would make a deal with petitioner Remmer. It was further alleged by the petitioner that the juror reported the matter to the trial judge, who in turn reported it to the district attorney, who, with the judge’s approval, called in the Federal Bureau of Investigation — all of which was unknown to the petitioner until he read about it in the newspaper after the jury had returned its verdict finding him guilty. The Government did not deny these allegations. We sent the case back to the District Court with directions to hold a hearing, with the petitioner and counsel present, to determine from the facts whether or not communication with the juror by the outsider and the events that followed were prejudicial and, therefore, harmful to the petitioner, and, if so, to grant a new trial. 347 U. S. 227. On remand, the District Court held a hearing and found the incidents to be free of harm. 122 F. Supp. 673. Thereafter, this Court remanded the entire record to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to consider the whole case in the light of our recent net-worth decisions. 348 U. S. 904. The Court of Appeals reviewed the whole record and affirmed the petitioner’s conviction in a per curiam opinion. 222 F. 2d 720.
The case is here again on certiorari, limited to the question of the effect of the extraneous communications with the juror upon the petitioner’s right to a fair trial. 350 U. S. 820. The District Court read our opinion and mandate to mean that “the incident complained of” to be inquired into at the hearing was the purpose and effect of the F. B. I. investigation. The District Court found that the purpose of the F. B. I. investigation was not to examine Smith’s conduct, but rather to determine whether Satterly had committed an offense. The court further found that the F. B. I. agent’s discussion with Smith had “no effect whatever upon the judgment, or the integrity or state of mind” of Smith, whom the court found to be a “forthright and honest man.” On the basis of these two findings, the court concluded:
“Consequently, the court finds that 'the incident complained of’ was entirely harmless so far as the petitioner was concerned and did not have the slightest bearing upon the integrity of the verdict nor the state of mind of the foreman of the jury, or any of the members of the jury. Thus any presumption of prejudice is conclusively dispelled. . . .”
The District Court’s limit of our mandate, it seems to us, is hardly warranted by the language of the opinion, even though the language might well have been more explicit. It was our intention that the entire picture should be explored and the incident complained of and to be examined included Satterly’s communication with the juror and the impact thereof upon him then, immediately thereafter, and during the trial, taken together with the fact that the F. B. I. was investigating a circumstance involving the juror and the fact that the juror never knew all during the balance of the trial what the outcome of that investigation was. Thus we stated: “In a criminal case, any.private communication, contact, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court . . . with full knowledge of the parties.” 347 U. S., at 229. We also pointed out that the record we had before us did not reflect what in-fact transpired, “or whether the incidents that may have occurred were harmful or harmless.” Ibid. It was the paucity of information relating to the entire situation coupled with the presumption which attaches to the kind of facts alleged by petitioner which, in our view, made manifest the need for a full hearing. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence in the record relating to the total situation, including both the Satterly and the F. B. I. contacts, which makes it unnecessary to remand the case for further consideration. We will consider the. evidence free from what we think are the unduly narrow limits of the question as viewed by the District Court.
The evidence shows that three weeks after the trial started, juror Smith, who is a real estate and insurance broker, was visited in his home by Satterly and his wife about an insurance policy. Satterly had been employed in a gambling house in Nevada as a dealer of craps. The petitioner was or had been engaged in the operation of gambling houses in Nevada. The Satterlys had met the Smiths socially at a hunting lodge. Smith and Satterly seated themselves in one end of a large room and their wives were seated in the other end of the room, a convenient arrangement if an approach was to be made. Satterly made substantially the following remark: “I know Bones Remmer very well. He sold Cal-Neva for $850,000 and really got about $300,000 under the table which he daresn’t touch. Why don’t you make a deal with him?” Smith vigorously reminded Satterly that he was on the jury and that he could not talk about the case. Nothing more was said. Smith was disturbed. As he later testified, “I always felt, whether Mr. Satterly said it in so many words or not, I always felt that money was involved; otherwise why would any question be put to me.” So disturbed was Smith that he told the trial judge about it. The judge’s reaction, at least as he manifested it to Smith, was that the Satterly conversation should be regarded as a joke. But the judge related the incident to the district attorney and they decided to refer the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Shortly thereafter, during a recess, an F. B. I. agent called on Smith at his place of business. Smith testified that the agent explained the purpose of this visit as follows: “He told me that he had been instructed to come and interview me relative to this conversation I had with Mr. Satterly. ... To check and see whether there was anything to this or not.” On direct examination the agent testified: “I told him I had been requested to conduct an investigation relating to his talk with Mr. Satterly and the possibility of improper approach.” In reply to questions put by the District Court, the agent testified that he had explained to Smith that the purpose of his investigation was to examine Satterly’s conduct. Sat-terly was never interviewed by the F. B. I. during its investigation. It was not until a month after the trial had ended that the Government determined that further investigation or criminal prosecution was unwarranted.
Driving home after the trial with two other jurors, Smith mentioned that there was some question as to whether he had been approached during the trial and that he had reported the incident to the trial judge. He thanked one of the jurors on dropping her at her home, “because I have been under a terrific pressure . . . Sometime I will discuss it.”
We think this evidence, covering the total picture, reveals such a state of facts that neither Mr. Smith nor anyone else could say that he was not affected in his freedom of action as a juror. From Smith’s testimony it is quite evident that he was a disturbed and troubled man from the date of the Satterly contact until after the trial. Proper concern for protecting and preserving the integrity of our jury system dictates against our speculating that the F. B. I. agent’s interview with Smith, whatever the Government may have understood its purpose to be, dispersed the cloud created by Satterly’s communication. As he sat on the jury for the remainder of the long trial and as he cast his ballot, Smith was never aware of the Government's interpretation of the events to which he, however unwillingly, had become a party. He had been subjected to extraneous influences to which no juror should be subjected, for it is the law’s objective to guard jealously the sanctity of the jury’s right to operate as freely as possible from outside unauthorized intrusions purposefully made.
The unduly restrictive interpretation of the question by the District Court had the effect of diluting the force of all the other facts and circumstances in the case that may have influenced and disturbed Smith in the untrammeled exercise of his judgment as a juror. We hold that on a consideration of all the evidence uninfluenced by the District Court’s narrow construction of the incident complained of, petitioner is entitled to a new trial.
The Court of Appeals’ judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to grant a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren and Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, then a sergeant in the United States Army, was stationed in July 1956, at Fort Shafter, Oahu, in the Territory of Hawaii. On the night of July 20, while on an evening pass, petitioner and a friend left the post dressed in civilian clothes and went into Honolulu. After a few beers in the bar of a hotel, petitioner entered the residential part of the hotel where he broke into the room of a young girl and assaulted and attempted to rape her. While fleeing from her room onto Waikiki Beach, he was apprehended by a hotel security officer who delivered him to the Honolulu city police for questioning. After determining that he was a member of the Armed Forces, the city police delivered petitioner to the military police. After extensive interrogation, petitioner confessed and was placed in military confinement.
Petitioner was charged with attempted rape, housebreaking, and assault with intent to rape, in violation of Articles 80, 130, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was tried by court-martial, convicted on all counts, and given a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment at hard labor, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and dishonorable discharge. His conviction was affirmed by the Army Board of Review and, subsequently, by the United States Court of Military Appeals.
Under confinement at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging, inter alia, that the court-martial was without jurisdiction to try him for nonmilitary offenses committed off-post while on an evening pass. The District Court denied relief without considering the issue on the merits, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. This Court granted certiorari limited to the question:
“Does a court-martial, held under the Articles of War, Tit. 10, U. S. C. § 801 et seg., have jurisdiction to try a member of the Armed Forces who is charged with commission of a crime cognizable in a civilian court and having no military significance, alleged to have been committed off-post and while on leave, thus depriving him of his constitutional rights to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury in a civilian court?” 393 U. S. 822.
The Constitution gives Congress power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, and it recognizes that the exigencies of military discipline require the existence of a special system of military courts in which not all of the specific procedural protections deemed essential in Art. Ill trials need apply. The Fifth Amendment specifically exempts “cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger” from the requirement of prosecution by indictment and, inferentially, from the right to trial by jury. (Emphasis supplied.) See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 40. The result has been the estab-
lishment and development of a system of military justice with fundamental differences from the practices in the civilian courts.
If the case does not arise “in the land or naval forces,” then the accused gets first, the benefit of an indictment by a grand jury and second, a trial by jury before a civilian court as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and by Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution which provides in part:
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”
Those civil rights are the constitutional stakes in the present litigation. What we wrote in Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 17-18, is worth emphasis:
“We find nothing in the history or constitutional treatment of military tribunals which entitles them to rank along with Article III courts as adjudicators of the guilt or innocence of people charged with offenses for which they can be deprived of their life, liberty or property. Unlike courts, it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise. But trial of soldiers to maintain discipline is merely incidental to an army’s primary fighting function. To the extent that those responsible for performance of this primary function are diverted from it by the necessity of trying cases, the basic fighting purpose of armies is not served. And conceding to military personnel that high degree of honesty and sense of justice which nearly all of them undoubtedly have, it still remains true that military tribunals have not been and probably never can be constituted in such way that they can have the same kind of qualifications that the Constitution has deemed essential to fair trials of civilians in federal courts. For instance, the Constitution does not provide life tenure for those performing judicial functions in military trials. They are appointed by military commanders and may be removed at will. Nor does the Constitution protect their salaries as it does judicial salaries. Strides have been made toward making courts-martial less subject to the will of the executive department which appoints, supervises and ultimately controls them. But from the very nature of things, courts have more independence in passing on the life and liberty of people than do military tribunals.
“Moreover, there is a great difference between trial by jury and trial by selected members of the military forces. It is true that military personnel because of their training and experience may be especially competent to try soldiers for infractions of military rules. Such training is no doubt particularly important where an offense charged against a soldier is purely military, such as disobedience of an order, leaving post, etc. But whether right or wrong, the premise underlying the constitutional method for determining guilt or innocence in federal courts is that laymen are better than specialists to perform this task. This idea is inherent in the institution of trial by jury.”
A court-martial is tried, not by a jury of the defendant’s peers which must decide unanimously, but by a panel of officers empowered to act by a two-thirds vote. The presiding officer at a court-martial is not a judge whose objectivity and independence are protected by tenure and undiminishable salary and nurtured by the judicial tradition, but is a military law officer. Substantially different rules of evidence and procedure apply in military trials. Apart from those differences, the suggestion of the possibility of influence on the actions of the court-martial by the officer who convenes it, selects its members and the counsel on both sides, and who usually has direct command authority over its members is a pervasive one in military law, despite strenuous efforts to eliminate the danger.
A court-martial is not yet an independent instrument of justice but remains to a significant degree a specialized part of the overall mechanism by which military discipline is preserved.
That a system of specialized military courts, proceeding by practices different from those obtaining in the regular courts and in general less favorable to defendants, is necessary to an effective national defense establishment, few would deny. But the justification for such a system rests on the special needs of the military, and history teaches that expansion of military discipline beyond its proper domain carries with it a threat to liberty. This Court, mindful of the genuine need for special military courts, has recognized their propriety in their appropriate sphere, e. g., Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137, but in examining the reach of their jurisdiction, it has recognized that
“There are dangers lurking in military trials which were sought to be avoided by the Bill of Rights and Article III of our Constitution. Free countries of the world have tried to restrict military tribunals to the narrowest jurisdiction deemed absolutely essential to maintaining discipline among troops in active service. . . .
“Determining the scope of the constitutional power of Congress to authorize trial by court-martial presents another instance calling for limitation to ‘the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.’ ” Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 22-23.
While the Court of Military Appeals takes cognizance of some constitutional rights of the accused who are court-martialed, courts-martial as an institution are singularly inept in dealing with the nice subtleties of constitutional law. Article 134, already quoted, punishes as a crime “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces.” Does this satisfy the standards of vagueness as developed by the civil courts? It is not enough to say that a court-martial may be reversed on appeal. One of the benefits of a civilian trial is that the trap of Article 134 may be avoided by a declaratory judgment proceeding or otherwise. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. A civilian trial, in other words, is held in an atmosphere conducive to the protection of individual rights, while a military trial is marked by the age-old manifest destiny of retributive justice.
As recently stated: “None of the travesties of justice perpetrated under the UCMJ is really very surprising, for military law has always been and continues to be primarily an instrument of discipline, not justice.” Glasser, Justice and Captain Levy, 12 Columbia Forum 46, 49 (1969).
The mere fact that petitioner was at the time of his offense and of his court-martial on active duty in the Armed Forces does not automatically dispose of this case under our prior decisions.
We have held in á series of decisions that court-martial jurisdiction cannot be extended to reach any person not a member of the Armed Forces at the times of both the offense and the trial. Thus, discharged soldiers cannot be court-martialed for offenses committed while in service. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11. Similarly, neither civilian employees of the Armed Forces overseas, McElroy v. Guagliardo, 361 U. S. 281; Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U. S. 278; nor civilian dependents of military personnel accompanying them overseas, Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U. S. 234; Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, may be tried by court-martial.
These cases decide that courts-martial have no jurisdiction to try those who are not members of the Armed Forces, no matter how intimate the connection between their offense and the concerns of military discipline. From these cases, the Government invites us to draw the conclusion that once it is established that the accused is a member of the Armed Forces, lack of relationship between the offense and identifiable military interests is irrelevant to the jurisdiction of a court-martial.
The fact that courts-martial have no jurisdiction over nonsoldiers, whatever their offense, does not necessarily imply that they have unlimited jurisdiction over soldiers, regardless of the nature of the offenses charged. Nor do the cases of this Court suggest any such interpretation. The Government emphasizes that these decisions — especially Kinsella v. Singleton — establish that liability to trial by court-martial is a question of “status” — “whether the accused in the court-martial proceeding is a person who can be regarded as falling within the term ‘land and naval Forces.’ ” 361 U. S., at 241. But that is merely the beginning of the inquiry, not its end. “Status” is necessary for jurisdiction; but it does not follow that ascertainment of “status” completes the inquiry, regardless of the nature, time, and place of the offense.
Both in England prior to the American Revolution and in our own national history military trial of soldiers committing civilian offenses has been viewed with suspicion. Abuses of the court-martial power were an important grievance of the parliamentary forces in the English constitutional crises of the 17th century. The resolution of that conflict came with the acceptance by William and Mary of the Bill of Rights in 1689 which established that in the future, Parliament, not the Crown, would have the power to define the jurisdiction of courts-martial. 1 W. & M., Sess. 2, c. 2. The 17th century conflict over the proper role of courts-martial in the enforcement of the domestic criminal law was not, however, merely a dispute over what organ of government had jurisdiction. It also involved substantive disapproval of the general use of military courts for trial of ordinary crimes.
Parliament, possessed at last of final power in the matter, was quick to authorize, subject to annual renewal, maintenance of a standing army and to give authority for trial by court-martial of certain crimes closely related to military discipline. But Parliament’s new power over courts-martial was exercised only very sparingly to ordain military jurisdiction over acts which were also offenses at common law. The first of the annual mutiny acts, 1 W. & M., c. 5, set the tone. It established the general rule that
“noe Man may be forejudged of Life or Limbe, or subjected to any kinde of punishment by Martiall Law or in any other manner than by the Judgement of his Peeres and according to the knowne and Established Laws of this Realme.”
And it proceeded to grant courts-martial jurisdiction only over mutiny, sedition, and desertion. In all other respects, military personnel were to be subject to the “Ordinary Processe of Law.”
The jurisdiction of British courts-martial over military offenses which were also common-law felonies was from time to time extended, but, with the exception of one year, there was never any general military jurisdiction to try soldiers for ordinary crimes committed in the British Isles. It was, therefore, the rule in Britain at the time of the American Revolution that a soldier could not be tried by court-martial for a civilian offense committed in Britain; instead military officers were required to use their energies and office to insure that the accused soldier would be tried before a civil court. Evasion and erosion of the principle that crimes committed by soldiers should be tried according to regular judicial procedure in civil, not military, courts, if any were available, were among the grievances protested by the American Colonists.
Early American practice followed the British model. The Continental Congress, in enacting articles of war in 1776, emphasized the importance of military authority cooperating to insure that soldiers who committed crimes were brought to justice. But it is clear from the context of the provision it enacted that it expected the trials would be in civil courts. The “general article,” which punished “[a] 11 crimes not capital, and all disorders and neglects, which officers and soldiers may be guilty of, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, though not mentioned in the foregoing articles of war,” was interpreted to embrace only crimes the commission of which had some direct impact on military discipline. Winthrop *1123. While practice was not altogether consistent, during the 19th century court-martial convictions for ordinary civil crimes were from time to time set aside by the reviewing authority on the ground that the charges recited only a violation of the general criminal law and failed to state a military offense. Id., *1124, nn. 82, 88.
During the Civil War, Congress provided for military trial of certain civil offenses without regard to their effect on order and discipline, but the act applied only “in time of war, insurrection, or rebellion.” Act of Mar. 3, 1863, c. 75, § 30, 12 Stat. 736; Rev. Stat. § 1342, Art. 58 (1874). In 1916, on the eve of World War I, the Articles of War were revised, 39 Stat. 650, to provide for military trial, even in peacetime, of certain specific civilian crimes committed by persons “subject to military law” and the general article, Art. 96, was modified to provide for military trial of “all crimes or offenses not capital.” In 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice extended military jurisdiction to capital crimes as well.
We have concluded that the crime to be under military jurisdiction must be service connected, lest “cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger,” as used in the Fifth Amendment, be expanded to deprive every member of the armed services of the benefits of an indictment by a grand jury and a trial by a jury of his peers. The power of Congress to make “Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, need not be sparingly read in order to preserve those two important constitutional guarantees. For it is assumed that an express grant of general power to Congress is to be exercised in harmony with express guarantees of the Bill of Rights. We were advised on oral argument that Art. 134 is construed by the military to give it power to try a member of the armed services for income tax evasion. This article has been called “a catch-all” that “incorporates almost every Federal penal statute into the Uniform Code.” R. Everett, Military Justice in the Armed Forces of the United States 68-69 (1956). The catalogue of cases put within reach of the military is indeed long; and we see no way of saving to servicemen and servicewomen in any case the benefits of indictment and of trial by jury, if we conclude that this petitioner was properly tried by court-martial.
In the present case petitioner was properly absent from his military base when he committed the crimes with which he is charged. There was no connection— not even the remotest one — between his military duties and the crimes in question. The crimes were not committed on a military post or enclave; nor was the person whom he attacked performing any duties relating to the military. Moreover, Hawaii, the situs of the crime, is not an armed camp under military control, as are some of our far-flung outposts.
Finally, we deal with peacetime offenses, not with authority stemming from the war power. Civil courts were open. The offenses were committed within our territorial limits, not in the occupied zone of a foreign country. The offenses did not involve any question of the flouting of military authority, the security of a military post, or the integrity of military property.
We have accordingly decided that since petitioner’s crimes were not service connected, he could not be tried by court-martial but rather was entitled to trial by the civilian courts.
Reversed.
Article 80 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U. S. C. § 880) provides in part:
“(a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.
“(b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed.”
Article 130 (10 U. S. C. § 930) provides:
“Any person subject to this chapter who unlawfully enters the building or structure of another with intent to commit a criminal offense therein is guilty of housebreaking and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Article 134 (10 U. S. C. § 934) provides:
“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”
Under Art. 25 (c) of the Uniform. Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 825 (c), at least one-third of the members of the court-martial trying an enlisted man are required to be enlisted men if the accused requests that enlisted personnel be included in the court-martial. In practice usually only senior enlisted personnel, i. e., noncommissioned officers, are selected. See United States v. Crawford, 15 U. S. C. M. A. 31, 35 C. M. R. 3, motion for leave to file petition for certiorari denied, 380 U. S. 970. See generally Schiesser, Trial by Peers: Enlisted Members on Courts-Martial, 15 Catholic ü. L. Rev. 171 (1966).
At the time petitioner was tried, a general court-martial was presided over by a “law officer,” who was required to be a member of the bar and certified by the Judge Advocate General for duty as a law officer. U. C. M. J. Art. 26 (a). The “law officer” could be a direct subordinate of the convening authority. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, ¶4g (1). The Military Justice Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1335, establishes a system of “military judges” intended to insure that where possible the presiding officer of a court-martial will be a professional military judge, not directly subordinate to the convening authority.
For example, in a court-martial, the access of the defense to compulsory process for obtaining evidence and witnesses is, to a significant extent, dependent on the approval of the prosecution. United States v. Harvey, 8 U. S. C. M. A. 538, 25 C. M. R. 42, approving Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, ¶ 115a. See Melnick, The Defendant’s Right to Obtain Evidence: An Examination of the Military Viewpoint, 29 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (1965).
See, e. g., the cases listed in Hearings on Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to S. Res. No. 260, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 780-781 (1962), in each of which the Court of Military Appeals reversed court-martial convictions on the ground of excessive command influence.
See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 36.
For sobering accounts of the impact of so-called military justice on civil rights of members of the Armed Services see Hearings on Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to S. Res. No. 260, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 20 and 21, March 1, 2, 6, 9, and 12, 1962; Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and a Special Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., on S. 745 et al., Pt. 1, Jan. 18, 19, 25, and 26, March 1, 2, and 3, 1966, and Pt. 2. For a newly enacted Military Justice Act see 82 Stat. 1335. And see Summary-Report of Hearings on Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel, by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, pursuant to S. Res. No. 58, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) (Comm. Print).
The record of historical concern over the scope of court-martial jurisdiction is extensively reviewed in Mr. Justice Black’s opinion for a plurality of the Court in Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 23-30. See also, Duke & Vogel, The Constitution and the Standing Army: Another Problem of Court-Martial Jurisdiction, 13 Vand. L. Rev. 435, 441-449 (1960); F. Wiener, Civilians Under Military Justice (1967) (hereinafter cited as Wiener).
See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 23-26.
See Wiener c. 1.
The Mutiny Act of 1720, 7 Geo. 1, c. 6, provided that a soldier could be court-martialed for “any Capital Crime, or . . . any Violence or Offence against the Person, Estate, or Property of any of the Subjects of this Kingdom, which is punishable by the known Laws of the Land” unless the civil authorities within eight days of the offense demanded that the accused soldier be turned over to them for trial. In November 1720, the law officers of the Army relied on this new provision of the Mutiny Act to give an opinion that it was proper to try a soldier in Scotland — where ordinary civil courts were functioning — by court-martial for an offense which would have been murder if prosecuted in the civil courts. See Wiener 245-246. The very next year — perhaps in response to that ruling, Wiener 14— the provision was eliminated and did not reappear. The 1721 Act and its successors provided for military trial of common-law crimes only where ordinary civil courts were unavailable. See Prichard, The Army Act and Murder Abroad, 1954 Camb. L. J. 232; Wiener 14, 24r-2S.
Failure to produce a soldier for civil trial was a military offense by the officer concerned. E. g., British Articles of War of 1765, § 11, Art. 1, reprinted in W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents *1448, *1456 (2d ed. 1896, 1920 reprint) (hereinafter cited as Winthrop).
See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 27-28 and n. 49.
In its brief the Government lists a large number of courts-martial in the very early days of the Nation which it claims indicate that military trial for civil offenses was common in that period. The facts of the cases, as reflected in the brief summaries which are available to us, suggest no such conclusion. In almost every case summarized, it appears that some special military interest existed. Many are peculiarly military crimes — desertions, assaults on and thefts from other soldiers, and stealing government property. While those acts might also be felonies, by the time of the Revolutionary War offenses such as these long had been defined as distinctively military crimes in the Mutiny Acts. Many of the remainder are identifiably prosecutions for abusing military position by plundering the civil population or abusing its women while on duty. Many of the other cases in which the offense is stealing or assault on an individual were perhaps of this sort also, especially where the victim is referred to as “inhabitant.” Most of the rest simply recite the offender and the offense and give no basis for judging the relationship of the offense to military discipline. Those few which do appear to involve civilian crimes in clearly civilian settings appear also to have been committed by officers. In the 18th century at least the “honor” of an officer was thought to give a specific military connection to a crime otherwise without military significance. Moreover, all those courts-martial held between 1773 and 1783 were for the trial of acts committed in wartime and, given the pattern of fighting in those days, in the immediate theater of operations.
1776 Articles of War, § 10, Art. 1, reprinted in Winthrop *1494.
Cf. Ex parte Mason, 105 U. S. 696, 698, in which the Court, sustaining a court-martial conviction, under the general article, of a military guard who killed a prisoner, said, “[s] hooting with intent to kill is a civil crime, but shooting by a soldier of the army standing guard over a prison, with intent to kill a prisoner confined therein, is not only a crime against society, but an atrocious breach of military discipline.”
Larceny, robbery, burglary, arson, mayhem, manslaughter, murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, wounding by shooting or stabbing with an intent to commit murder, rape, or assault and battery with an intent to commit rape. Rev. Stat. § 1342, Art. 58 (1874).
It has been suggested, at various times, that the phrase “when in actual service in time of War or public danger” should be read to require a grand jury indictment in all cases “arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,” except when the defendant is in “service in time of War or public danger.” It was decided at a very early date, however, that the above clause modifies only “Militia.” Thus, the generally accepted rule is that indictment by grand jury is never necessary “in cases arising in the land or naval forces” but is necessary for members of the militia, except when they have been “called into the actual Service of the United States” (Art. II, §2, U. S. Const.) “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Art. I, §8, U. S. Const.
“The limitation as to 'actual service in time of war or public danger’ relates only to the militia.” Ex parte Mason, 105 U. S. 696, 701. See also Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 186; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 500; Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65.
Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S. 109, was a case in which a Navy paymaster sought habeas corpus from his court-martial conviction for embezzlement in time of peace by arguing that he was entitled to indictment by grand jury:
“The decision below is based upon the construction that the words 'when in actual service in time of war or public danger’ refer, not merely to the last antecedent, ‘or in the militia,’ but also to the previous clause, 'in the land or naval forces.’ That construction is grammatically possible. But it is opposed to the evident meaning of the provision, taken by itself, and still more so, when it is considered together with the other provisions of the Constitution.” Id., at 114. And see Thompson v. Willingham, 217 F. Supp. 901 (D. C. M. D. Pa.), aff’d, 318 F. 2d 657 (C. A. 3d Cir.).
Winthrop in commenting on the phrase “to the prejudice of good order and military discipline” in a predecessor article to Article 134 said:
“A crime, therefore, to be cognizable by a court-martial under this Article, must have been committed under such circumstances as to have directly offended against the government and discipline of the military state. Thus such crimes as theft from or robbery of an officer, soldier, post trader, or camp-follower; forgery of the name of an officer, and manslaughter, assault with intent to kill, mayhem, or battery, committed upon a military person; inasmuch as they directly affect military relations and prejudice military discipline, may properly be — as they frequently have been — the subject of charges under the present Article. On the other hand, where such crimes are committed upon or against civilians, and not at or near a military camp or post, or in breach or violation of a military duty or order, they are not in general to be regarded as within the description of the Article, but are to be treated as civil rather than military offenses.” Pp. *1124-*1125.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are admiralty proceedings involving the Government’s liability on a policy of war risk insurance by which it insured petitioner’s steam tanker John Worthington against “all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations.” Stipulated facts show that on December 16, 1942, there was a collision between the Worthington and the YMS-12, one of three United States Navy mine sweepers clearing the channel approaches to New York harbor. Both vessels were at fault in failing “to comply with the applicable rules” of good seamanship “under the circumstances.”
In the District Court the United States conceded that mine sweeping is a “warlike operation” but urged that the evidence failed to show that the collision was a “consequence” of the mine sweeping within the meaning of the insurance contract. Petitioner contended that the mere showing of loss from collision with the moving warship established liability under the policy as a matter of law. It argued that this was the English rule which should be followed by American courts. The District Court did not accept petitioner’s view of the English rule. It read both the American and English authorities as conditioning the underwriter’s liability on proof of facts showing that the “warlike operation” was the “proximate,” “predominant and determining” cause of the loss. The court held for petitioner, finding as a fact that this burden of proof had been met. 81 F. Supp. 183. The Court of Appeals reversed. 178 F. 2d 488. It recognized that some language in certain English opinions possibly indicated that the facts relied on would make the war underwriter liable as a matter of law. Nevertheless, it refused to go that far and, contrary to the District Court, found as a fact that petitioner’s evidence failed to show that the warlike phase of the mine sweeper’s operation had caused the collision. Petitioner sought certiorari here without relying on the divergence below in the findings of fact on the question of causation. Its- ground was that the Court of Appeals had failed to hold for petitioner as a matter of law as the English cases allegedly required. We granted the writ, 339 U. S. 977, because of asserted conflict on this one point with General Ins. Co. v. Link, 173 F. 2d 955.
We are asked only to determine whether as a matter of law the provision insuring against “all consequences of . . . warlike operations” covered the loss resulting from collision between the Worthington and the mine sweeper. Of course, the intention of the contracting parties would control this decision, but as is so often the case, that intention is not readily ascertainable. Losses from collisions are prima facie perils of the sea covered by standard marine risk policies. To take such a loss out of the marine policy and to bring it within the coverage of the provision insuring against “all consequences of” warlike operations, common sense dictates that there must be some causal relationship between the warlike operation and the collision. Courts have long so held in interpreting what was meant by use of the phrase “all consequences” in war risk policies. In turn, the existence or non-existence of causal connection between the peril insured against and the loss has been determined by looking to the factual situation in each case and applying the concept of “proximate cause.” Proximate cause in the insurance field has been variously defined. It has been said that proximate cause referred to the “cause nearest to the loss.” Again, courts have properly stated that proximate cause “does not necessarily refer to the cause nearest in point of time to the loss. But the true meaning of that maxim is, that it refers to that cause which is most nearly and essentially connected with the loss as its efficient cause.”
In view of the foregoing, can it be said that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to hold as a matter of law that the mine sweeping, a warlike operation, was the “predominant and determining” cause of the collision? As we read the record, the facts are susceptible both of the inference that the mine-sweeping activity of the YMS-12 had some relation to the collision and that it did not. That is to say, reasonable triers of fact considering all of the circumstances of this collision might differ as to whether the loss was predominantly or proximately caused by usual navigational hazards (and therefore an ordinary marine insurance risk) or whether it was caused by extraordinary perils stemming from the mine sweeping (and therefore a war insurance risk). Indeed, the District Court and the Court of Appeals did differ on this factual determination. Since certiorari was not granted to consider that divergence in the findings of fact, we need go no further than to hold that the courts below properly considered the case as depending on the resolution of factual questions.
Petitioner nevertheless contends that (1) we are bound by certain decisions in the House of Lords and (2) these opinions have announced a rule-of-thumb construction of the phrase “all consequences of . . . warlike operations” under which the facts in this case result in war risk liability as a matter of law. We cannot accept these arguments. It is true that we and other American courts have emphasized the desirability of uniformity in decisions here and in England in interpretation and enforcement of marine insurance contracts. Especially is uniformity desirable where, as here, the particular form of words employed originated in England. But this does not mean that American courts must follow House of Lords’ decisions automatically. Actually our practice is no more than to accord respect to established doctrines of English maritime law.
The difficulties inherent in the rigid conformity rule urged by petitioner are obvious to those familiar with the search for state decisional law under-the Erie-Tompkins doctrine. In this very case, we, like the Court of Appeals, cannot be sure what conclusion the House of Lords would reach were this case presented to it. Some of their decisions indicate that they would-have held as a matter of law that the collision was the “consequence” of the warlike operation; other cases cannot easily be reconciled with such a result. Indeed, in one decision, Lord Wright declared that “In many cases reconciliation is impossible. What matters is the decision.” And even in those decisions implying that proof of certain facts results in liability as a matter of law, the House of Lords has spoken in terms of factual proximate cause. Their most recent decision construing the words before us states that cases applying the “question of law” technique should be carefully restricted to their holdings; and Lord Normand warned, “The numerous authorities cited can therefore have only a limited bearing on the present issue. . . . [T]hey will easily lead to error if it is attempted to extract from them a principle of law to solve what .is a question of fact.”
This Court, moreover, has long emphasized that in interpreting insurance contracts reference should be made to considerations of business and insurance practices. The particular English cases relied on by petitioner produced such an unfavorable reaction among that country’s underwriters that they revised the clause here involved to avoid the injurious effects of those decisions. The terms of American war risk policies have also been altered.
The proximate cause method of determining on the facts of each case whether a loss was the "consequence” of warlike operations may fall short of achieving perfect results. For those insured and those insuring cannot predict with certainty what a trier of fact might decide is the predominant cause of loss. But neither could they predict with certainty what particular state of facts might cause a court to discover liability “as a matter of law.” Long experience with the proximate cause method in American and English courts has at least proven it adaptable and useful in marine and other insurance cases. There is no reason to believe that its application in this case will disappoint the just expectations of insurer or insured.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The quoted language comes from the “F. C. & S. Clause” (“Free from Capture and Seizure”) and is incorporated by reference in the war risk policy. War risk insurance is written in the following manner: the marine policy, which covers common perils of the sea, generally contains an “F. C. & S. Clause” eliminating from coverage certain named war risks, one of which is “all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations.” The excepted risks are insured against either by adding a rider to the original marine policy, or by buying coverage from another underwriter — here the Government — who insures the perils excluded by the “F. C. & S. Clause.” The opinions below set out more fully the documents on which the present insurance obligation rested. For a history of the development of the “F. C. & S. Clause” which originated in England, see 18 Halsbury’s Laws of England (2d ed. 1935) §439; Ionides v. Universal Marine Ins. Co., 14 C. B. (N. S.) 259, 273 (1863).
Counsel described the operation this way: “A mine sweeping operation ... is a formation of vessels, each of which streams out behind it a device on a long cable which, towed along a certain distance under the water, is designed to cut the cable of any mine and bring it to the surface, where it can be destroyed by gunfire and .the like.”
We do not read the Court of Appeals decision as meaning that when negligence is present, the resulting loss can never be a war risk. The District Court held (and the Court of Appeals approved) that “ ‘ “Proximate” here means, not latest in time, but predominant in efficiency.’ ‘[T]here is necessarily involved a process of selection from among the co-operating causes to find what is the proximate cause in the particular case.’ It is true that the causes of an event are all the preceding circumstances which brought the event to pass — and they are myriad.” 81 F. Supp. 190. If the “warlike operation” was the “proximate cause” of the collision, then the fact that the “warlike operation” was negligently conducted does not relieve the war risk underwriter of liability. Cf. General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. 351; 1 Phillips on Insurance (5th ed. 1867) ¶ 1049.
Cases collected, 1912 D Ann. Cases 1038, 1040; 2 Arnould, Marine Insurance and Average (13th ed., Lord Chorley, 1950), § 827a.
Ionides v. Universal Marine Ins. Co., 14 C. B. (N. S.) 259 (1863) ; see Queen Ins. Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 263 U. S. 487, 491. 2 Arnould, Marine Insurance and Average (13th ed., Lord Chorley, 1950), §790.
Insurance Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 117; 3 Kent’s Commentaries (14th ed., Gould, 1896) 302; cases are collected in 6 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, § 1463.
Queen Ins. Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 263 U. S. 487, 492. Cf. Insurance Co. v. Transportation Co., 12 Wall. 194, 197-199.
Dole v. New England Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Fed. Cas. 837, 853 (C. C. Mass. 1864) decided by Mr. Justice Clifford on circuit. Accord: Insurance Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 117; Lanasa Fruit S. S. & Importing Co. v. Universal Ins. Co., 302 U. S. 556, 561-565; 3 Kent’s Commentaries (14th ed., Gould, 1896) 302, n. 1; 1 Phillips on Insurance (5th ed. 1867) ¶ 1132.
Ordinary marine insurance covers losses due to fortuitous perils of the sea. War risk insurance covers losses due to perils superimposed on usual marine perils by war. As Lord Wrenbury put it, “The question is whether the loss was occasioned by a new risk arising by reason of warlike operations.” Attorney-General v. Ard Coasters, Ltd., [1921] 2 A. C. 141, 154.
Queen Ins. Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 263 U. S. 487, 493. See New York & Oriental S. S. Co. v. Automobile Ins. Co., 37 F. 2d 461, 463. The desire for uniformity in interpretation of the war risk clause may now be more academic than real. Since 1942, policies issued in England and in the United States have not contained similar provisions in this regard so that uniformity is no longer possible. Compare 1945 Am. Mar. Cas. 1035 with 1945 Am. Mar. Cas. 1036.
Aetna Ins. Co. v. United Fruit Co., 304 U. S. 430, 438.
E. g., Attorney-General v. Adelaide S. S. Co., [1923] A. C. 292; Board of Trade v. Hain S. S. Co., [1929] A. C. 534; cf. Yorkshire Dale S. S. Co. v. Minister of War Transport, [1942] A. C. 691.
E. g., Clan Line Steamers, Ltd. v. Board of Trade, [1929] A. C. 514; Liverpool & London War Risks Assn. v. Ocean S. S. Co., [1948] A. C. 243.
Yorkshire Dale S. S. Co. v. Minister of War Transport, [1942] A. C. 691, 708.
See cases-cited in note 12, supra. England has enacted the proximate cause test into its statutory law. Marine Insurance Act of 1906, 6 Edw. VII, c. 41, § 55 (2).
Liverpool & London War Risks Assn. v. Ocean S. S. Co., [1948] A. C. 243, 270.
General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. 351, 362.
2 Arnould, Marine Insurance and Average (13th ed., Lord Chorley, 1950), § 905h.
See note 10, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether a tariff classification ruling by the United States Customs Service deserves judicial deference. The Federal Circuit rejected Customs’s invocation of Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), in support of such a ruling, to which it gave no deference. We agree that a tariff classification has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron, there being no indication that Congress intended such a ruling to carry the force of law, but we hold that under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134 (1944), the ruling is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
I
A
Imports are taxed under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 19 U. S. C. § 1202. Title 19 U. S. C. § 1500(b) provides that Customs “shall, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of the Treasury,]... fix the final classification and rate of duty applicable to... merchandise” under the HTSUS. Section 1502(a) provides that
“[t]he Secretary of the Treasury shall establish and promulgate such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the law (including regulations establishing procedures for the issuance of binding rulings prior to the entry of the merchandise concerned), and may disseminate such information as may be necessary to secure a just, impartial, and uniform appraisement of imported merchandise and the classification and assessment of duties thereon at the various ports of entry.”
See also §1624 (general delegation to Secretary to issue rules and regulations for the admission of goods).
The Secretary provides for tariff rulings before the entry of goods by regulations authorizing “ruling letters” setting tariff classifications for particular imports. 19 CFR § 177.8 (2000). A ruling letter
“represents the official position of the Customs Service with respect to the particular transaction or issue described therein and is binding on all Customs Service personnel in accordance with the provisions of this section until modified or revoked. In the absence of a change of practice or other modification or revocation which affects the principle of the ruling set forth in the ruling letter, that principle may be cited as authority in the disposition of transactions involving the same circumstances.” § 177.9(a).
After the transaction that gives it birth, a ruling letter is to “be applied only with respect to transactions involving articles identical to the sample submitted with the ruling request or to articles whose description is identical to the description set forth in the ruling letter.” § 177.9(b)(2). As a general matter, such a letter is “subject to modification or revocation without notice to any person, except the person to whom the letter wás addressed,” § 177.9(c), and the regulations consequently provide that “no other person should rely on the ruling letter or assume that the principles of that ruling will be applied in connection with any transaction other than the one described in the letter,” ibid. Since ruling letters respond t'o transactions of the moment, they are not subject to notice and comment before being issued, may be published but need only be made “available for public inspection,” 19 U. S. C. § 1625(a), and, at the time this action arose, could be modified without notice and comment under most circumstances, 19 CFR § 177.10(c) (2000). A broader notice-and-comment requirement for modification of prior rulings was added by statute in 1993, Pub. L. 103-182, § 623, 107 Stat. 2186, codified at 19 U. S. C. § 1625(c), and took effect after this case arose.
Any of the 46 port-of-entry Customs offices may issue ruling letters, and so may the Customs Headquarters Office, in providing “[a]dvice or guidance as to the interpretation or proper application of the Customs and related laws with respect to a specific Customs transaction [which] may be requested by Customs Service field offices... at any time, whether the transaction is prospective, current, or completed,” 19 CFR § 177.11(a) (2000). Most ruling letters contain little or no reasoning, but simply describe goods and state the appropriate category and tariff. A few letters, like the Headquarters ruling at issue here, set out a rationale in some detail.
B
Respondent, the Mead Corporation, imports “day planners,” three-ring binders with pages having room for notes of daily schedules and phone numbers and addresses, together with a calendar and suchlike. The tariff schedule on point falls under the HTSUS heading for “[registers, account books, notebooks, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles,” HTSUS subheading 4820.10, which comprises two subcategories. Items in the first, “[d]iaries, notebooks and address books, bound; memorandum pads, letter pads and similar articles,” were subject to a tariff of 4.0% at the time in controversy. 185 F. 3d 1304, 1305 (CA Fed. 1999) (citing subheading 4820.10.20); see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a. Objects in the second, covering “[o]ther” items, were free of duty. HTSUS subheading 4820.10.40; see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a.
Between 1989 and 1993, Customs repeatedly treated day planners under the “other” HTSUS subheading. In January 1993, however, Customs changed its position, and issued a Headquarters ruling letter classifying Mead’s day planners as “Diaries..., bound” subject to tariff under subheading 4820.10.20. That letter was short on explanation, App. to Brief in Opposition 4a-6a, but after Mead’s protest, Customs Headquarters issued a new letter, carefully reasoned but never published, reaching the same conclusion, App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a-47a. This letter considered two definitions of “diary” from the Oxford English Dictionary, the first covering a daily journal of the past day’s events, the second a book including “ ‘printed dates for daily memoranda and jottings; also... calendars....’” Id., at 33a-34a (quoting Oxford English Dictionary 321 (Compact ed. 1982)). Customs concluded that “diary” was not confined to the first, in part because the broader definition reflects commercial usage and hence the “commercial identity of these items in the marketplace.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a. As for the definition of “bound,” Customs concluded that HTSUS was not referring to “bookbinding,” but to a less exact sort of fastening described in the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes to Heading 4820, which spoke of binding by “‘reinforcements or fittings of metal, plastics, etc.’ ” Id., at 45a.
Customs rejected Mead’s further protest of the second Headquarters ruling letter, and Mead filed suit in the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment, adopting Customs’s reasoning without saying anything about deference. 17 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (1998).
Mead then went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the case was pending there this Court decided United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U. S. 380 (1999), holding that Customs regulations receive the deference described in Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). The appeals court requested briefing on the impact of Haggar, and the Government argued that classification rulings, like Customs regulations, deserve Chevron deference.
The Federal Circuit, however, reversed the CIT and held that Customs classification rulings should not get Chevron deference, owing to differences from the regulations at issue in Haggar. Rulings are not preceded by notice and comment as under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 553, they “do not carry the force of law and are not, like regulations, intended to clarify the rights and obligations of importers beyond the specific case under review.” 185 F. 3d, at 1307. The appeals court thought classification rulings had a weaker Chevron claim even than Internal Revenue Service interpretive rulings, to which that court gives no deference; unlike rulings by the IRS, Customs rulings issue from many locations and need not be published. 185 F. 3d, at 1307-1308.
The Court of Appeals accordingly gave no deference at all to the ruling classifying the Mead day planners and rejected the agency’s reasoning as to both “diary” and “bound.” It thought that planners were not diaries because they had no space for “relatively extensive notations about events, observations, feelings, or thoughts” in the past. Id., at 1310. And it concluded that diaries “bound” in subheading 4810.10.20 presupposed “unbound” diaries, such that treating ring-fastened diaries as “bound” would leave the “unbound diary” an empty category. Id., at 1311.
We granted certiorari, 530 U. S. 1202 (2000), in order to consider the limits of Chevron deference owed to administrative practice in applying a statute. We hold that administrative implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority. Delegation of such authority may be shown in a variety of ways, as by an agency’s power to engage in adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking, or by some other indication of a comparable congressional intent. The Customs ruling at issue here fails to qualify, although the possibility that it deserves some deference under Skidmore leads us to vacate and remand.
II
A
When Congresshas “explicitly left a gap for an agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation,” Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843-844, and any ensuing regulation is binding in the courts unless procedurally defective, arbitrary or capricious in substance, or manifestly contrary to the statute. See id., at 844; United States v. Morton, 467 U. S. 822, 834 (1984); APA, 5 U. S. C. §§706(2)(A), (D). But whether or not they enjoy any express delegation of authority on a particular question, agencies charged with applying a statute necessarily make all sorts of interpretive choices, and while not all of those choices bind judges to follow them, they certainly may influence courts facing questions the agencies have already answered. “[T]he well-reasoned views of the agencies implementing a statute ‘constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance,’ ” Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624,642 (1998) (quoting Skidmore, 323 U. S., at 139-140), and “[w]e have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer... Chevron, supra, at 844 (footnote omitted); see also Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U. S. 555, 565 (1980); Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U. S. 443, 450 (1978). The fair measure of deference to an agency administering its own statute has been understood to vary with circumstances, and courts have looked to the degree of the agency’s care, its consistency, formality, and relative expertness, and to the persuasiveness of the agency’s position, see Skidmore, supra, at 139-140. The approach has produced a spectrum of judicial responses, from great respect at one end, see, e. g., Aluminum Co. of America v. Central Lincoln Peoples’ Util. Dish, 467 U. S. 380, 389-390 (1984) (“'substantial deference’ ” to administrative construction), to near indifference at the other, see, e. g., Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U. S. 204, 212-213 (1988) (interpretation advanced for the first time in a litigation brief). Justice Jackson summed things up in Skidmore v. Swift & Co.:
“The weight [accorded to an administrative] judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.” 323 U. S., at 140.
Since 1984, we have identified a category of interpretive choices distinguished by an additional reason for judicial deference. This Court in Chevron recognized that Congress not only engages in express delegation of specific interpretive authority, but that “[s]ometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit.” 467 U. S., at 844. Congress, that is, may not have expressly delegated authority or responsibility to implement a particular provision or fill a particular gap. Yet it can still be apparent from the agency’s generally conferred authority and other statutory circumstances that Congress would expect the agency to be able to speak with the force of law when it addresses ambiguity in the statute or fills a space in the enacted law, even one about which “Congress did not actually have an intent” as to a particular result. Id,., at 845. When circumstances implying such an expectation exist, a reviewing court has no business rejecting an agency’s exercise of its generally conferred authority to resolve a particular statutory ambiguity simply because the agency’s chosen resolution seems unwise, see id., at 845-846, but is obliged to accept the agency’s position if Congress has not previously spoken to the point at issue and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, see id., at 842-845; cf. 5 U. S. C. §706(2) (a reviewing court shall set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”).
We have recognized a very good indicator of delegation meriting Chevron treatment in express congressional authorizations to engage in the process of rulemaking or adjudication that produces regulations or rulings for which deference is claimed. See, e. g., EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 257 (1991) (no Chevron deference to agency guideline where congressional delegation did not include the power to “ ‘promulgate rules or regulations’ ” (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125, 141 (1976))); see also Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 596-597 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (where it is in doubt that Congress actually intended to delegate particular interpretive authority to an agency, Chevron is “inapplicable”). It is fair to assume generally that Congress contemplates administrative action with the effect of law when it provides for a relatively formal administrative procedure tending to foster the fairness and deliberation that should underlie a pronouncement of such force. Cf. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 741 (1996) (APA notice and comment “designed to assure due deliberation”). Thus, the overwhelming number of our cases applying Chevron deference have reviewed the fruits of notice-and-comment rulemaking or formal adjudication. That said, and as significant as notice-and-comment is in pointing to Chevron authority, the want of that procedure here does not decide the case, for we have sometimes found reasons for Chevron deference even when no such administrative formality was required and none was afforded, see, e. g., NationsBank of N. C., N. A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U. S. 251, 256-257, 263 (1995). The fact that the tariff classification here was not a product of such formal process does not alone, therefore, bar the application of Chevron.
There are, nonetheless, ample reasons to deny Chevron deference here. The authorization for classification rulings, and Customs’s practice in making them, present a case far removed not only from notice-and-comment process, but from any other circumstances reasonably suggesting that Congress ever thought of classification rulings as deserving the deference claimed for them here.
B
No matter which angle we choose for viewing the Customs ruling letter in this case, it fails to qualify under Chevron. On the face of the statute, to begin with, the terms of the congressional delegation give no indication that Congress meant to delegate authority to Customs to issue classification rulings with the force of law. We are not, of course, here making any global statement about Customs’s authority, for it is true that the general rulemaking power conferred on Customs, see 19 U. S. C. § 1624, authorizes some regulation with the force of law, or “legal norms,” as we put it in Haggar, 526 U. S., at 391. It is true as well that Congress had classification rulings in mind when it explicitly authorized, in a parenthetical, the issuance of “regulations establishing procedures for the issuance of binding rulings prior to the entry of the merchandise concerned,” 19 U. S. C. § 1502(a). The reference to binding classifications does not, however, bespeak the legislative type of activity that would naturally bind more than the parties to the ruling, once the goods classified are admitted into this country. And though the statute’s direction to disseminate “information” necessary to “secure” uniformity, ibid., seems to assume that a ruling may be precedent in later transactions, precedential value alone does not add up to Chevron entitlement; interpretive rules may sometimes function as precedents, see Strauss, The Rulemaking Continuum, 41 Duke L. J. 1463, 1472-1473 (1992), and they enjoy no Chevron status as a class. In any event, any precedential claim of a classification ruling is counterbalanced by the provision for independent review of Customs classifications by the CIT, see 28 U. S. C. §§2638-2640; the scheme for CIT review includes a provision that treats classification rulings on par with the Secretary’s rulings on “valuation, rate of duty, marking, restricted merchandise, entry requirements, drawbacks, vessel repairs, or similar matters,” § 1581(h); see § 2639(b). It is hard to imagine a congressional understanding more at odds with the Chevron regime.
It is difficult, in fact, to see in the agency practice itself any indication that Customs ever set out with a lawmaking pretense in mind when it undertook to make classifications like these. Customs does not generally engage in notice- and-comment practice when issuing them, and their treatment by the agency makes it clear that a letter’s binding character as a ruling stops short of third parties; Customs has regarded a classification as conclusive only as between itself and the importer to whom it was issued, 19 CFR § 177.9(c) (2000), and even then only until Customs has given advance notice of intended change, §§ 177.9(a), (c). Other importers are in fact warned against assuming any right of detrimental reliance. § 177.9(c).
Indeed, to claim that classifications have legal force is to ignore the reality that 46 different Customs offices issue 10,000 to 15,000 of them each year, see Brief for Respondent 5; CITBA Brief 6 (citing Treasury Advisory Committee on the Commercial Operations of the United States Customs Service, Report of the COAC Subcommittee on OR&R, Exhs. 1, 3 (Jan. 26, 2000) (reprinted in App. to CITBA Brief 20a-21a)). Any suggestion that rulings intended to have the force of law are being churned out at a rate of 10,000 a year at an agency’s 46 scattered offices is simply self-refuting. Although the circumstances are less startling here, with a Headquarters letter in issue, none of the relevant statutes recognizes this category of rulings as separate or different from others; there is thus no indication that a more potent delegation might have been understood as going to Headquarters even when Headquarters provides developed reasoning, as it did in this instance.
Nor do the amendments to the statute made effective after this case arose disturb our conclusion. The new law requires Customs to provide notice-and-comment procedures only when modifying or revoking a prior classification ruling or modifying the treatment accorded to substantially identical transactions, 19 U. S. C. § 1625(c); and under its regulations, Customs sees itself obliged to provide notice-and-comment procedures only when “changing a practice” so as to produce a tariff increase, or in the imposition of a restriction or prohibition, or when Customs Headquarters determines that “the matter is of sufficient importance to involve the interests of domestic industry,” 19 CFR §§ 177.10(c)(1), (2) (2000). The statutory changes reveal no new congressional objective of treating classification decisions generally as rulemaking with force of law, nor do they suggest any intent to create a Chevron patchwork of classification rulings, some with force of law, some without.
In sum, classification rulings are best treated like “interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines.” Christensen, 529 U. S., at 587. They are beyond the Chevron pale.
C
To agree with the Court of Appeals that Customs ruling letters do not fall within Chevron is not, however, to place them outside the pale of any deference whatever. Chevron did nothing to eliminate Skidmore’s holding that an agency’s interpretation may merit some deference whatever its form, given the “specialized experience and broader investigations and information” available to the agency, 328 U. S., at 139, and given the value of uniformity in its administrative and judicial understandings of what a national law requires, id., at 140. See generally Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U. S. 121, 136 (1997) (reasonable agency interpretations carry “at least some added persuasive force” where Chevron is inapplicable); Reno v. Koray, 515 U. S. 50, 61 (1995) (according “some deference” to an interpretive rule that “do[es] not require notice and comment”); Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 144, 157 (1991) (“some weight” is due to informal interpretations though not “the same deference as norms that derive from the exercise of... delegated lawmaking powers”).
There is room at least to raise a Skidmore claim here, where the regulatory scheme is highly detailed, and Customs can bring the benefit of specialized experience to bear on the subtle questions in this case: whether the daily planner with room for brief daily entries falls under “diaries,” when diaries are grouped with “notebooks and address books, bound; memorandum pads, letter pads and similar articles,” HTSUS subheading 4820.10.20; and whether a planner with a ring binding should qualify as “bound,” when a binding may be typified by a book, but also may have “reinforcements or fittings of metal, plastics, etc.,” Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes to Heading 4820, p. 687 (cited in Customs Headquarters letter, App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a. A classification ruling in this situation may therefore at least seek a respect proportional to its “power to persuade,” Skidmore, supra, at 140; see also Christensen, 529 U. S., at 587; id., at 595 (Stevens, J., dissenting); id., at 596-597 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Such a ruling may surely claim the merit of its writer’s thoroughness, logic, and expertness, its fit with prior interpretations, and any other sources of weight.
D
Underlying the position we take here, like the position expressed by Justice Scalia in dissent, is a choice about the best way to deal with an inescapable feature of the body of congressional legislation authorizing administrative action. That feature is the great variety of ways in which the laws invest the Government’s administrative arms with discretion, and with procedures for exercising it, in giving meaning to Acts of Congress. Implementation of a statute may occur in formal adjudication or the choice to defend against judicial challenge; it may occur in a central board or office or in dozens of enforcement agencies dotted across the country; its institutional lawmaking may be confined to the resolution of minute detail or extend to legislative rulemaking on matters intentionally left by Congress to be worked out at the agency level.
Although we all accept the position that the Judiciary should defer to at least some of this multifarious administrative action, we have to decide how to take account of the great range of its variety. If the primary objective is to simplify the judicial process of giving or withholding deference, then the diversity of statutes authorizing discretionary administrative action must be declared irrelevant or minimized. If, on the other hand, it is simply implausible that Congress intended such a broad range of statutory authority to produce only two varieties of administrative action, demanding either Chevron deference or none at all, then the breadth of the spectrum of possible agency action must be taken into account. Justice Scalia’^ first priority over the years has been to limit and simplify. The Court’s choice has been to tailor deference to variety. This accept-anee of the range of statutory variation has led the Court to recognize more than one variety of judicial deference, just as the Court has recognized a variety of indicators that Congress would expect Chevron deference.
Our respective choices are repeated today. Justice Scalia would pose the question of deference as an either- or choice. On his view that Chevron rendered Skidmore anachronistic, when courts owe any deference it is Chevron deference that they owe, post, at 250. Whether courts do owe deference in a given case turns, for him, on whether the agency action (if reasonable) is “authoritative,” post, at 257. The character of the authoritative derives, in turn, not from breadth of delegation or the agency’s procedure in implementing it, but is defined as the “official” position of an agency, ibid., and may ultimately be a function of administrative persistence alone, ante, at 258.
The Court, on the other hand, said nothing in Chevron to eliminate Skidmore’s recognition of various justifications for deference depending on statutory circumstances and agency action; Chevron was simply a case recognizing that even without express authority to fill a specific statutory gap, circumstances pointing to implicit congressional delegation present a particularly insistent call for deference. Indeed, in holding here that Chevron left Skidmore intact and applicable where statutory circumstances indicate no intent to delegate general authority to make rules with force of law, or where such authority was not invoked, we hold nothing more than we said last Term in response to the particular statutory circumstances in Christensen, to which Justice Scalia then took exception, see 529 U. S., at 589, just as he does again today.
We think, in sum, that Justice Scalia’s efforts to simplify ultimately run afoul of Congress’s indications that different statutes present different reasons for considering respect for the exercise of administrative authority or deference to it. Without being at odds with congressional intent much of the time, we believe that judicial responses to administrative action must continue to differentiate between Chevron and Skidmore, and that continued recognition of Skidmore is necessary for just the reasons Justice Jackson gave when that ease was decided.
* * *
Since the Skidmore assessment called for here ought to be made in the first instance by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the CIT, we go no further than to vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The statutory term “ruling” is defined by regulation as “a written statement... that interprets and applies the provisions of the Customs and related laws to a specific set of facts.” 19 CFR § 177.1(d)(1) (2000).
The opinion of the Federal Circuit in this case noted that § 177.10(c) provides some notice-and-comment procedures for rulings that have the ‘“effect of changing a practice.’” 185 F. 3d 1304, 1307, n. 1 (1999). The appeals court noted that this ease does not involve such a ruling, and specifically excluded such rulings from the reach of its holding. Ibid.
As amended by legislation effective after Customs modified its classification ruling in this case, 19 U. S. C. § 1625(c) provides that a ruling or decision that would “modify... or revoke a prior interpretive ruling or decision which has been in effect for at least 60 days” or would “have the effect of modifying the treatment previously accorded by the Customs Service to substantially identical transactions” shall be “published in the Customs Bulletin. The Secretary shall give interested parties an opportunity to submit, during not less than the 30-day period after the date of such publication, comments on the correctness of the proposed ruling or decision. After consideration of any comments received, the Secretary shall publish a final ruling or decision in the Customs Bulletin within 30 days after the closing of the comment period. The final ruling or decision shall become effective 60 days after the date of its publication.”
Brief for Customs and International Trade Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 5 (CITBA Brief).
I. e., “a Customs location having a full range of cargo processing functions, including inspections, entry, collections, and verification.” 19 CFR §101.1 (2000).
Assuming in each case, of course, that the agency’s exercise of authority is constitutional, see 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(B), and does not exceed its jurisdiction, see §706(2)(C).
See, e. g., General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125, 142 (1976) (courts consider the “‘thoroughness evident in [the agency’s] consideration’” (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944))).
See, e.g., Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402, 417 (1993) (“[T]he consistency of an agency’s position is a factor in assessing the weight that position is due”).
See, e. g., Reno v. Koray, 515 U. S. 50, 61 (1995) (internal agency guideline that is not “subject to the rigors of the [APA], including public notice and comment,” is entitled only to “some deference” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
See, e. g., Aluminum Co. of America v. Central Lincoln Peoples’ Util. Disk, 467 U. S. 380, 390 (1984).
See Merrill & Hickman, Chevron’s Domain, 89 Geo. L. J. 833,872 (2001) (“[I]f Chevron rests on a presumption about congressional intent, then Chevron should apply only where Congress would want Chevron to apply. In delineating the types of delegations of agency authority that trigger Chevron deference, it is therefore important to determine whether a plausible case can be made that Congress would want such a delegation to mean that agencies enjoy primary interpretational authority”).
For rulemaking cases, see, e. g., Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U. S. 1, 20-21 (2000); United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U. S. 380 (1999); AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366 (1999); Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 523 U. S. 382 (1998); Regions Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U. S. 448 (1998); United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U. S. 642 (1997); Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735 (1996); Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U. S. 687 (1995); ICC v. Transcon Lines, 513 U. S. 138 (1995); PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U. S. 700 (1994); Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, supra; American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 499 U. S. 606 (1991); Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U. S. 83 (1990); Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U. S. 521 (1990); Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U. S. 107 (1989); K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 281 (1988); Atkins v. Rivera, 477 U. S. 154 (1986); United States v. Fulton, 475 U. S. 657 (1986); United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121 (1985).
For adjudication cases, see, e. g., INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U. S. 415, 423-425 (1999); Federal Employees v. Department of Interior, 526 U. S. 86, 98-99 (1999); Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U. S. 392 (1996); ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U. S. 317, 824-325 (1994); National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407, 417-418 (1992); Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U. S. 117, 128 (1991); Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA, 495 U. S. 641, 644-645 (1990); Department of Treasury, IRS v. FLRA, 494 U. S. 922 (1990).
In NationsBank of N. C., N. A v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U. S., at 256-257 (internal quotation marks omitted), we quoted longstanding precedent concluding that “[t)he Comptroller of the Currency is charged with the enforcement of banking laws to an extent that warrants the invocation of [the rule of deference] with respect to his deliberative conclusions as to the meaning of these laws.” See also 1 M. Malloy, Banking Law and Regulation § 1.3.1, p. 1.41 (1996) (stating that the Comptroller is given “personal authority” under the National Bank Act).
Cf. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners in these consolidated cases are serving life sentences imposed under West Virginia’s habitual criminal statute. This Act provides for a mandatory life sentence upon the third conviction “of a crime punishable by confinement in a penitentiary.” The increased penalty is to be invoked by an information filed by the prosecuting attorney “immediately upon conviction and before sentence.” Alleging that this Act had been applied without advance notice and to only a minority of those subject to its provisions, in violation respectively of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the petitioners filed separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Both of their petitions were denied without opinion. Unlike Chewning v. Cunningham, ante, p. 443, here each of the petitioners was represented by counsel at the time he was sentenced. Finding the cases representative of the many recidivist cases that have been docketed in this Court the past few Terms, we granted certiorari. 365 U. S. 810. We now affirm the judgment in each case.
William Oyler, the petitioner in No. 56, was convicted of murder in the second degree on February 5,1953, which offense carried a penalty of from 5 to 18 years’ imprisonment. Sentence was deferred, and on February 11 his motion for a new trial was overruled. On that same date the Prosecuting Attorney requested and was granted leave to file an information in writing alleging that Oyler was the same person who had suffered three prior convictions in Pennsylvania which were punishable by confinement in a penitentiary. After being cautioned as to the effect of such information, Oyler, accompanied by his counsel, acknowledged in open court that he was the person named in the information. The court then determined that the defendant had thrice been convicted of crimes punishable by confinement in a penitentiary and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In so doing the court indicated that the life sentence was mandatory under the statute and recommended that Oyler be paroled as soon as he was eligible. In 1960 Oyler filed a habeas corpus application in the Supreme Court of Appeals alleging a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment in that he had not been given advance notice of his prosecution as a recidivist which prevented him from showing the inapplicability of the habitual criminal law. The statute was alleged to be inapplicable because he had never been sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary although he had been convicted of crimes subjecting him to the possibility of such sentence. He also attacked his sentence on the equal protection ground previously set forth.
In 1957 Paul Crabtree, the petitioner in No. 57, pleaded guilty to forging a $35 check, which offense carried a penalty of from 2 to 10 years’ imprisonment. Sentence was deferred, and a week later the Prosecuting Attorney informed the court that Crabtree had suffered two previous felony convictions, one in the State of Washington and one in West Virginia. The trial judge, after cautioning Crabtree of the effect of the information and his rights under it, inquired if he was in fact the accused person. Crabtree, who had been represented by counsel throughout, admitted in open court that he was such person. Upon this admission and the accused's further statement that he had nothing more to say, the court proceeded to sentence him to life imprisonment. In 1960 Crabtree sought habeas corpus relief in the Supreme Court of Appeals claiming denial of due process because of the absence of notice which prevented him from showing he had never been convicted in Walla Walla County, Washington, as had been alleged in the information. Like Oyler, he also raised the equal protection ground.
I.
Petitioners recognize that the constitutionality of the practice of inflicting severer criminal penalties upon habitual offenders is no longer open to serious challenge; however, they contend that in West Virginia such penalties are being invoked in an unconstitutional manner. It is petitioners' position that procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice of the habitual criminal accusation before the trial on the third offense or at least in time to afford a reasonable opportunity to meet the recidivist charge.
Even though an habitual criminal charge does not state a separate offense, the determination of whether one is an habitual criminal is “essentially independent” of the determination of guilt on the underlying substantive offense. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U. S. 3, 8 (1954). Thus, although the habitual criminal issue may be combined with the trial of the felony charge, “it is a distinct issue, and it may appropriately be the subject of separate determination.” Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U. S. 616, 625 (1912). If West Virginia chooses to handle the matter as two separate proceedings, due process does not require advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual criminal proceeding. See Graham v. West Virginia, supra.
Nevertheless, a defendant must receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard relative to the recidivist charge even if due process does not require that notice be given prior to the trial on the substantive offense. Such requirements are implicit within our decisions in Chewning v. Cunningham, supra; Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U. S. 525 (1961); Chandler v. Fretag, supra. Although these cases were specifically concerned with the right to assistance of counsel, it would have been an idle accomplishment to say that due process requires counsel but not the right to reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.
As interpreted by its highest court, West Virginia's recidivist statute does not require the State to notify the defendant prior to trial on the substantive offense that information of his prior convictions will be presented in the event he is found guilty. Thus notice of the State’s invocation of the statute is first brought home to the accused when, after conviction on the substantive offense but before sentencing, the information is read to him in open court as was done here. At this point petitioners were required to plead to the information. The statute expressly provides for a jury trial on the issue of identity if the accused either denies he is the person named in the information or just remains silent.
But the petitioners, who were represented by counsel, neither denied they were the persons named nor remained silent. Nor did they object or seek a continuance on the ground that they had not received adequate notice and needed more time to determine how to respond with respect to the issue of their identity. Rather, both petitioners rendered further inquiry along this line unnecessary by their acknowledgments in open court that they were the same persons who had previously been convicted. In such circumstances the petitioners are in no position now to assert that they were not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations as to their identity.
They assert, however, that they would have raised other defenses if they had been given adequate notice of the recidivist charges. It is, of course, true that identity is not the only issue presented in a recidivist proceeding, for, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Hughes (later Chief Justice) when this Court first reviewed West Virginia’s habitual criminal law, this statute contemplates valid convictions which have not been subsequently nullified. Graham, v. West Virginia, supra. A list of the more obvious issues would also include such matters as whether the previous convictions are of the character contemplated by West Virginia’s statute and whether the required procedure has been followed in invoking it. Indeed, we may assume that any infirmities in the prior convictions open to collateral attack could have been reached in the recidivist proceedings, either because the state law so permits or due process so requires. But this is a question we need not and do not decide, for neither the petitioners nor their counsel attempted during the recidivist proceedings to raise the issues which they now seek to raise or, indeed, any other issues. They were not, therefore, denied the right to do so. The petitioners’ claim that they were deprived of due process because of inadequate opportunity to contest the habitual criminal accusation must be rejected in these cases. Each of the petitioners had a lawyer at his side, and neither the petitioners nor their counsel sought in any way to raise any matters in defense or intimated that a continuance was needed to investigate the existence of any possible defense. On the contrary, the record clearly shows that both petitioners personally and through their lawyers conceded the applicability of the law’s sanctions to the circumstances of their cases.
II
Petitioners also claim they were denied the equal protection of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Oyler stated:
“Petitioner was discriminated against as an Habitual Criminal in that from January, 1940, to June, 1955, there were six men sentenced in the Taylor County Circuit Court who were subject to prosecution as Habitual offenders, Petitioner was the only man thus sentenced during this period. It is a matter of record that the five men who were not prosecuted as Habitual Criminals during this period, all had three or more felony convictions and sentences as adults, and Petitioner’s former convictions were a result of Juvenile Court actions.
“#5. The Petitioner was discriminated against by selective use of a mandatory State Statute, in that 904 men who were known offenders throughout the State of West Virginia were not sentenced as required by the mandatory Statutes, Chapter 61, Article 11, Sections 18 and 19 of the Code. Equal Protection and Equal Justice was [sic] denied.”
Statistical data based on prison records were appended to the petition to support the latter allegation. Crabtree in his petition included similar statistical support and alleged:
“The said Statute are [sic] administered and applied in such a manner as to be in violation of Equal Protection and Equal Justice therefor in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Thus petitioners’ contention is that the habitual criminal statute imposes a mandatory duty on the prosecuting authorities to seek the severer penalty against all persons coming within the statutory standards but that it is done only in a minority of cases. This, petitioners argue, denies equal protection to those persons against whom the heavier penalty is enforced. We note that it is not stated whether the failure to proceed against other three-time offenders was due to lack of knowledge of the prior offenses on the part of the prosecutors or was the result of a deliberate policy of proceeding only in a certain class of cases or against specific persons. The statistics merely show that according to penitentiary records a high percentage of those subject to the law have not been proceeded against. There is no indication that these records of previous convictions, which may not have been compiled until after the three-time offenders had reached the penitentiary, were available to the prosecutors. Hence the allegations set out no more than a failure to prosecute others because of a lack of knowledge of their prior offenses. This does not deny equal protection due petitioners under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sanders v. Waters, 199 F. 2d 317 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1952); Oregon v. Hicks, 213 Ore. 619, 325 P. 2d 794 (1958).
Moreover, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of selective enforcement, it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged. Oregon v. Hicks, supra; cf. Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1 (1944); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886) (by implication).
The other points raised by petitioners, such as the misstatement of the Washington county in which Crabtree was convicted and the fact that Oyler actually served in a Pennsylvania correctional home rather than a penitentiary, all involve state questions with which we are not concerned. Since the highest court of West Virginia handed down no opinion, we do not know what questions its judgment foreclosed. If any remain open, our judgment would not affect a test of them in appropriate state proceedings.
^Affirmed.
W. Va. Code, 1961, § 6130.
W. Va. Code, 1961, § 6131.
The statute has been interpreted as requiring only that the previous convictions be such that imprisonment in a penitentiary could have been imposed. State ex rel. Johnson v. Skeen, 140 W. Va. 896, 87 S. E. 2d 521 (1955).
The record indicates that instead of in Walla Walla Crabtree was convicted in Yakima County, Washington. At the time he was sentenced as a habitual criminal, he admitted that he had previously been sentenced to imprisonment in the State of Washington for a term of 20 years.
E. g., Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673 (1895). West Virginia’s statute is a carryover from the laws of Virginia, Va. Code, 1860, c. 199, §§ 25-26, and became its law when West Virginia was organized as a separate State. Since that time it has remained basically the same, save for a 1943 procedural amendment which provided that the statute should be invoked by information filed after conviction rather than by allegation in the indictment upon which the subject was being prosecuted for a substantive offense. In 1912 this Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute. Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U. S. 616 (1912).
Any other rule would place a difficult burden on the imposition of a recidivist penalty. Although the fact of prior conviction is within the knowledge of the defendant, often this knowledge does not come home to the prosecutor until after the trial, .and in many cases the prior convictions are not discovered until the defendant reaches the penitentiary.
West Virginia v. Blankenship, 137 W. Va. 1, 69 S. E. 2d 398 (1952).
W. Va. Code, 1961, §6131.
The fact that the statute expressly provides for a jury trial on the issue of identity and is silent as to how other issues are to be determined does not foreclose the raising of issues other than identity. This is especially clear in the case of legal issues, such as the petitioners now raise, where a jury trial would be inappropriate.
The denial of relief by West Virginia’s highest court may have involved the determination that the statute, like its counterpart § 6260, infra, note 11, is not mandatory. Such an interpretation would be binding upon this Court. However, we need not inquire into this point.
After prisoners are confined in the penitentiary, the warden is granted discretion as to the invocation of the severer penalty. W. Va. Code, 1961, § 6260. Thus the failure to invoke the penalty in the cases cited by petitioners may reflect the exercise of such discretion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a nonnamed member of a class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), sought to appeal the approval of a settlement over objections he stated at the fairness hearing. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that he lacked the power to bring such an appeal because he was not a named class representative and because he had not successfully moved to intervene in the litigation. We now reverse.
I
Petitioner Robert Devlin, a retired worker represented by the Transportation Communications International Union (Union), participates in a defined benefits pension plan (Plan) administered by the Union. In 1991, on the recommendation of the Plan’s trustees, the Plan was amended to add a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for retired and active employees. As it turned out, however, the Plan was not able to support such a large benefits increase. To address this problem, the Plan’s new trustees sought to freeze the COLA. Because they were concerned about incurring Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) liability by eliminating the COLA for retired workers, see 29 U. S. C. § 1054(g)(1) (1994 ed.) (providing that accrued benefits “may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan”), the trustees froze the COLA only as to active employees. Because the Plan still lacked sufficient funds, the new trustees obtained an equitable decree from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in 1995 declaring that the former trustees had breached their fiduciary duties and that ending the COLA for retired workers would not violate ERISA. Scardelletti v. Bobo, 897 F. Supp. 913 (Md. 1995); Scardelletti v. Bobo, No. JFM-95-52 (D. Md., Sept. 8, 1997). Accordingly, in a 1997 amendment, the new trustees eliminated the COLA for all Plan members.
In October 1997, those trustees filed the present class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1997 amendment was binding on all Plan members or, alternatively, that the 1991 COLA amendment was void. Originally, petitioner was proposed as a class representative for a subclass of retired workers because of his previous involvement in the issue. He refused to become a named representative, however, preferring to bring a separate action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing, among other things, that the 1997 Plan amendment violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V). The New York District Court dismissed petitioner’s claim involving the 1997 amendment, which was later affirmed by the Second Circuit because:
“The exact COLA issue that the appellants are pursuing ... is being addressed by the district court in Maryland. ... It seems eminently sensible that the Maryland district court should resolve fully the COLA amendment issue.” Devlin v. Transportation Communications Int’l Union, 175 F. 3d 121, 132 (CA2 1999).
At the time petitioner’s claim was dismissed, the District Court in Maryland had already conditionally certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), dividing it into two subclasses: a subclass of active employees and a subclass of retirees. On April 20, 1999, petitioner’s attorney sent a letter to the District Court informally seeking to intervene in the class action. On May 12,1999, petitioner sent another letter repeating this request. He did not, however, formally move to intervene at that time.
Also in May, the Plan’s trustees and the class representatives agreed on a settlement whereby the COLA benefits would be eliminated in exchange for the addition of other benefits. On August 27,1999, the trustees filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 10, 1999, petitioner formally moved to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. On November 12,1999, the District Court denied petitioner’s intervention motion as “absolutely untimely.” Scardelletti v. Debarr, 265 F. 3d 195, 201 (CA4 2001). It then heard objections to the settlement, including those advanced by petitioner, and, concluding that the settlement was fair, approved it. App. C to Pet. for Cert. 1-3.
Shortly thereafter, petitioner noted his appeal, challenging the District Court’s dismissal of his intervention motion as well as its decision to approve the settlement. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of intervention under an abuse of discretion standard. 265 F. 3d, at 203-204. It further held that, because petitioner was not a named representative of the class and because he had been properly denied the right to intervene, he lacked standing to challenge the fairness of the settlement on appeal. Id., at 208-210.
Petitioner sought review of the Fourth Circuit’s holding that he lacked the ability to appeal the District Court’s approval of the settlement. We granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 1064 (2001), to resolve a disagreement among the Circuits as to whether nonnamed class members who fail to properly intervene may bring an appeal of the approval of a settlement. Compare Cook v. Powell Buick, Inc., 155 F. 3d 758, 761 (CA5 1998) (holding that nonnamed class members who have not successfully intervened may not appeal, settlement approval); Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F. 3d 1004, 1008-1009 (CA10 1993) (same); Guthrie v. Evans, 815 F. 2d 626, 628-629 (CA11 1987) (same); Shults v. Champion Int’l Corp., 35 F. 3d 1056, 1061 (CA6 1994) (same), with In re PaineWebber Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litigation, 94 F. 3d 49, 53 (CA2 1996) (any non-named class member who objected at the fairness hearing may appeal); Carlough v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 5 F. 3d 707, 710 (CA3 1993) (same); Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F. 2d 1173, 1176 (CA9 1977) (same).
II
Although the Fourth Circuit framed the issue as one of standing, 265 F. 3d, at 204, we begin by clarifying that this issue does not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts under Article III of the Constitution. As a member of the retiree class, petitioner has an interest in the settlement that creates a “case or controversy” sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirements of injury, causation, and redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555 (1992); see also In re Navigant Consulting, Inc., Securities Litigation, 275 F. 3d 616, 620 (CA7 2001).
Nor do appeals by nonnamed class members raise the sorts of concerns that are ordinarily addressed as a matter of prudential standing. Prudential standing requirements include:
“[T]he general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984).
Because petitioner is a member of the class bound by the judgment, there is no question that he satisfies these three requirements. The legal rights he seeks to raise are his own, he belongs to a discrete class of interested parties, and his complaint clearly falls within the zone of interests of the requirement that a settlement be fair to all class members. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e).
What is at issue, instead, is whether petitioner should be considered a “party” for the purposes of appealing the approval of the settlement. We have held that “only parties to a lawsuit, or those, that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment.” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U. S. 301, 304 (1988) (per curiam). Respondents argue that, because petitioner is not a named class representative and did not successfully move to intervene, he is not a party for the purposes of taking an appeal.
We have never, however, restricted the right to appeal to named parties to the litigation. In Blossom v. Milwaukee & Chicago R. Co., 1 Wall. 655 (1864), for instance, we allowed a bidder for property at a foreclosure sale, who was not a named party in the foreclosure action, to appeal the refusal of a request he made during that action to compel the sale. In Hinckley v. Gilman, C., & S. R. Co., 94 U. S. 467 (1877), we allowed a receiver, who was an officer of the court rather than a named party to the case, to appeal from an order “relating] to the settlement of his accounts,” reasoning that “[f]or this purpose he occupies the position of a party to the suit.” Id., at 469. More recently, we have affirmed that “[t]he right of a nonparty to appeal an adjudication of contempt cannot be questioned,” United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U. S. 72, 76 (1988), given the binding nature of that adjudication upon the interested nonparty.
Justice Scalia attempts to distinguish these cases by characterizing them as appeals from collateral orders to which the appellants “were parties.” Post, at 16 (dissenting opinion). But it is difficult to see how they were parties in the sense in which Justice Scalia uses the term — those “ ‘named as a party to an action,’ ” usually “ ‘in the caption of the summons or complaint.’” Post, at 15 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments §34(1), p. 345 (1980); id., Comment a, Reporter’s Note, at 347). Because they were not named in the action, the appellants in these cases were parties only in the sense that they were bound by the order from which they were seeking to appeal.
Petitioner’s interest in the District Court’s approval of the settlement is similar. Petitioner objected to the settlement at the District Court’s fairness hearing, as nonnamed parties have been consistently allowed to do under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e) (“A class 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 all members of the class in such manner as the court directs”); see also 2 H. Newberg & A. Conte, Class Actions § 11.55, p. 11-132 (3d ed. 1992) (explaining that Rule 23(e) entitles all class members to an opportunity to object). The District Court’s approval of the settlement — which binds petitioner as a member of the class — amounted to a “final decision of [petitioner’s] right or claim” sufficient to trigger his right to appeal. See Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684, 699 (1884) (describing the cases discussed above). And like the appellants in the prior cases, petitioner will only be allowed to appeal that aspect of the District Court’s order that affects him — the District Court’s decision to disregard his objections. Cf. supra, at 6. Petitioner’s right to appeal this aspect of the District Court’s decision cannot be effectively accomplished through the named class representative — once the named parties reach a settlement that is approved over petitioner’s objections, petitioner’s interests by definition diverge from those of the class representative.
Marino v. Ortiz, supra, is not to the contrary. In that case, we refused to allow an appeal of a settlement by a group of white police officers who were not members of the class of minority officers that had brought a racial discrimination claim against the New York Police Department. Although the settlement affected them, the District Court’s decision did not finally dispose of any right or claim they might have had because they were not members of the class.
Nor does considering nonnamed class members parties for the purposes of bringing an appeal conflict with any other aspect of class action procedure. In a related case, the Seventh Circuit has argued that nonnamed class members cannot be considered parties for the purposes of bringing an appeal because they are not considered parties for the purposes of the complete diversity requirement in suits under 28 U. S. C. § 1332. See Navigant Consulting, 275 F. 3d, at 619; see also Snyder v. Harris, 394 U. S. 332, 340 (1969). According to the Seventh Circuit, “[e]lass members cannot have it both ways, being non-parties (so that more cases can come to federal court) but still having a party’s ability to litigate independently.” 275 F. 3d, at 619. Nonnamed class members, however, may be parties for some purposes and not for others. The label “party” does not indicate an absolute characteristic, but rather a conclusion about the applicability of various procedural rules that may differ based on context.
Nonnamed class members are, for instance, parties in the sense that the filing of an action on behalf of the class tolls a statute of limitations against them. See American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538 (1974). Otherwise, all class members would be forced to intervene to preserve their claims, and one of the major goals of class action litigation— to simplify litigation involving a large number of class members with similar claims — would be defeated. The rule that nonnamed class members cannot defeat complete diversity is likewise justified by the goals of class action litigation. Ease of administration of class actions would .be compromised by having to consider the citizenship of all class members, many of whom may even be unknown, in determining jurisdiction. See 7A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1755, pp. 68-64 (2d ed. 1986). Perhaps more importantly, considering all class members for these purposes would destroy diversity in almost all class actions. Nonnamed class members are, therefore, not parties in that respect.
What is most important to this case is that nonnamed class members are parties to the proceedings in the sense of being bound by the settlement. It is this feature of class action litigation that requires that class members be allowed to appeal the approval of a settlement when they have objected at the fairness hearing. To hold otherwise would deprive nonnamed class members of the power to preserve their own interests in a settlement that will ultimately bind them, despite their expressed objections before the trial court. Particularly in light of the fact that petitioner had no ability to opt out of the settlement, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(b)(1), appealing the approval of the settlement is petitioner’s only means of protecting himself from being bound by a disposition of his rights he finds unacceptable and that a reviewing court might find legally inadequate.
Justice . Scalia rightly notes that other nonnamed parties may be bound by a court’s decision, in particular, those in privity with the named party. See post, at 18. True enough. It is not at all clear, however, that such parties may not themselves appeal. Although this Court has never addressed the issue, nonnamed parties in privity with a named party are often allowed by other courts to appeal from the order that affects them. 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appellate Review §265 (1995).
Respondents argue that, nonetheless, appeals from non-named parties should not be allowed because they would undermine one of the goals of class action litigation, namely, preventing multiple suits. See Guthrie v. Evans, 815 F. 2d, at 629 (arguing that allowing nonnamed class members’ appeals would undermine a “fundamental purpose of the class action”: “to render manageable litigation that involves numerous members of a homogenous class, who would all otherwise have access to the court through individual lawsuits”). Allowing such appeals, however, will not be as problematic as respondents claim. For one thing, the power to appeal is limited to those nonnamed class members who have objected during the fairness hearing. This limits the class of potential appellants considerably. As the longstanding practice of allowing nonnamed class members to object at the fairness hearing demonstrates, the burden of considering the claims of this subset of class members is not onerous.
III
The Government, as amicus curiae, admits that nonnamed class members are parties who may appeal the approval of a settlement, but urges us nonetheless to require class members to intervene for-purposes of . appeal. See Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 12-27. To address the fairness concerns to objecting nonnamed class members bound by the settlement they wish to appeal, however, the Government also asserts that such a limited purpose intervention generally should be available to all those, like petitioner, whose objections at the fairness hearing have been disregarded. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides for intervention as of right:
“Upon timely application . .. when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
According to the Government, nonnamed class members who state objections at the fairness hearing should easily meet these three criteria. For one thing, it claims, a settlement binding on them will establish the requisite interest in the action. Moreover, it argues, any intervention motion filed “within the time period in which the named plaintiffs could have taken an appeal” should be considered “timely filed” for the purposes of such limited intervention. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385, 396 (1977). Finally, it asserts, the approval of a settlement over a nonnamed class member’s objection, and the failure of a class representative to appeal such an approval, should “invariably” show that the class representative does not adequately represent the nonnamed class member’s interests on appeal. Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 20.
Given the ease with which nonnamed class members who have objected at the fairness hearing could intervene for purposes of appeal, however, it is difficult to see the value of the Government’s suggested requirement. It identifies only a limited number of instances where the initial intervention motion would be of any use: where the objector is not actually a member of the settlement class or is otherwise not entitled to relief from the settlement, where an objector seeks to appeal even though his objection was successful, where the objection at the fairness hearing was untimely, or where there is a need to consolidate duplicative appeals from class members. Id., at 23-25. In such situations, the Government argues, a district court can disallow such problematic and unnecessary appeals.
This seems to us, however, of limited benefit. In the first two of these situations, the objector stands to gain nothing by appeal, so it is unlikely such situations will arise with any frequency. JUSTICE Scalia argues that if such objectors were undeterred by this fact at the time they filed their original objections, they will be undeterred at the appellate level. See post, at 21-22. This misunderstands the point. As to the first group — those who are not actually entitled to relief-one would not expect them to have filed objections in the district court in the first place. The few irrational persons who wish to pursue one round of meaningless relief will, we agree, probably be irrational enough to pursue a second. But there should not be many of such persons in any case. As for the second — those whose objections were successful at the district court level — they were far from irrational in the filing of their initial objections, and they should not generally be expected to lose this level of sensibility when faced with the prospect of a meaningless appeal. Moreover, even if such cases did arise with any frequency, such concerns could be addressed by a standing inquiry at the appellate level.
The third situation — dealing with untimely objections— implicates basic concerns about waiver and should be easily addressable by a court of appeals. A court of appeals also has the ability to avoid the fourth by consolidating cases raising duplicative appeals. Fed. Rule App. Proc. 3(b)(2). If the resolution of any of these issues should turn out to be complex in a given case, there is little to be gained by requiring a district court to consider these issues, which are the type of issues (standing to appeal, waiver of objections below, and consolidation of appeals) typically addressed only by an appellate court. As such determinations still would most likely lead to an appeal, such a requirement would only add an additional layer of complexity before the appeal of the settlement approval may finally be heard.
Nor do we agree with the Government that, regardless of the desirability of an intervention requirement for effective class management, the structure of the rules of class action procedure requires intervention for the purposes of appeal. According to the Government, intervention is the method contemplated under the rules for nonnamed class members to gain the right to participate in class action proceedings. We disagree. Just as class action procedure allows non-named class members to object to a settlement at the fairness hearing without first intervening, see supra, at 8-9, it should similarly allow them to appeal the District Court’s decision to disregard their objections. Moreover, no federal statute or procedural rule directly addresses the question of who may appeal from approval of class action settlements, while the right to appeal from an action that finally disposes of one’s rights has a statutory basis. 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
>
We hold that nonnamed class members like petitioner who have objected in a timely manner to approval of the settlement at the fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the sale of all of the stock of a company is a securities transaction subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws (the Acts).
I
Respondents Ivan K. Landreth and his sons owned all of the outstanding stock of a lumber business they operated in Tonasket, Washington. The Landreth family offered their stock for sale through both Washington and out-of-state brokers. Before a purchaser was found, the company’s sawmill was heavily damaged by fire. Despite the fire, the brokers continued to offer the stock for sale. Potential purchasers were advised of the damage, but were told that the mill would be completely rebuilt and modernized.
Samuel Dennis, a Massachusetts tax attorney, received a letter offering the stock for sale. On the basis of the letter’s representations concerning the rebuilding plans, the predicted productivity of the mill, existing contracts, and expected profits, Dennis became interested in acquiring the stock. He talked to John Bolten, a former client who had retired to Florida, about joining him in investigating the offer. After having an audit and an inspection of the mill conducted, a stock purchase agreement was negotiated, with Dennis the purchaser of all of the common stock in the lumber company. Ivan Landreth agreed to stay on as a consultant for some time to help with the daily operations of the mill. Pursuant to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, Dennis assigned the stock he purchased to B & D Co., a corporation formed for the sole purpose of acquiring the lumber company stock. B & D then merged with the lumber company, forming petitioner Landreth Timber Co. Dennis and Bolten then acquired all of petitioner’s Class A stock, representing 85% of the equity, and six other investors together owned the Class B stock, representing the remaining 15% of the equity.
After the acquisition was completed, the mill did not live up to the purchasers’ expectations. Rebuilding costs exceeded earlier estimates, and new components turned out to be incompatible with existing equipment. Eventually, petitioner sold the mill at a loss and went into receivership. Petitioner then filed this suit seeking rescission of the sale of stock and $2,500,000 in damages, alleging that respondents had widely offered and then sold their stock without registering it as required by the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq. (1933 Act). Petitioner also alleged that respondents had negligently or intentionally made misrepresentations and had failed to state material facts as to the worth and prospects of the lumber company, all in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. §78a et seq. (1934 Act).
Respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground that the transaction was not covered by the Acts because under the so-called “sale of business” doctrine, petitioner had not purchased a “security” within the meaning of those Acts. The District Court granted respondents’ motion and dismissed the complaint for want of federal jurisdiction. It acknowledged that the federal statutes include “stock” as one of the instruments constituting a “security,” and that the stock at issue possessed all of the characteristics of conventional stock. Nonetheless, it joined what it termed the “growing majority” of courts that had held that the federal securities laws do not apply to the sale of 100% of the stock of a closely held corporation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a. Relying on United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U. S. 837 (1975), and SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U. S. 293 (1946), the District Court ruled that the stock could not be considered a “security” unless the purchaser had entered into the transaction with the anticipation of earning profits derived from the efforts of others. Finding that managerial control of the business had passed into the hands of the purchasers, and thus that the transaction was a commercial venture rather than a typical investment, the District Court dismissed the complaint.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s application of the sale of business doctrine. 731 F. 2d 1348 (1984). It agreed that it was bound by United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, supra, and SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., supra, to determine in every case whether the economic realities of the transaction indicated that the Acts applied. Because the Courts of Appeals are divided over the applicability of the federal securities laws when a business is sold by the transfer of 100% of its stock, we granted certiorari. 469 U. S. 1016 (1984). We now reverse.
II
It is axiomatic that “[t]he starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.” Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 756 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring); accord, Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U. S. 551, 558 (1979). Section 2(1) of the 1933 Act, 48 Stat. 74, as amended and as set forth in 15 U. S. C. § 77b(1), defines a “security” as including
“any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, ... or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a ‘security,’ or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.”
As we have observed in the past, this definition is quite broad, Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U. S. 551, 556 (1982), and includes both instruments whose names alone carry well-settled meaning, as well as instruments of “more variable character [that] were necessarily designated by more descriptive terms,” such as “investment contract” and “instrument commonly known as a ‘security.’” SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S. 344, 351 (1943). The face of the definition shows that “stock” is considered to be a “security” within the meaning of the Acts. As we observed in United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, supra, most instruments bearing such a traditional title are likely to be covered by the definition. Id., at 850.
As we also recognized in Forman, the fact that instruments bear the label “stock” is not of itself sufficient to invoke the coverage of the Acts. Rather, we concluded that we must also determine whether those instruments possess “some of the significant characteristics typically associated with” stock, id., at 851, recognizing that when an instrument is both called “stock” and bears stock’s usual characteristics, “a purchaser justifiably [may] assume that the federal securities laws apply,” id., at 850. We identified those characteristics usually associated with common stock as (i) the right to receive dividends contingent upon an apportionment of profits; (ii) negotiability; (iii) the ability to be pledged or hypothecated; (iv) the conferring of voting rights in proportion to the number of shares owned; and (v) the capacity to appreciate in value. Id., at 851.
Under the facts of Forman, we concluded that the instruments at issue there were not “securities” within the meaning of the Acts. That case involved the sale of shares of stock entitling the purchaser to lease an apartment in a housing cooperative. The stock bore none of the characteristics listed above that are usually associated with traditional stock. Moreover, we concluded that under the circumstances, there was no likelihood that the purchasers had been misled by use of the word “stock” into thinking that the federal securities laws governed their purchases. The purchasers had intended to acquire low-cost subsidized living space for their personal use; no one was likely to have believed that he was purchasing investment securities. Ibid.
In contrast, it is undisputed that the stock involved here possesses all of the characteristics we identified in Forman as traditionally associated with common stock. Indeed, the District Court so found. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a. Moreover, unlike in Forman, the context of the transaction involved here — the sale of stock in a corporation — is typical of the kind of context to which the Acts normally apply. It is thus much more likely here than in Forman that an investor would believe he was covered by the federal securities laws. Under the circumstances of this case, the plain meaning of the statutory definition mandates that the stock be treated as “securities” subject to the coverage of the Acts.
Reading the securities laws to apply to the sale of stock at issue here comports with Congress’ remedial purpose in enacting the legislation to protect investors by “compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of ‘the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security.’” SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U. S., at 299 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1933)). Although we recognize that Congress did not intend to provide a comprehensive federal remedy for all fraud, Marine Bank v. Weaver, supra, at 556, we think it would improperly narrow Congress’ broad definition of “security” to hold that the traditional stock at issue here falls outside the Acts’ coverage.
I — ( I — I
Under other circumstances, we might consider the statutory analysis outlined above to be a sufficient answer compelling judgment for petitioner. Respondents urge, however, that language in our previous opinions, including Forman, requires that we look beyond the label “stock” and the characteristics of the instruments involved to determine whether application of the Acts is mandated by the economic substance of the transaction. ' Moreover, the Court of Appeals rejected the view that the plain meaning of the definition would be sufficient to hold this stock covered, because it saw “no principled way,” 731 F. 2d, at 1353, to justify treating notes, bonds, and other of the definitional categories differently. We address these concerns in turn.
A
It is fair to say that our cases have not been entirely clear on the proper method of analysis for determining when an instrument is a “security.” This Court has decided a number of cases in which it looked to the economic substance of the transaction, rather than just to its form, to determine whether the Acts applied. In SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., for example, the Court considered whether the 1933 Act applied to the sale of leasehold interests in land near a proposed oil well drilling. In holding that the leasehold interests were “securities,” the Court noted that “the reach of the Act does not stop with the obvious and commonplace.” 320 U. S., at 351. Rather, it ruled that unusual devices such as the leaseholds would also be covered “if it be proved as matter of fact that they were widely offered or dealt in under terms or courses of dealing which established their character in commerce as ‘investment contracts,’ or as ‘any interest or instrument commonly known as a ‘security.’” Ibid.
SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., supra, further elucidated the Joiner Court’s suggestion that an unusual instrument could be considered a “security” if the circumstances of the transaction so dictated. At issue in that case was an offering of units of a citrus grove development coupled with a contract for cultivating and marketing the fruit and remitting the proceeds to the investors. The Court held that the offering constituted an “investment contract” within the meaning of the 1933 Act because, looking at the economic realities, the transaction “involve[d] an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.” 328 U. S., at 301.
This so-called “Howey test” formed the basis for the second part of our decision in Forman, on which respondents primarily rely. As discussed above, see Part II, supra, the first part of our decision in Forman concluded that the instruments at issue, while they bore the traditional label “stock,” were not “securities” because they possessed none of the usual characteristics of stock. We then went on to address the argument that the instruments were “investment contracts.” Applying the Howey test, we concluded that the instruments likewise were not “securities” by virtue of being “investment contracts” because the economic realities of the transaction showed that the purchasers had parted with their money not for the purpose of reaping profits from the efforts of others, but for the purpose of purchasing a commodity for personal consumption. 421 U. S., at 858.
Respondents contend that Forman and the cases on which it was based require us to reject the view that the shares of stock at issue here may be considered “securities” because of their name and characteristics. Instead, they argue that our cases require us in every instance to look to the economic substance of the transaction to determine whether the Howey test has been met. According to respondents, it is clear that petitioner sought not to earn profits from the efforts of others, but to buy a company that it could manage and control. Petitioner was not a passive investor of the kind Congress intended the Acts to protect, but an active entrepreneur, who sought to “use or consume” the business purchased just as the purchasers in Forman sought to use the apartments they acquired after purchasing shares of stock. Thus, respondents urge that the Acts do not apply.
We disagree with respondents’ interpretation of our cases. First, it is important to understand the contexts within which these cases were decided. All of the cases on which respondents rely involved unusual instruments not easily characterized as “securities.” See n. 4, supra. Thus, if the Acts were to apply in those cases at all, it would have to have been because the economic reality underlying the transactions indicated that the instruments were actually of a type that falls within the usual concept of a security. In the case at bar, in contrast, the instrument involved is traditional stock, plainly within the statutory definition. There is no need here, as there was in the prior cases, to look beyond the characteristics of the instrument to determine whether the Acts apply.
Contrary to respondents’ implication, the Court has never foreclosed the possibility that stock could be found to be a “security” simply because it is what it purports to be. In SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S. 344 (1943), the Court noted: “[W]e do nothing to the words of the Act; we merely accept them. ... In some cases, [proving that the documents were securities] might be done by proving the document itself, which on its face would be a note, a bond, or a share of stock.” Id., at 355. Nor does Forman require a different result. Respondents are correct that in Forman we eschewed a “literal” approach that would invoke the Acts’ coverage simply because the instrument carried the label “stock.” Forman does not, however, eliminate the Court’s ability to hold that an instrument is covered when its characteristics bear out the label. See supra, at 686-687.
Second, we would note that the Howey economic reality test was designed to determine whether a particular instrument is an “investment contract,” not whether it fits within any of the examples listed in the statutory definition of “security.” Our cases are consistent with this view. Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U. S., at 558 (appropriate to turn to the Howey test to “determine whether a particular financial relationship constitutes an investment contract”); United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U. S. 837 (1975); see supra, at 689. Moreover, applying the Howey test to traditional stock and all other types of instruments listed in the statutory definition would make the Acts’ enumeration of many types of instruments superfluous. Golden v. GaraFalo, 678 F. 2d 1139, 1144 (CA2 1982). See Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332, 343 (1967).
Finally, we cannot agree with respondents that the Acts were intended to cover only “passive investors” and not privately negotiated transactions involving the transfer of control to “entrepreneurs.” The 1934 Act contains several provisions specifically governing tender offers, disclosure of transactions by corporate officers and principal stockholders, and the recovery of short-swing profits gained by such persons. See, e. g., 1934 Act, §§ 14, 16, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78n, 78p. Eliminating from the definition of “security” instruments involved in transactions where control passed to the purchaser would contravene the purposes of these provisions. Accord, Daily v. Morgan, 701 F. 2d 496, 503 (CA5 1983). Furthermore, although §4(2) of the 1933 Act, 15 U. S. C. §77d(2), exempts transactions not involving any public offering from the Act’s registration provisions, there is no comparable exemption from the antifraud provisions. Thus, the structure and language of the Acts refute respondents’ position.
B
We now turn to the Court of Appeals’ concern that treating stock as a specific category of “security” provable by its characteristics means that other categories listed in the statutory definition, such as notes, must be treated the same way. Although we do not decide whether coverage of notes or other instruments may be provable by their name and characteristics, we do point out several reasons why we think stock may be distinguishable from most if not all of the other categories listed in the Acts’ definition.
Instruments that bear both the name and all of the usual characteristics of stock seem to us to be the clearest case for coverage by the plain language of the definition. First, traditional stock “represents to many people, both trained and untrained in business matters, the paradigm of a security.” Daily v. Morgan, sUpra, at 500. Thus persons trading in traditional stock likely have a high expectation that their activities are governed by the Acts. Second, as we made clear in Forman, “stock” is relatively easy to identify because it lends itself to consistent definition. See supra, at 686. Unlike some instruments, therefore, traditional stock is more susceptible of a plain meaning approach.
Professor Loss has agreed that stock is different from the other categories of instruments. He observes that it “goes against the grain” to apply the Howey test for determining whether an instrument is an “investment contract” to traditional stock. L. Loss, Fundamentals of Securities Regulation 211-212 (1988). As Professor Loss explains:
“It is one thing to say that the typical cooperative apartment dweller has bought a home, not a security; or that not every installment purchase ‘note’ is a security; or that a person who charges a restaurant meal by signing his credit card slip is not selling a security even though his signature is an ‘evidence of indebtedness.’ But stock (except for the residential wrinkle) is so quintessential a security as to foreclose further analysis.” Id., at 212 (emphasis in original).
We recognize that in SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S. 344 (1943), the Court equated “notes” and “bonds” with “stock” as categories listed in the statutory definition that were standardized enough to rest on their names. Id., at 355. Nonetheless, in Forman, we characterized Joiner’s, language as dictum. 421 U. S., at 850. As we recently suggested in a different context in Securities Industry Assn. v. Board of Governors, FRS, 468 U. S. 137 (1984), “note” may now be viewed as a relatively broad term that encompasses instruments with widely varying characteristics, depending on whether issued in a consumer context, as commercial paper, or in some other investment context. See id., at 149-153. We here expressly leave until another day the question whether “notes” or “bonds” or some other category of instrument listed in the definition might be shown “by proving [only] the document itself.” SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., supra, at 355. We hold only that “stock” may be viewed as being in a category by itself for purposes of interpreting the scope of the Acts’ definition of “security.”
H-1 <1
We also perceive strong policy reasons for not employing the sale of business doctrine under the circumstances of this case. By respondents’ own admission, application of the doctrine depends in each case on whether control has passed to the purchaser. It may be argued that on the facts of this case, the doctrine is easily applied, since the transfer of 100% of a corporation’s stock normally transfers control. We think even that assertion is open to some question, however, as Dennis and Bolten had no intention of running the sawmill themselves. Ivan Landreth apparently stayed on to manage the daily affairs of the business. Some commentators who support the sale of business doctrine believe that a purchaser who has the ability to exert control but chooses not to do so may deserve the Acts’ protection if he is simply a passive investor not engaged in the daily management of the business. Easley, Recent Developments in the Sale-of-Business Doctrine: Toward a Transactional Context-Based Analysis for Federal Securities Jurisdiction, 39 Bus. Law. 929, 971-972 (1984); Seldin, When Stock is Not a Security: The “Sale of Business” Doctrine Under the Federal Securities Laws, 37 Bus. Law. 637, 679 (1982). In this case, the District Court was required to undertake extensive fact-finding, and even requested supplemental facts and memo-randa on the issue of control, before it was able to decide the case. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a.
More importantly, however, if applied to this case, the sale of business doctrine would also have to be applied to cases in which less than 100% of a company’s stock was sold. This inevitably would lead to difficult questions of line-drawing. The Acts’ coverage would in every case depend not only on the percentage of stock transferred, but also on such factors as the number of purchasers and what provisions for voting and veto rights were agreed upon by the parties. As we explain more fully in Gould v. Ruefenacht, post, at 704-706, decided today as a companion to this case, coverage by the Acts would in most cases be unknown and unknowable to the parties at the time the stock was sold. These uncertainties attending the applicability of the Acts would hardly be in the best interests of either party to a transaction. Cf. Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U. S., at 559, n. 9 (rejecting the argument that the certificate of deposit at issue there was transformed, chameleon-like, into a “security” once it was pledged). Respondents argue that adopting petitioner’s approach will increase the workload of the federal courts by converting state and common-law fraud claims into federal claims. We find more daunting, however, the prospect that parties to a transaction may never know whether they are covered by the Acts until they engage in extended discovery and litigation over a concept as often elusive as the passage of control. Accord, Golden v. Garafalo, 678 F. 2d, at 1145-1146.
V
In sum, we conclude that the stock at issue here is a “security” within the definition of the Acts, and that the sale of business doctrine does not apply. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore
Reversed.
We have repeatedly ruled that the definitions of “security” in § 3(a)(10) of the 1934 Act and § 2(1) of the 1933 Act are virtually identical and will be treated as such in our decisions dealing with the scope of the term. Marine Bank v. Weaver, 456 U. S. 551, 555, n. 3 (1982); United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U. S. 837, 847, n. 12 (1975).
Although we did not so specify in Forman, we wish to make clear here that these characteristics are those usually associated with common stock, the kind of stock often at issue in cases involving the sale of a business. Various types of preferred stock may have different characteristics and still be covered by the Acts.
Professor Loss suggests that the statutory analysis is sufficient. L. Loss, Fundamentals of Securities Regulation 212 (1983). See infra, at 693-694.
Respondents also rely on Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332 (1967), and Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U. S. 551 (1982), as support for their argument that we have mandated in every case a determination of whether the economic realities of a transaction call for the application of the Acts. It is sufficient to note here that these cases, like the other cases on which respondents rely, involved unusual instruments that did not fit squarely within one of the enumerated specific kinds of securities listed in the definition. Tcherepnin involved withdrawable capital shares in a state savings and loan association, and Weaver involved a certificate of deposit and a privately negotiated profit-sharing agreement. See Marine Bank v. Weaver, supra, at 557, n. 5, for an explanation of why the certificate of deposit involved there did not fit within the definition’s category “certificate of deposit, for a security.”
In support of their contention that the Court has mandated use of the Howey test whenever it determines whether an instrument is a “security,” respondents quote our statement in Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U. S. 551, 558, n. 11 (1979), that the Howey test “‘embodies the essential attributes that run through all of the Court’s decisions defining a security’ ” (quoting Forman, 421 U. S., at 852). We do not read this bit of dicta as broadly as respondents do. We made the statement in Forman in reference to the purchasers’ argument that if the instruments at issue were not “stock” and were not “investment contracts,” at least they were “instrument[s] commonly known as a ‘security’ ” within the statutory definition. We stated, as part of our analysis of whether the instruments were “investment contracts,” that we perceived “no distinction, for present purposes, between an ‘investment contract’ and an ‘instrument commonly known as a “security.” ’ ” Ibid, (emphasis added). This was not to say that the Howey test applied to any case in which an instrument was alleged to be a security, but only that once the label “stock” did not hold true, we perceived no reason to analyze the case differently whether we viewed the instruments as “investment contracts” or as falling within another similarly general category of the definition — an “instrument commonly known as a ‘security.’” Under either of these general categories, the Howey test would apply.
In criticizing the sale of business doctrine, Professor Loss agrees. He considers that the doctrine “comes dangerously close to the heresy of saying that the fraud provisions do not apply to private transactions; for nobody, apparently, has had the temerity to argue that the sale of a -publicly owned business for stock of the acquiring corporation that is distributed to the shareholders of the selling corporation as a liquidating dividend does not involve a security.” L. Loss, Fundamentals of Securities Regulation 212 (1983) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
Justice Stevens dissents on the ground that Congress did not intend the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws to apply to “the private sale of a substantial ownership interest in [a business] simply because the transactio[n] w[as] structured as [a] sal[e] of stock instead of assets.” Post, at 700. Justice Stevens, of course, is correct in saying that it is clear from the legislative history of the 1933 and 1934 Acts that Congress was concerned primarily with transactions “in securities . . . traded in a public market.” Post, at 698. United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U. S., at 849. It also is true that there is no indication in the legislative history that Congress considered the type of transactions involved in this case and in Gould v. Ruefenacht, post, p. 701.
The history is simply silent — as it is with respect to other transactions to which these Acts have been applied by the Securities and Exchange Commission and judicial interpretation over the half century since this legislation was adopted. One only need mention the expansive interpretation of § 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted by the Commission. What the Court said in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723 (1975), is relevant:
“When we deal with private actions under Rule 10b-5, we deal with a judicial oak which has grown from little more than a legislative acorn. Such growth may be quite consistent with the congressional enactment and with the role of the federal judiciary in interpreting it, see J. I. Case Co. v Borak, [377 U. S. 426 (1964)], but it would be disingenuous to suggest that either Congress in 1934 or the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1942 foreordained the present state of the law with respect to Rule 10b-5. It is therefore proper that we consider, in addition to the factors already discussed, what may be described as policy considerations when we come to flesh out the portions of the law with respect to which neither the congressional enactment nor the administrative regulations offer conclusive guidance.” Id., at 737.
See also Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 196-197 (1976).
In this case, unlike with respect to the interpretation of § 10(b) in Blue Chip Stamps, we have the plain language of § 2(1) of the 1933 Act in support of our interpretation. In Forman, supra, we recognized that the term “stock” is to be read in accordance with the common understanding of its meaning, including the characteristics identified in Forman. See supra, at 686. In addition, as stated in Blue Chip Stamps, supra, it is proper for a court to consider — as we do today — policy considerations in construing terms in these Acts.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We here consider the validity of a Ninth Circuit rule that a conspiracy ends automatically when the object of the conspiracy becomes impossible to achieve — when, for example, the Government frustrates a drug conspiracy’s objective by seizing the drugs that its members have agreed to distribute. In our view, conspiracy law does not contain any such “automatic termination” rule.
I
In United States v. Cruz, 127 F. 3d 791, 795 (CA9 1997), the Ninth Circuit, following the language of an earlier case, United States v. Castro, 972 F. 2d 1107, 1112 (CA9 1992), wrote that a conspiracy terminates when “ ‘there is affirmative evidence of abandonment, withdrawal, disavowal or defeat of the object" of the conspiracy.’” (Emphasis added.) It considered the conviction of an individual who, the Government had charged, joined a conspiracy (to distribute drugs) after the Government had seized the drugs in question. The Circuit found that the Government’s seizure of the drugs guaranteed the “defeat” of the conspiracy’s objective, namely, drug distribution. The Circuit held that the conspiracy had terminated with that “defeat,” i. e., when the Government seized the drugs. Hence the individual, who had joined the conspiracy after that point, could not be convicted as a conspiracy member.
In this case the lower courts applied the Cruz rule to similar facts: On November 18, 1997, police stopped a truck in Nevada. They found, and seized, a large stash of illegal drugs. With the help of the truck’s two drivers, they set up a sting. The Government took the truck to the drivers’ destination, a mall in Idaho. The drivers paged a contact and described the truck’s location. The contact said that he would call someone to get the truck. And three hours later, the two defendants, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, appeared in a car. Jimenez Recio drove away in the truck; Lopez-Meza drove the car away in a similar direction. Police stopped both vehicles and arrested both men.
A federal grand jury indicted Jimenez Recio, Lopez-Meza, and the two original truck drivers, charging them with having conspired, together and with others, to possess and to distribute unlawful drugs. A jury convicted all four. But the trial judge then decided that the jury instructions had been erroneous in respect to Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza. The judge noted that the Ninth Circuit, in Cruz, had held that the Government could not prosecute drug conspiracy defendants unless they had joined the conspiracy before the Government seized the drugs. See Cruz, supra, at 795-796. That holding, as applied here, meant that the jury could not convict Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza unless the jury believed they had joined the conspiracy before the Nevada police stopped the truck and seized the drugs. The judge ordered a new trial where the jury would be instructed to that effect. The new jury convicted the two men once again.
Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza appealed. They pointed out that, given Cruz, the jury had to find that they had joined the conspiracy before the Nevada stop, and they claimed that the evidence was insufficient at both trials to warrant any such jury finding. The Ninth Circuit panel, by a vote of 2 to 1, agreed. All three panel members accepted Cruz as binding law. Two members concluded that the evidence presented at the second trial was not sufficient to show that the defendants had joined the conspiracy before the Nevada drug seizure. One of the two wrote that the evidence at the first trial was not sufficient either, a circumstance she believed independently warranted reversal. The third member, dissenting, believed that the evidence at both trials adequately demonstrated preseizure membership. He added that he, like the other panel members, was bound by Cruz, but he wrote that in his view Cruz was “totally inconsistent with long established and appropriate principles of the law of conspiracy,” and he urged the Circuit to overrule it en banc “at the earliest opportunity.” 258 F. 3d 1069, 1079, n. 2 (2001) (opinion of Gould, J.).
The Government sought certiorari. It noted that the Ninth Circuit’s holding in this case was premised upon the legal rule enunciated in Cruz. And it asked us to decide the rule’s validity, i. e., to decide whether “a conspiracy ends as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective.” Pet. for Cert. (I). We agreed to consider that question.
II
In Cruz, the Ninth Circuit held that a conspiracy continues “‘until there is affirmative evidence of abandonment, withdrawal, disavowal or defeat of the object of the conspiracy.’ ” 127 F. 3d, at 795 (quoting Castro, supra, at 1112). The critical portion of this statement is the last segment, that a conspiracy ends once there has been “‘defeat of [its] object.’” The Circuit’s holdings make clear that the phrase means that the conspiracy ends through “defeat” when the Government intervenes, making the conspiracy’s goals impossible to achieve, even if the conspirators do not know that the Gov: ernment has intervened and are totally unaware that the conspiracy is bound to fail. In our view, this statement of the law is incorrect. A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government, unbeknownst to some of the conspirators, has “defeated]” the conspiracy’s “object.”
Two basic considerations convince us that this is the proper view of the law. First, the Ninth Circuit’s rule is inconsistent with our own understanding of basic conspiracy law. The Court has repeatedly said that the essence of a conspiracy is “an agreement to commit an unlawful act.” Iannelli v. United States, 420 U. S. 770, 777 (1975); see United States v. Shabani, 513 U. S. 10, 16 (1994); Braverman v. United States, 317 U. S. 49, 53 (1942). That agreement is “a distinct evil,” which “may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.” Salinas v. United States, 522 U. S. 52, 65 (1997). The conspiracy poses a “threat to the public” over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime — both because the “[combination in crime makes more likely the commission of [other] crimes” and because it “decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality.” Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 593-594 (1961); see also United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 88 (1915) (conspiracy “sometimes quite outweigh[s], in injury to the public, the mere commission of the contemplated crime”). Where police have frustrated a conspiracy’s specific objective but conspirators (unaware of that fact) have neither abandoned the conspiracy nor withdrawn, these special conspiracy-related dangers remain. Cf. 2 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.5, p. 85 (1986) (“[impossibility” does not terminate conspiracy because “criminal combinations are dangerous apart from the danger of attaining the particular objective”). So too remains the essence of the conspiracy — the agreement to commit the crime. That being so, the Government’s defeat of the conspiracy’s objective will not necessarily and automatically terminate the conspiracy.
Second, the view we endorse today is the view of almost all courts and commentators but for the Ninth Circuit. No other Federal Court of Appeals has adopted the Ninth Circuit’s rule. Three have explicitly rejected it. In United States v. Wallace, 85 F. 3d 1063, 1068 (CA2 1996), for example, the court said that the fact that a “conspiracy cannot actually be realized because of facts unknown to the conspirators is irrelevant.” See also United States v. Belardo-Quiñones, 71 F. 3d 941, 944 (CA1 1995) (conspiracy exists even if, unbeknownst to conspirators, crime is impossible to commit); United States v. LaBudda, 882 F. 2d 244, 248 (CA7 1989) (defendants can be found guilty of conspiracy even if conspiracy’s object “is unattainable from the very beginning”). One treatise, after surveying lower court conspiracy decisions, has concluded that “[impossibility of success is not a defense.” 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §6.5, at 85; see also id., § 6.5(b), at 90-93. And the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code §5.03, p. 384 (1985), would find that a conspiracy “terminates when the crime or crimes that are its object are committed” or when the relevant “agreement ... is abandoned.” It would not find “impossibility” a basis for termination.
The Cruz majority argued that the more traditional termination rule threatened “endless” potential liability. To illustrate the point, the majority posited a sting in which police instructed an arrested conspirator to go through the “telephone directory . . . [and] call all of his acquaintances” to come and help him, with the Government obtaining convictions of those who did so. 127 F. 3d, at 795, n. 3. The problem with this example, however, is that, even though it is not necessarily an example of entrapment itself, it draws its persuasive force from the fact that it bears certain resemblances to entrapment. The law independently forbids convictions that rest upon entrapment. See Jacobson v. United States, 503 U. S. 540, 548-549 (1992); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435, 442-445 (1932). And the example fails to explain why a different branch of the law, conspiracy law, should be modified to forbid entrapment-like behavior that falls outside the bounds of current entrapment law. Cf. United States v. Russell, 411 U. S. 423, 435 (1973) (“defense of entrapment . . . not intended to give the federal judiciary ... veto” over disapproved “law enforcement practices”). At the same time, the Cruz rule would reach well beyond arguable police misbehavior, potentially threatening the use of properly run law enforcement sting operations. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 208-209 (1966) (Government may “use decoys” and conceal agents’ identity); see also M. Lyman, Criminal Investigation 484-485 (2d ed. 1999) (explaining the importance of undercover operations in enforcing drug laws).
In tracing the origins of the statement of conspiracy law upon which the Cruz panel relied, we have found a 1982 Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Bloch, 696 F. 2d 1213, in which the court, referring to an earlier case, United States v. Krasn, 614 F. 2d 1229 (CA9 1980), changed the language of the traditional conspiracy termination rule. Krasn said that a conspiracy is “‘presumed to continue unless there is affirmative evidence that the defendant abandoned, withdrew from, or disavowed the conspiracy or defeated its purpose.’” Id., at 1236 (emphasis added). The Bloch panel changed the grammatical structure. It said that “a conspiracy is presumed to continue until there is .. . defeat of the purposes of the conspiracy.” 696 F. 2d, at 1215 (emphasis added). Later Ninth Circuit cases apparently read the change to mean that a conspiracy terminates, not only when the defendant defeats its objective, but also when someone else defeats that objective, perhaps the police. In Castro, the panel followed Bloch. 972 F. 2d, at 1112. In Cruz, the panel quoted Castro. 127 F. 3d, at 795. This history may help to explain the origin of the Cruz rule. But, since the Circuit’s earlier eases nowhere give any reason for the critical change of language, they cannot help to justify
III
We conclude that the Ninth Circuit’s conspiracy-termination law holding set forth in Cruz is erroneous in the manner discussed. We reverse the present judgment insofar as it relies upon that holding. Because Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza have raised other arguments not here considered, we remand the case, specifying that the Court of Appeals may consider those arguments, if they were properly raised.
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents issues arising out of the petitioners’ trial and conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for the armed robbery of a federally insured savings and loan association.
The evidence at trial showed that at about 1:45 p. m. on February 27, 1964, two men entered a Chicago savings and loan association. One of them pointed a gun at a teller and ordered her to put money into a sack which the gunman supplied. The men remained in the bank about five minutes. After they left, a bank employee rushed to the street and saw one of the men sitting on the passenger side of a departing white 1960 Thunderbird automobile with a large scrape on the right door. Within an hour police located in the vicinity a car matching this description. They discovered that it belonged to a Mrs. Rey, sister-in-law of petitioner Simmons. She told the police that she had loaned the car for the afternoon to her brother, William Andrews.
At about 5:15 p. m. the same day, two FBI agents came to the house of Mrs. Mahon, Andrews’ mother, about half a block from the place where the car was then parked. The agents had no warrant, and at trial it was disputed whether Mrs. Mahon gave them permission to search the house. They did search, and in the basement they found two suitcases, of which Mrs. Mahon disclaimed any knowledge. One suitcase contained, among other items, a gun holster, a sack similar to the one used in the robbery, and several coin cards and bill wrappers from the bank which had been robbed.
The following morning the FBI obtained from another of Andrews’ sisters some snapshots of Andrews and of petitioner Simmons, who was said by the sister to have been with Andrews the previous afternoon. These snapshots were shown to the five bank employees who had witnessed the robbery. Each witness identified pictures of Simmons as representing one of the robbers. A week or two later, three of these employees identified photographs of petitioner Garrett as depicting the other robber, the other two witnesses stating that they did not have a clear view of the second robber.
The petitioners, together with William Andrews, subsequently were indicted and tried for the robbery, as indicated. Just prior to the trial, Garrett moved to suppress the Government’s exhibit consisting of the suitcase containing the incriminating items. In order to establish his standing so to move, Garrett testified that, although he could not identify the suitcase with certainty, it was similar to one he had owned, and that he was the owner of clothing found inside the suitcase. The District Court denied the motion to suppress. Garrett’s testimony at the “suppression” hearing was admitted against him at trial.
During the trial, all five bank employee witnesses identified Simmons as one of the robbers. Three of them identified Garrett as the second robber, the other two testifying that they did not get a good look at the second robber. The District Court denied the petitioners’ request under 18 U. S. C. § 3500 (the so-called Jencks Act) for production of the photographs which had been shown to the witnesses before trial.
The jury found Simmons and Garrett, as well as Andrews, guilty as charged. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed as to Simmons and Garrett, but reversed the conviction of Andrews on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to connect him with the robbery. 371 F. 2d 296.
We granted certiorari as to Simmons and Garrett, 388 U. S. 906, to consider the following claims. First, Simmons asserts that his pretrial identification by means of photographs was in the circumstances so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to misidentification as to deny him due process of law, or at least to require reversal of his conviction in the exercise of our supervisory power over the lower federal courts. Second, both petitioners contend that the District Court erred in refusing defense requests for production under 18 U. S. C. § 3500 of the pictures of the petitioners which were shown to eyewitnesses prior to trial. Third, Garrett urges that his constitutional rights were violated when testimony given by him in support of his “suppression” motion was admitted against him at trial. For reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to Simmons, but reverse as to Garrett.
I.
The facts as to the identification claim are these. As has been noted previously, FBI agents on the day following the robbery obtained from Andrews’ sister a number of snapshots of Andrews and Simmons. There seem to have been at least six of these pictures, consisting mostly of group photographs of Andrews, Simmons, and others. Later the same day, these were shown to the five bank employees who had witnessed the robbery at their place of work, the photographs being exhibited to each employee separately. Each of the five employees identified Simmons from the photographs. At later dates, some of these witnesses were again interviewed by the FBI and shown indeterminate numbers of pictures. Again, all identified Simmons. At trial, the Government did not introduce any of the photographs, but relied upon in-court identification by the five eyewitnesses, each of whom swore that Simmons was one of the robbers.
In support of his argument, Simmons looks to last Term’s “lineup” decisions — United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 — in which this Court first departed from the rule that the manner of an extra-judicial identification affects only the weight, not the admissibility, of identification testimony at trial. The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any “critical stage of the prosecution,” and that a post-indictment lineup is such a “critical stage.” See 388 U. S., at 236-237. Simmons, however, does not contend that he was entitled to counsel at the time the pictures were shown to the witnesses. Rather, he asserts simply that in the circumstances the identification procedure was so unduly prejudicial as fatally to taint his conviction. This is a claim which must be evaluated in light of the totality of surrounding circumstances. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, at 302; Palmer v. Peyton, 359 F. 2d 199. Viewed in that context, we find the claim untenable.
It must be recognized that improper employment of photographs by police may sometimes cause witnesses to err in identifying criminals. A witness may have obtained only a brief glimpse of a criminal, or may have seen him under poor conditions. Even if the police subsequently follow the most correct photographic identification procedures and show him the pictures of a number of individuals without indicating whom they suspect, there is some danger that the witness may make an incorrect identification. This danger will be increased if the police display to the witness only the picture of a single individual who generally resembles the person he saw, or if they show him the pictures of several persons among which the photograph of a single such individual recurs or is in some way emphasized. The chance of misidentification is also heightened if the police indicate to the witness that they have other evidence that one of the persons pictured committed the crime. Regardless of how the initial misidentification comes about, the witness thereafter is apt to retain in his memory the image of the photograph rather than of the person actually seen, reducing the trustworthiness of subsequent lineup or courtroom identification.
Despite the hazards of initial identification by photograph, this procedure has been used widely and effectively in criminal law enforcement, from the standpoint both of apprehending offenders and of sparing innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing eyewitnesses to exonerate them through scrutiny of photographs. The danger that use of the technique may result in convictions based on misidentification may be substantially lessened by a course of cross-examination at trial which exposes to the jury the method’s potential for error. We are unwilling to prohibit its employment, either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement. Instead, we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermis-sibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. This standard accords with our resolution of a similar issue in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 301-302, and with decisions of other courts on the question of identification by photograph.
Applying the standard to this case, we conclude that petitioner Simmons’ claim on this score must fail. In the first place, it is not suggested that it was unnecessary for the FBI to resort to photographic identification in this instance. A serious felony had been committed. The perpetrators were still at large. The inconclusive clues which law enforcement officials possessed led to Andrews and Simmons. It was essential for the FBI agents swiftly to determine whether they were on the right track, so that they could properly deploy their forces in Chicago and, if necessary, alert officials in other cities. The justification for this method of procedure was hardly less compelling than that which we found to justify the “one-man lineup” in Stovall v. Denno, supra.
In the second place, there was in the circumstances of this case little chance that the procedure utilized led to misidentification of Simmons. The robbery took place in the afternoon in a well-lighted bank. The robbers wore no masks. Five bank employees had been able to see the robber later identified as Simmons for periods ranging up to five minutes. Those witnesses were shown the photographs only a day later, while their memories were still fresh. At least six photographs were displayed to each witness. Apparently, these consisted primarily of group photographs, with Simmons and Andrews each appearing several times in the series. Each witness was alone when he or she saw the photographs. There is no evidence to indicate that the witnesses were told anything about the progress of the investigation, or that the FBI agents in any other way suggested which persons in the pictures were under suspicion.
Under these conditions, all five eyewitnesses identified Simmons as one of the robbers. None identified Andrews, who apparently was as prominent in the photographs as Simmons. These initial identifications were confirmed by all five witnesses in subsequent viewings of photographs and at trial, where each witness identified Simmons in person. Notwithstanding cross-examination, none of the witnesses displayed any doubt about their respective identifications of Simmons. Taken together, these circumstances leave little' room for doubt that the identification of Simmons was correct, even though the identification procedure employed may have in some respects fallen short of the ideal. We hold that in the factual surroundings of this case the identification procedure used was not such as to deny Simmons due process of law or to call for reversal under our supervisory authority.
II.
It is next contended, by both petitioners, that in any event the District Court erred in refusing a defense request that the photographs shown to the witnesses prior to trial be turned over to the defense for purposes of cross-examination. This claim to production is based on 18 U. S. C. § 3500, the so-called Jencks Act. That Act, passed in response to this Court’s decision in Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657, provides that after a witness has testified for the Government in a federal criminal prosecution the Government must, on request of the defense, produce any “statement ... of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.” For the Act’s purposes, as they relate to this case, a “statement” is defined as “a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him . . . .”
Written statements of this kind were taken from all five eyewitnesses by the FBI on the day of the robbery. Apparently none were taken thereafter. When these statements were produced by the Government at trial pursuant to § 3500, the defense also claimed the right to look at the photographs “under 3500.” The District Judge denied these requests.
The petitioners’ theory seems to be that the photographs were incorporated in the written statements of the witnesses, and that they therefore had to be produced under § 3500. The legislative history of the Jencks Act does confirm that photographs must be produced if they constitute a part of a written statement. However, the record in this case does not bear out the petitioners’ claim that the pictures involved here were part of the statements which were approved by the witnesses and, therefore, producible under § 3500. It appears that all such statements were made on the day of the robbery. At that time, the FBI and police had no pictures of the petitioners. The first pictures were not acquired and shown to the witnesses until the morning of the following day. Hence, they could not possibly have been a part of the statements made and approved by the witnesses the day of the robbery.
The petitioners seem also to suggest that, quite apart from § 3500, the District Court’s refusal of their request for the photographs amounted to an abuse of discretion. The photographs were not referred to by the Government in its case-in-chief. They were first asked for by the defense after the direct examination of the first eyewitness, on the second day of the trial. When the defense requested the pictures, counsel for the Government noted that there were a “multitude” of pictures and stated that it might be difficult to identify those which were shown to particular witnesses. However, he indicated that the Government was willing to furnish all of the pictures, if they could be found. The District Court, referring to the fact that production of the photographs was not required under § 3500, stated that it would not stop the trial in order to have the pictures made available.
Although the pictures might have been of some assistance to the defense, and although it doubtless would have been preferable for the Government to have labeled the pictures shown to each witness and kept them available for trial, we hold that in the circumstances the refusal of the District Court to order their production did not amount to an abuse of discretion, at least as to petitioner Simmons. The defense surely knew that photographs had played a role in the identification process. Yet there was no attempt to have the pictures produced prior to trial pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16. When production of the pictures was sought at trial, the defense did not explain why they were needed, but simply argued that production was required under § 3500. Moreover, the strength of the eyewitness identifications of Simmons renders it highly unlikely that nonproduction of the photographs caused him any prejudice.
III.
Finally, it is contended that it was reversible error to allow the Government to use against Garrett on the issue of guilt the testimony given by him upon his unsuccessful motion to suppress as evidence the suitcase seized from Mrs. Mahon’s basement and its contents. That testimony established that Garrett was the owner of the suitcase.
In order to effectuate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, this Court long ago conferred upon defendants in federal prosecutions the right, upon motion and proof, to have excluded from trial evidence which had been secured by means of an unlawful search and seizure. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383. More recently, this Court has held that “the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . . . .” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 657.
However, we have also held that rights assured by the Fourth Amendment are personal rights, and that they may be enforced by exclusion of evidence only at the instance of one whose own protection was infringed by the search and seizure. See, e. g., Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 260-261. At one time, a defendant who wished to assert a Fourth Amendment objection was required to show that he was the owner or possessor of the seized property or that he had a possessory interest in the searched premises. In part to avoid having to resolve the issue presented by this case, we relaxed those standing requirements in two alternative ways in Jones v. United States, supra. First, we held that when, as in- Jones, possession of the seized evidence is itself an essential element of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the Government is precluded from denying that the defendant has the requisite possessory interest to challenge the admission of the evidence. Second, we held alternatively that the defendant need have no pos-sessory interest in the searched premises in order to have standing; it is sufficient that he be legitimately on those premises when the search occurs. Throughout this case, petitioner Garrett has justifiably, and without challenge from the Government, proceeded on the assumption that the standing requirements must be satisfied. On that premise, he contends that testimony given by a defendant to meet such requirements should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence. We agree.
Under the standing rules set out in Jones, there will be occasions, even in prosecutions for nonpossessory offenses, when a defendant’s testimony will be needed to establish standing. This case serves as an example. Garrett evidently was not in Mrs. Mahon’s house at the time his suitcase was seized from her basement. The only, or at least the most natural, way in which he could found standing to object to the admission of the suitcase was to testify that he was its owner. Thus, his testimony is to be regarded as an integral part of his Fourth Amendment exclusion claim. Under the rule laid down by the courts below, he could give that testimony only by assuming the risk that the testimony would later be admitted against him at trial. Testimony of this kind, which links a defendant to evidence which the Government considers important enough to seize and to seek to have admitted at trial, must often be highly prejudicial to a defendant. This case again serves as an example, for Garrett’s admitted ownership of a suitcase which only a few hours after the robbery was found to contain money wrappers taken from the victimized bank was undoubtedly a strong piece of evidence against him. Without his testimony, the Government might have found it hard to prove that he was the owner of the suitcase.
The dilemma faced by defendants like Garrett is most extreme in prosecutions for possessory crimes, for then the testimony required for standing itself proves an element of the offense. We eliminated that Hobson’s choice in Jones v. United States, supra, by relaxing the standing requirements. This Court has never considered squarely the question whether defendants charged with non-possessory crimes, like Garrett, are entitled to be relieved of their dilemma entirely. The lower courts which have considered the matter, both before and after Jones, have with two exceptions agreed with the holdings of the courts below that the defendant’s testimony may be admitted when, as here, the motion to suppress has failed. The reasoning of some of these courts would seem to suggest that the testimony would be admissible even if the motion to suppress had succeeded, but the only court which has actually decided that question held that when the motion to suppress succeeds the testimony given in support of it is excludable as a “fruit” of the unlawful search. The rationale for admitting the testimony when the motion fails has been that the testimony is voluntarily given and relevant, and that it is therefore entitled to admission on the same basis as any other prior testimony or admission of a party.
It seems obvious that a defendant who knows that his testimony may be admissible against him at trial will sometimes be deterred from presenting the testimonial proof of standing necessary to assert a Fourth Amendment claim. The likelihood of inhibition is greatest when the testimony is known to be admissible regardless of the outcome of the motion to suppress. But even in jurisdictions where the admissibility of the testimony depends upon the outcome of the motion, there will be a deterrent effect in those marginal cases in which it cannot be estimated with confidence whether the motion will succeed. Since search-and-seizure claims depend heavily upon their individual facts, and since the law of search and seizure is in a state of flux, the incidence of such marginal cases cannot be said to be negligible. In such circumstances, a defendant with a substantial claim for the exclusion of evidence may conclude that the admission of the evidence, together with the Government’s proof linking it to him, is preferable to risking the admission of his own testimony connecting himself with the seized evidence.
The rule adopted by the courts below does not merely impose upon a defendant a condition which may deter him from asserting a Fourth Amendment objection — it imposes a condition of a kind to which this Court has always been peculiarly sensitive. For a defendant who wishes to establish standing must do so at the risk that the words which he utters may later be used to incriminate him. Those courts which have allowed the admission of testimony given to establish standing have reasoned that there is no violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause because the testimony was voluntary. As an abstract matter, this may well be true. A defendant is “compelled” to testify in support of a motion to suppress only in the sense that if he refrains from testifying he will have to forgo a benefit, and testimony is not always involuntary as a matter of law simply because it is given to obtain a benefit. However, the assumption which underlies this reasoning is that the defendant has a choice: he may refuse to testify and give up the benefit. When this assumption is applied to a situation in which the “benefit” to be gained is that afforded by another provision of the Bill of Rights, an undeniable tension is created. Thus, in this case Garrett was obliged either to give up what he believed, with advice of counsel, to be a valid Fourth Amendment claim or, in legal effect, to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In these circumstances, we find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another. We therefore hold that when a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, his testimony may not thereafter be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he makes no objection.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals so far as it relates to petitioner Simmons. We reverse the judgment with respect to petitioner Garrett, and as to him remand the case to the Court of Appeals 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.
Mrs. Mahon also testified that at about 3:30 p. m. the same day six men with guns forced their way into and ransacked her house. However, these men were never identified, and they apparently took nothing.
See P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases 74-77 (1965).
See id., at 82-83.
See id., at 68-70.
See, e. g., People v. Evans, 39 Cal. 2d 242, 246 P. 2d 636.
The reliability of the identification procedure could have been increased by allowing only one or two of the five eyewitnesses to view the pictures of Simmons. If thus identified, Simmons could later have been displayed to the other eyewitnesses in a lineup, thus permitting the photographic identification to be supplemented by a corporeal identification, which is normally more accurate. See P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases 83 (1965); Williams, Identification Parades, [1955] Crim. L. Rev. 525, 531. Also, it probably would have been preferable for the witnesses to have been shown more than six snapshots, for those snapshots to have pictured a greater number of individuals, and for there to have been proportionally fewer pictures of Simmons. See Wall, supra, at 74-82; Williams, supra, at 530.
In the discussion of the bill on the floor of the Senate, Senator O’Mahoney, sponsor of the bill in the Senate, stated that photographs per se were not required to be produced under the bill, but that “[i]f the pictures have anything to do with the statement of the witness ... of course that would be part of it . . . 103 Cong. Rec. 16489.
See P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases 84 (1965); Williams, Identification Parades, [1955] Crim. L. Rev. 525, 530.
Garrett was also initially identified from photographs, but at a later date than Simmons. He was identified by fewer witnesses than was Simmons, and even those witnesses had less opportunity to see him during the robbery than they did Simmons. The record is opaque as to the number and type of photographs of Garrett which were shown to these witnesses, and as to the circumstances of the showings. However, it is unnecessary to decide whether Garrett was prejudiced by the District Court’s failure to order production of the pictures at trial, since we are reversing Garrett’s conviction on other grounds.
Although petitioner Simmons objected at trial to the admission of Garrett’s testimony, the claim was not pressed on his behalf here. Garrett did not mention Simmons in his testimony, and the District Court instructed the jury to consider the testimony only with reference to Garrett.
See, e. g., Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, at 262; Edwards, Standing to Suppress Unreasonably Seized Evidence, 47 Nw. U. L. Rev. 471 (1952).
It has been suggested that the adoption of a “police-deterrent” rationale for the exclusionary rule, see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, logically dictates that a defendant should be able to object to the admission against him of any unconstitutionally seized evidence. See Comment, Standing to Object to an Unreasonable Search and Seizure, 34 U. Chi. L. Rev. 342 (1967); Note, Standing to Object to an Unlawful Search and Seizure, 1965 Wash. U. L. Q. 488. However, that argument is not advanced in this case, and we do not consider it.
The record shows that Mrs. Mahon, the owner of the premises from which the suitcase was taken, disclaimed all knowledge of its presence there and of its ownership.
The Government concedes that there were no identifying mkrks on the outside of the suitcase. See Brief for the United States 33.
In Jones, the only reference to the subject was a statement that “[The defendant] has been faced . . . with the chance that the allegations made on the motion to suppress may be used against him at the trial, although that they may is by no means an inevitable holding . . . .” 362 U. S., at 262.
See Heller v. United States, 57 F. 2d 627; Kaiser v. United States, 60 F. 2d 410; Fowler v. United States, 239 F. 2d 93; Monroe v. United States, 320 F. 2d 277; United States v. Taylor, 326 F. 2d 277; United States v. Airdo, 380 F. 2d 103; United States v. Lindsly, 7 F. 2d 247, rev’d on other grounds, 12 F. 2d 771. Contra, see Bailey v. United States, 128 U. S. App. D. C. 354, 389 F. 2d 305; United States v. Lewis, 270 F. Supp. 807, 810, n. 1 (dictum).
See, e. g., Heller v. United States, 57 F. 2d 627; Monroe v. United States, 320 F. 2d 277.
See Safarik v. United States, 62 F. 2d 892, rehearing denied, 63 F. 2d 369. Accord, Fowler v. United States, 239 F. 2d 93 (dictum); cf. Fabri v. United States, 24 F. 2d 185.
See eases cited in n. 16, supra.
See, e. g., United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, 63.
E. g., compare Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, with Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298; compare Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, with Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360.
See, e. g., Heller v. United States, 57 F. 2d 627.
For example, testimony given for his own benefit by a plaintiff in a civil suit is admissible against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution. See 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1066 (3d ed. 1940); 8 id., §2276 (MeNaughton rev. 1961).
Ibid.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
in which Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Whittaker and Mr. Justice Stewart join, and judgment of the Court, announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.
This is an action brought in the Supreme Court of Richmond County, New York, for a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutional validity of § 8 of the New York Waterfront Commission Act of 1953 (N. Y. Laws 1953, cc. 882, 883; McK. Unconsol. Laws, § 6700aa et seq.), and for an injunction restraining its operation. The section is claimed to be in conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; it is also challenged under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as an ex post facto law and bill of attainder forbidden by Art. I, § 10, of the Constitution.
The Waterfront Commission Act formulates a detailed scheme for governmental supervision of employment on the waterfront in the Port of New York. The relevant part of the specific provision, § 8, under attack follows:
“No person shall solicit, collect or receive any dues, assessments, levies, fines or contributions within the state from employees registered or licensed pursuant to the provisions of this act [pi'er superintendents, hiring agents, longshoremen and port watchmen] for or on behalf of any labor organization representing any such employees, if any officer or agent of such organization has been convicted by a court of the United States, or any state or territory thereof, of a felony unless he has been subsequently pardoned therefor by the governor or other appropriate authority of the state or jurisdiction in which such conviction was had or has received a certificate of good conduct from the board of parole pursuant to the provisions of the executive law to remove the disability.”
The complaint upon which this action is based makes the following allegations. Appellant was a member, and beginning in 1950 had been Secretary-Treasurer, of Local 1346, International Longshoremen’s Association, a labor organization with offices in Richmond County, New York, representing “employees registered or licensed pursuant to” the Waterfront Commission Act. As Secretary-Treasurer appellant had control of the Local’s funds and also served as a bargaining representative. In 1920 appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge of grand larceny in New York and had received a suspended sentence. It is not alleged that appellant has ever applied for or received a pardon or a “certificate of good conduct.” Three years after the enactment of the Waterfront Commission Act, in 1956, the President of the International Longshoremen’s Association was informed by the appellee, who was and is the District Attorney of Richmond County, New York, that because of appellant’s conviction § 8 of the Act prohibited any person from collecting dues on behalf of Local 1346, so long as appellant remained its officer or agent. Appellee threatened to prosecute anyone collecting dues for the Local while appellant remained its officer. By reason of § 8 and this threat appellant was suspended as an officer of Local 1346, whereupon he brought this action.
The appellee moved to dismiss the complaint, and for judgment on the pleadings in his favor. This motion was granted. The court, holding that appellant’s 1920 conviction was a conviction for a felony within the meaning of § 8, sustained the validity of that section. 11 Misc. 2d 661, 166 N. Y. S. 2d 751. This judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, 5 A. D. 2d 603, 174 N. Y. S. 2d 596, and by the Court of Appeals of New York, 5 N. Y. 2d 236, 157 N. E. 2d 165. See also Hazelton v. Murray, 21 N. J. 115, 121 A. 2d 1. Since a statute of a State has been upheld by the highest court of the State against a federal constitutional attack, the case is properly here on appeal. 361 U. S. 806.
Due consideration of the constitutional claims that are made requires that § 8 be placed in the context of the structure and history of the legislation of which it is a part. The New York Waterfront Commission Act was an endeavor by New York and New Jersey to cope with long-standing evils on their joint waterfront in the Port of New York. The solution which was evolved between the two States embodies not only legislation by each but also joint action by way of a constitutional compact between them, approved by Congress, including the establishment of a bi-state Waterfront Commission.
For years the New York waterfront presented a notoriously serious situation. Urgent need for drastic reform was generally recognized. Thoroughgoing investigations of the mounting abuses were begun in 1951 by the New York State Crime Commission and the Law Enforcement Council of New Jersey. After extensive hearings, the New York Crime Commission in May 1953 published a detailed report (4th Report of the New York State Crime Commission, New York State Leg. Doc. No. 70 (1953)) on the evils its investigation disclosed and the legislative remedies these were thought to require. The Commission reported that the skulduggeries on the waterfront were largely due to the domination over waterfront employment gained by the International Longshoremen's Association, as then conducted. Its employment practices easily led to corruption, and many of its officials participated in dishonesties. The presence on the waterfront of convicted felons in many influential positions was an important causative factor in this appalling situation. It was thus described to Congress in the compact submitted by New York and New Jersey for its consent:
. . the conditions under which waterfront labor is employed within the Port of New York district are depressing and degrading to such labor, resulting from the lack of any systematic method of hiring, the lack of adequate information as to the availability of employment, corrupt hiring practices and the fact that persons conducting such hiring are frequently criminals and persons notoriously lacking in moral character and integrity and neither responsive or responsible to the employers nor to the uncoerced will of the majority of the members of the labor organizations of the employees; that as a result waterfront laborers suffer from irregularity of employment, fear and insecurity, inadequate earnings, an unduly high accident rate, subjection to borrowing at usurious rates of interest, exploitation and extortion as the price of securing employment and a loss of respect for the law; that not only does there result a destruction of the dignity of an important segment of American labor, but a direct encouragement of crime which imposes a levy of greatly increased costs on food, fuel and other necessaries handled in and through the Port of New York district.
. . many of the evils above described result not only from the causes above described but from the practices of public loaders at piers and other waterfront terminals; that such public loaders serve no valid economic purpose and operate as parasites exacting a high and unwarranted toll on the flow of commerce in and through the Port of New York district, and have used force and engaged in discriminatory and coercive practices including extortion against persons not desiring to employ them; . . .
“. . . stevedores have engaged in corrupt practices to induce their hire by carriers of freight by water and to induce officers and representatives of labor organizations to betray their trust to the members of such labor organizations.” 67 Stat. 541-542.
Shortly after the Crime Commission submitted its report, the Governor of New York conducted hearings based upon the Crime Commission report. As a result, a Waterfront Commission Act was introduced into and passed by the Legislatures of both States in June 1953. N. Y. Laws 1953, cc. 882, 883; N. J. Laws 1953, cc. 202, 203.
Part I of both Acts constitutes what became the compact between the two States. This is the heart of the legislation. It establishes as a bi-state agency a Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor with power to license, register and regulate the waterfront employment of pier superintendents, hiring agents, longshoremen and port watchmen, and to license and regulate stevedores. It entirely prohibits one class of waterfront employment, public loading, found to be unnecessary and particularly infested with corruption. Manifestly, one of the main aims of the compact is to keep criminals away from the waterfront. The issue of licenses to engage in waterfront occupations, or the right to be registered, depends upon findings by the Commission of good character. In particular, past convictions for certain felonies constitute specific disabilities for each occupation, with discretion in the Commission to lift the disability, except in the case of port watchmen, where it constitutes an absolute bar to waterfront employment. A new procedure for the employment of longshoremen is also provided under the supervision of the Commission, replacing the archaic, corrupt “shape-up.”
Under the requirement of Art. I, § 10, of the Constitution the compact was submitted to the Congress for its consent, and it was approved. This was no perfunctory consent. Congress had independently investigated the evils that gave rise to the Waterfront Commission Acts, and the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce had in a Report endorsed the state legislative solution embodied in these Acts. See S. Rep. No. 653, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 49-50. After the compact’s submission to Congress, hearings were held upon it by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at which arguments were made by interested parties for and against the compact. Approval was recommended by both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The House Committee concluded that “ [t]he extensive evidence of crime, corruption, and racketeering-on the waterfront of the port of New York, as disclosed by the State investigations reported to this committee at its hearings and by the recent report of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce [S. Rep. No. 653, supra], has made it clear beyond all question that the plan proposed by the States of New York and New Jersey to eradicate those public evils is urgently needed.” H. R. Rep. No. 998, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1. The Senate Committee Report stated its conclusion in similar terms. S. Rep.. No. 583, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1. The compact was approved by Congress in August 1953. Act of Aug. 12, 1953, 67 Stat. 541, c. 407.
In addition to the compact, New York enacted, as Parts II and III of its 1953 Waterfront Commission Act, supplementary legislation dealing, in most part, with the administration of New York’s responsibility under the compact. This supplementary legislation also contains two substantive provisions in furtherance of the objectives of the compact, but not calling for bi-state enforcement, and thus not included in the compact. These are § 8, which is here challenged, and a prohibition against loitering on the waterfront. New Jersey enacted a supplementary provision essentially similar to § 8. N. J. Laws, 1953, c. 202, § 8. Although § 8 does not require enforcement by the bi-state Waterfront Commission, and was therefore not formally submitted as part of the compact to Congress, in giving its approval to the compact Congress explicitly gave its authority to such supplementary legislation in accord with the objectives of the compact by providing in the clause granting consent “[t]hat the consent of Congress is hereby given to the compact set forth . . . and to the carrying out and effec-tuation of said compact, and enactments in furtherance thereof.”
In giving this authorization Congress was fully mindful of the specific provisions of § 8. Not only had § 8 already been enacted by the States as part of the Waterfront Commission Acts when the compact was submitted to Congress, but, in the hearings held before the House Committee on the Judiciary, it was specifically urged by counsel for the International Longshoremen’s Association, as a ground of opposition to congressional consent, that approval of the compact by Congress would carry with it sanction of § 8. See Hearing before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., on H. R. 6286, H. R. 6321, H. R. 6343, and S. 2383, p. 136. The ground of objection to the section which is appellant’s primary reliance here, namely, that it conflicts with existing federal labor policy, was urged as ground for rejecting the compact. It is in light of this legislative history that the compact was approved, and that congressional consent was given to “enactments in furtherance thereof.”
With this background in mind, we come to consider appellant’s objection that § 8 is in conflict with and therefore pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act, specifically §§ 1 and 7 of that Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 151, 157. The argument takes this course. Section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act declares a congressional purpose to protect “the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 7 grants employees “the right ... to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” Under § 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act, waterfront employees do not have complete freedom of choice in the selection of their representatives, for if they choose a convicted felon the union is disabled from collecting dues. Thus, it is said, with reliance on Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538, there is a conflict and the state legislation must fall.
This is not a situation where the operation of a state statute so obviously contradicts a federal enactment that it would preclude both from functioning together or, at least, would impede the effectiveness of the federal measure. Section 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act does not operate to deprive waterfront employees of opportunity to choose bargaining representatives. It does disable them from choosing as their representatives ex-felons who have neither been pardoned nor received “good conduct” certificates. The fact that there is some restriction due to the operation of state law does not settle the issue of pre-emption. The doctrine of pre-emption does not present a problem in physics but one of adjustment because of the interdependence of federal and state interests and of the interaction of federal and state powers. Obviously, the National Labor Relations Act does not exclude every state policy that may in fact restrict the complete freedom of a group of employees to designate “representatives of their own choosing.” For example, by reason of the National Labor Relations Act a State surely is not forbidden to convict and imprison a defendant in a criminal case merely because he is a union official and therefore could not serve as a bargaining representative.
It would misconceive the constitutional doctrine of preemption — of the exclusion because of federal regulation of what otherwise is conceded state power — to decide this case mechanically on an absolute concept of free choice of representatives on the part of employees, heedless of the light that Congress has shed for our guidance. The relevant question is whether we may fairly infer a congressional purpose incompatible with the very narrow and historically explained restrictions upon the choice of a bargaining representative embodied in § 8 of the New York Waterfront Commission Act. Would Congress, with a lively regard for its own federal labor policy, find in this state enactment a true, real frustration, however dialectically plausible, of that policy?
In light of the purpose, scope and background of this New York legislation and Congress’ relation to it, such an inference of incompatibility has no foundation. In this case we need not imaginatively summon the likely reaction of Congress to the state legislation, as a basis for ascertaining whether due regard for congressional purpose bars the state regulation. Here the States presented their legislative program to cope with an urgent local problem to the Congress, and the Congress unambiguously supported what is at the core of this reform. Had § 8 been written into the compact, even the most subtle casuistry could not conjure up a claim of pre-emption.
Here the challenged state legislation was not in terms approved by Congress, but was part of the legislative history and of the revealed purpose of the compact which was approved. Formal inclusion of § 8 in the compact was not called for since its enforcement was to be unilateral on the part of each State. Both New York and New Jersey enacted § 8 at the time they enacted the proposed compact. Section 8 is the same kind of regulation as is contained in the compact: it effectively disqualifies ex-felons from waterfront union office, just as the compact makes prior conviction of certain felonies a bar to waterfront employment, unless there is a favorable exercise of executive discretion. The total state legislative program represents a drastic effort to rid the waterfront of criminal elements by generally excluding ex-felons. What sensible reason is there to suppose that Congress would approve the major part of this local effort, as it has expressly done through its approval of the compact, and disapprove its application to union officials who, as history proved, had emerged as a powerful and corrupting influence on the waterfront second to none?
This is not all. As we have seen, § 8 was brought to the attention of Congress as part of the legislation which would come into effect as an adjunct to the compact, and the objection was raised at that time and not heeded that § 8 unduly interfered with federal labor policy. Finally, it is of great significance that in approving the compact Congress did not merely remain silent regarding supplementary legislation by the States. Congress expressly gave its consent to such implementing legislation not formally part of the compact. This provision in the consent by Congress to a compact is so extraordinary as to be unique in the history of compacts. Of all the instances of congressional approval of state compacts — the process began in 1791, Act of Feb. 4, 1791, 1 Stat. 189, with more than one hundred compacts approved since — we have found no other in which Congress expressly gave its consent to implementing legislation. It is instructive that this unique provision has occurred in connection with approval of a compact dealing with the prevention of crime where, because of the peculiarly local nature of the problem, the inference is strongest that local policies are not to be thwarted.
The sum of these considerations is that it would offend reason to attribute to Congress a purpose to pre-empt the state regulation contained in § 8. The decision in Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538, in no wise obstructs this conclusion. An element most persuasive here, congressional approval of the heart of the state legislative program explicitly-brought to its attention, was not present in that case. Nor was it true of Hill v. Florida, as it is here, that the challenged state legislation was part of a program, fully canvassed by Congress through its own investigations, to vindicate a legitimate and compelling state interest, namely, the interest in combatting local crime infesting a particular industry.
Appellant also asks us to find evidence of federal preemption of § 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act in the enactment by Congress of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 519. Title V of the 1959 Act imposes restrictions upon union officers, and defines qualifications for such officers. Specifically, § 504 (a) provides that “[n]o person . . . who has been convicted of, or served any part of a prison term resulting from his conviction of [a group of serious felonies] . . . shall serve — (1) as an officer, director, trustee, member of any executive board or similar governing body, business agent, manager, organizer, or other employee (other than as an employee performing exclusively clerical or custodial duties) of any labor organization ... for five years after . . . such conviction or after the end of such imprisonment, unless prior to the end of such five-year period, in the case of a person so convicted or imprisoned, (A) his citizenship rights, having been revoked as a result of such conviction, have been fully restored, or (B) the Board of Parole of the United States Department of Justice determines that such person’s service in any capacity referred to in clause (1) . . . would not be contrary to the purposes of this Act.”
The fact that Congress itself has thus imposed the same type of restriction upon employees' freedom to choose bargaining representatives as New York seeks to impose through § 8, namely, disqualification of ex-felons for union office, is surely evidence that Congress does not view such a restriction as incompatible with its labor policies. Appellant, however, argues that any state disablement from holding union office on account of a prior felony conviction, such as § 8, which has terms at variance with § 504 (a), is impliedly barred by it. Just the opposite conclusion is indicated by the 1959 Act, which reflects congressional awareness of the problems of pre-emption in the area of labor legislation, and which did not leave the solution of questions of pre-emption to inference. When Congress meant pre-emption to flow from the 1959 Act it expressly so provided. Sections 205 (c) and 403, set out in the margin, are express provisions excluding the operation of state law,, supplementing provisions for new federal regulation. No such pre-emption provision was provided in connection with § 504 (a). That alone is sufficient reason for not deciding that § 504 (a) preempts § 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act. In addition, two sections of the 1959 Act, both relevant to this case, affirmatively preserve the operation of state laws. That § 504 (a) was not to restrict state criminal law enforcement regarding the felonies there enumerated as federal bars to union office is provided by § 604 of the 1959 Act': “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair or diminish the authority of any State to enact and enforce general criminal laws with respect to [the same group of serious felonies, with the exception of exclusively federal violations, which are listed in § 504 (a)].” And to make the matter conclusive, § 603 (a) is an express disclaimer of pre-emption of state laws regulating the responsibilities of union officials, except where such pre-emption is expressly provided in the 1959 Act. Section 603 (a) provides: “Except as explicitly provided to the contrary, nothing in this Act shall reduce or limit the responsibilities of any labor organization or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization . . . under the laws of any State . . . .” In view of this explicit and elaborate treatment of pre-emption in the 1959 Act, no inference can possibly arise that § 8 is impliedly pre-empted by § 504 (a).
Appellant’s argument that § 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act is contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment depends, as it must, upon the proposition that barring convicted felons from waterfront union office, unless they are pardoned, or receive a “good conduct” certificate, is not, in the context of the particular circumstances which gave rise to the legislation, a reasonable means for achieving a legitimate state aim, namely, eliminating corruption on the waterfront.
In disqualifying all convicted felons from union office unless executive discretion is exercised in their favor, § 8 may well be deemed drastic legislation. But in the view of Congress and the two States involved the situation on the New York waterfront regarding the presence and influence of ex-convicts called for drastic action. Legislative investigation had established that the presence of ex-convicts on the waterfront was not a minor episode but constituted a principal corrupting influence. The Senate Subcommittee which investigated for Congress conditions on the New York waterfront found that “[criminals whose long records belie any suggestion that they can be reformed have been monopolizing controlling positions in the International Longshoremen's Association and in local unions. ’ Under their regimes gambling, the narcotics traffic, loansharking, shortganging, payroll 'phantoms,' the 'shakedown' in all its forms — and the brutal ultimate of murder — have flourished, often virtually unchecked.'' S. Rep. No. 653, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. (1953), p. 7.
In light of these findings, and other evidence to the same effect, the Congress approved as appropriate if indeed not necessary a compact, one of the central devices of which was to bar convicted felons from waterfront employment, and from acting as stevedores employing others, either absolutely, or in the Waterfront Commission’s discretion. No positions on the waterfront were more conducive to its criminal past than those of union officials, and none, if left unregulated, were felt to be more able to impede the waterfront’s reform. Duly mindful as we are of the promising record of rehabilitation by ex-felons, and of the emphasis on rehabilitation by modern penological efforts, it is not for this Court to substitute its judgment for that of Congress and the Legislatures of New York and New Jersey regarding the social surgery required by a situation as gangrenous as exposure of the New York waterfront had revealed.
Barring convicted felons from certain employments is a familiar legislative device to insure against corruption in specified, vital areas. Federal law has frequently and of old utilized this type of disqualification. Convicted felons are not entitled to be enlisted or mustered into the United States Army, or into the Air Force, but “the Secretary . . . may authorize exceptions, in meritorious cases.” 10 U. S. C. §§ 3253, 8253. This statute dates from 1833. A citizen is not competent to serve on federal grand or petit juries if he has been “convicted in a State or Federal court of record of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and and [sic] his civil rights have not been restored by pardon or amnesty.” 28 U. S. C. § 1861. In addition, a large group of federal statutes disqualify persons “from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States” because of their conviction of certain crimes, generally involving official misconduct. 18 U. S. C. §§ 202, 205, 206, 207, 216, 281, 282, 592, 1901, 2071, 2381. For other examples in the federal statutes see 18 U. S. C. § 2387; 5 U. S. C. § 2282; 8 U. S. C. § 1481. State provisions disqualifying convicted felons from certain employments important to the public interest also have a long history. See, e. g., Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189. And it is to be noted that in § 504 (a) of the 1959 Federal Labor Act, qu.oted earlier in this opinion, Congress adopted this same solution in its attempt to rid all unions of criminal elements. Just as New York and New Jersey have done, the 1959 Federal Act makes a prior felony conviction a bar to union office unless there is a favorable exercise of executive discretion. In the face of this wide utilization of disqualification of convicted felons for certain employments closely touching the public interest, remitting them to executive discretion to have the bar removed, we cannot say that it was not open to New York to clean up its waterfront in the way it has. New York was not guessing or indulging in airy assumptions that convicted felons constituted a deleterious influence on the waterfront. It was acting on impressive if mortifying evidence that the presence on the waterfront of ex-convicts was an important contributing factor to the corrupt waterfront situation.
Finally, § 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act is neither a bill of attainder nor an ex post facto law. The distinguishing feature of a bill of attainder is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. See United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303. Clearly, § 8 embodies no further implications of appellant’s guilt than are contained in his 1920 judicial conviction; and so it manifestly is not a bill of attainder. The mark of an ex post facto law is the imposition of what can fairly be designated punishment for past acts. The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation, such as the proper qualifications for a profession. See Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189. No doubt is justified regarding the legislative purpose of § 8. The proof is overwhelming that New York sought not to punish ex-felons, but to devise what was felt to be a much-needed scheme of regulation of the waterfront, and for the effectuation of that scheme it became important whether individuals had previously been convicted of a felony.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Brennan
is of opinion that Congress has demonstrated its intent that § 8 of the New York Waterfront Commission Act should stand despite the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 explicitly provides that it shall not displace such legislation of the States. He believes that New York’s disqualification of ex-felons from waterfront union office, on all the circumstances, and as applied to this specific area, is a reasonable means for achieving a legitimate state aim, and does not deny due process or otherwise violate the Federal Constitution. Accordingly, he agrees that the judgment should be affirmed.
Appellee’s claim that the cause is moot, since, after the commencement of this action, Local 1346 was disbanded and all employees under its jurisdiction came under the jurisdiction of a new local, Local 1, with offices in New York County, must fail. On the basis of what has been submitted to us, the new local is, in part, simply the old in a new dress.
Section 205 (c) provides:
“. . . No person shall be required by reason of any law of any State to furnish to any officer or agency of such State any information included in a report filed by such person with the Secretary pursuant to the provisions of this title, if a copy of such report, or of the portion thereof containing such information, is furnished to such officer or agency. . . .”
Section 403 provides:
“No labor organization shall be required by law to conduct elections of officers with greater frequency or in a different form or manner than is required by its own constitution or bylaws, except as otherwise provided by this title. . . . The remedy provided by this title for challenging an election already conducted shall be exclusive.”
See, e. g., Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 6286, H. R. 6321, H. R. 6343, and S. 2383, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. (1953), pp. 88, 97.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, the prevailing party in Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, comes to this Court for a second time. Prior to April 23, 1953, petitioner was employed by a private corporation producing mechanical and electrical parts for military agencies of the United States. On that date the corporation discharged him because of the revocation of his security clearance by the Department of the Navy. Following his challenge of this revocation, this Court held in 1959 in Greene v. McElroy, supra, that “in the absence of explicit authorization from either the President or Congress the respondents were not empowered to deprive petitioner of his job in a proceeding in which he was not afforded the safeguards of confrontation and cross-examination.” Id., at 508. On remand the District Court, declaring that revocation of petitioner’s security clearance was “not validly authorized,” ordered that all rulings denying petitioner’s security clearance be “expunged from all records of the Government of the United States.”
In the interim between the security revocation and the District Court order, petitioner had found it necessary to take less remunerative nonsecurity employment. When, after the prolonged litigation, he obtained judicial relief in 1959, his current employment did not require and he did not seek access authorization. He then sought only to recover compensation for the unauthorized governmental action, and to that end, shortly after entry of the court order, formally requested the Department of Defense to provide monetary restitution for his loss of earnings. Petitioner based his claim on a 1955 Department of Defense regulation providing that where there has been “a final determination . . . favorable to a contractor employee,” the employee will be reimbursed “in an equitable amount for any loss of earnings during the interim resulting directly from a suspension of clearance.” The Department of Defense refused to grant restitution under this 1955 regulation but offered to consider petitioner’s claim under a 1960 regulation issued after the claim had arisen and had been formally asserted. Pursuant to the terms of the new regulation, the Department indicated that, as a condition of monetary restitution, it would be necessary to have an administrative determination that he “would be” currently entitled to a security clearance. Petitioner thereupon instituted the present action in the Court of Claims to obtain restitution under the terms of the 1955 regulation and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Claims refused to pass on the merits of petitioner’s claim and, applying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, ordered proceedings “suspended pending pursuit of administrative remedies [made available] by the Department of Defense.” For the reasons stated below, we hold that petitioner is entitled to restitution under the 1955 regulation and that, under the circumstances, it was error to remit petitioner to further administrative proceedings under the 1960 regulation.
I.
The facts comprising the background of the present action are fully set forth in Greene v. McElroy, supra, at 476-491, and need only brief restatement here. Petitioner, an aeronautical engineer, was serving as vice president and general manager of Engineering and Research Corporation (ERCO), a private firm producing mechanical and electrical parts for various agencies of the United States Armed Services. Petitioner had been employed by ERCO in 1937 and, except for a brief leave of absence, had continued with the firm. In connection with this employment, which involved classified work for the Armed Forces, he had obtained security clearances. Indeed, before the revocation of his security clearance, the Industrial Employment Review Board, on January 29, 1952, had reversed the action of an inferior board and granted petitioner clearance for secret governmental contract work.
On April 17, 1953, however, the Secretary of the Navy notified ERCO that petitioner’s “continued access to Navy classified security information [was] inconsistent with the best interests of National Security.” No hearing preceded this notification. The Secretary further requested ERCO to exclude petitioner “from any part of your plants, factories or sites at which classified Navy projects are being carried out and to bar him access to all Navy classified information.” ERCO had no choice but to comply with this request and so, a week later, on April 23, 1953, petitioner was discharged. Petitioner promptly asked the Navy for reconsideration. A year later he was given a “hearing” in which he was denied an opportunity to confront or cross-examine the allegedly adverse witnesses. On the basis of this proceeding the appropriate administrative boards approved the Secretary’s revocation of security clearance.
Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking for appropriate injunctive relief and a declaration that the revocation was unlawful and void. The District Court denied relief, 150 F. Supp. 958, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 103 U. S. App. D. C. 87, 254 F. 2d 944. Then, as noted above, on June 29, 1959, this Court, reversing the decisions below, held that “in the absence of explicit authorization from either the President or Congress the respondents were not empowered to deprive petitioner of his job in a proceeding in which he was not afforded the safeguards of confrontation and cross-examination.” Greene v. McElroy, supra, at 508. On remand, the District Court on December 14, 1959, with the consent of the Government, entered a final order declaring: (1) “that the action of the Secretary of Defense and his subordinates in finally revoking plaintiff’s security clearance was . . . not validly authorized,” and (2) “that any or all rulings, orders, or determinations wherein or whereby plaintiff’s security clearance was revoked are hereby annulled and expunged from all records of the Government of the United States.”
Following issuance of this order, petitioner initiated the administrative and legal steps immediately leading to the present action. His current employment did not require and he did not seek an opportunity to obtain current access authorization for classified information; indeed, he plainly says that he does not now “need or want” such authorization. His sole objective is to obtain compensation for the governmental action held by this Court not to have been validly authorized. On December 28, 1959, he made a formal demand of the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy “for monetary restitution from the Department of the Navy and/or the Department of Defense pursuant to Section 26 of the Industrial Personnel Security Review Regulation, 20 Fed. Reg. 1553.” This regulation, issued in 1955, provides as follows:
“In cases where a final determination is favorable to a contractor employee, the department whose activity originally forwarded the case to the Director will reimburse the contractor employee in an equitable amount for any loss of earnings during the interim resulting directly from a suspension of clearance.”
The General Counsel of the Department of the Navy acknowledged the demand and requested that certain dates and financial data be supplied. A statement of petitioner’s legal position respecting the applicability of the regulation was also requested. On April 20, 1960, he supplied the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy with the requested information and statement of legal position.
While petitioner’s claim was thus being processed, the Secretary of Defense on July 28,1960, issued a new Industrial Personnel Access Authorization Review Regulation, a regulation superseding in pertinent part the 1955 regulation under which petitioner had claimed compensation. The language of the new “monetary restitution” provision clearly indicates that the 1955 regulation had been significantly and substantially altered. Thus, instead of simply providing, as the earlier regulation did, that upon “a final determination . . . favorable to a contractor employee” the Government shall provide compensation for the loss of earnings, the 1960 regulation, inter alia, (1) subjects the claimant’s recovery to administrative discretion; (2) requires that “at a later time” the claimant qualify to receive a security clearance equivalent to that originally held or sought; (3) requires that the “favorable determination” be a favorable “administrative” determination; and (4) requires that the contrary determination had been “unjustified.”
On January 4, 1961, petitioner was advised that his claim had been forwarded to the Director of the Office of Security Policy of the Department of Defense for final determination. Petitioner then, in a letter addressed to the Director, reiterated his claim and stated that he was entitled to restitution under the 1955 regulation. After further communication, the Director advised petitioner that the Department of Defense was prepared to consider his case under the newly issued 1960 regulation and “to take such action as may be necessary to reach a final determination as to whether it is in the national interest to grant him an authorization for access to classified information.” On March 2, 1961, petitioner again submitted a statement of his legal position concerning the applicability of the 1955 regulation and again pointed out that he had no occasion to require and, therefore, was not seeking current security clearance. He expressly declined to request consideration of his case under the 1960 regulation. The Director responded by reemphasizing the Department’s “willingness to process the question of Mr. Greene’s current eligibility for access authorization under the provisions of the 1960 Review Regulation.”
Finally, on June 1, 1961, nearly a year and a half after this Court’s decision and petitioner’s request for compensation, the Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Navy advised petitioner that “[i]n accordance with Department of Defense policy, it has been determined by the Department of Defense that Mr. Greene does not qualify for monetary restitution under the provisions” of the 1955 regulation. This conclusion was coupled with another expression of the Defense Department’s willingness “to undertake the processing of his case under the July 28, 1960 Review Regulation . . . .”
Petitioner then commenced the present action in the Court of Claims, alleging that he was entitled to monetary restitution “in an amount equal to the salary or pay which he would have earned at the rate he was receiving on the date of his suspension from employment by ERCO less his earnings from other employment.” Petitioner based his claim on the 1955 regulation and the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Government moved “to suspend proceedings in this case pending plaintiff’s pursuit and completion of the administrative remedy available to him in the Department of Defense.” Petitioner responded reasserting that the “July 28, 1960 Review Regulation has no application to. [this] claim for monetary restitution . . that his current employment did not require and that he did not seek or desire access authorization; and, therefore, that he was “not bound to exhaust any remedies under the July 28, 1960 Review Regulation before making such claim or bringing this suit.” The Commissioner of the Court of Claims sustained the Government’s position by ordering “further proceedings . . . suspended pending pursuit of administrative remedies [made available] by the Department of Defense.” The Court of Claims subsequently denied petitioner’s request for review, and this Court granted certiorari, 372 U. S. 974.
II.
Petitioner contends that his right to monetary restitution must be determined under the 1955 regulation. This regulation provides that governmental liability follows from “a final determination . . . favorable to a contractor employee.” Petitioner concludes that this Court’s decision in Greene v. McElroy, supra, and the District Court order constitute the only final and favorable determination required by the 1955 regulation. He maintains that the judicial order expunging adverse determinations reinstated in effect the security clearance of January 1952 — “at least for the period between petitioner’s discharge on April 23, 1953, and the expungement order of December 14, 1959.” Furthermore, petitioner argues, when in Greene v. McElroy this Court held unauthorized the revocation of security clearance, an act that deprived petitioner of his job, he became entitled as a matter of right to recover damages resulting from the loss of that employment.
The Government responds that the 1960, rather than the 1955, regulation applies and that, pursuant to the 1960 regulation, petitioner must establish as a condition of recovery that he now “would be” currently entitled to a security clearance. Alternatively, assuming the 1955 regulation governs, the Government contends that before restitution is allowed there must be “a further showing, at the administrative level, that the challenged revocation of access authorization was not only procedurally incorrect, but substantively wrong.” Specifically, the Government states, to meet the requirements of the 1955 regulation, petitioner “must at least show that he was entitled to clearance during the period for which he claims damages by reason of the denial of clearance.” Finally, the Government argues, even if the 1955 regulation is applicable, petitioner must exhaust the possibility of recovery in administrative proceedings under the 1960 regulation.
Whatever petitioner’s rights are, there can be no doubt they matured and were asserted under the 1955 directive. Not until six months after petitioner formally presented his claim to the Department of Defense did the Secretary of Defense issue a new, and substantially revised, regulation concerning “monetary restitution.” Thus the Government’s argument necessarily requires that the 1960 regulation be given retroactive application. As the Court said in Union Pac. R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards Co., 231 U. S. 190, 199, “the first rule of construction is that legislation must be considered as addressed to the future, not to the past . . . [and] a retrospective operation will not be given to a statute which interferes with antecedent rights . . . unless such be ‘the unequivocal and inflexible import of the terms, and the manifest intention of the legislature.’ ” Since regulations of the type involved in this case are to be viewed as if they were statutes, this “first rule” of statutory construction appropriately applies and under the circumstances, it would be unjustifiable to give the 1960 regulation retroactive effect.
Our interpretation of the 1955 regulation makes it clear that petitioner has obtained the requisite final, favorable determination. In Greene v. McElroy, supra, this Court held that the Government had acted without authority in denying petitioner security clearance without providing the traditional safeguards of confrontation and cross-examination. On remand, and with the consent of the Government, the District Court entered the order voiding and expunging all determinations adverse to petitioner. As a result of the judicial action and in the absence of intervening administrative proceedings, the only legally cognizable administrative determination — for the period between petitioner’s 1953 discharge and the 1959 ex-pungement order — was the January 1952 ruling granting petitioner security clearance. Thus the final judicial order effectively reinstated the last valid administrative determination, a determination which had been substantively favorable to petitioner. By virtue of the District Court order, therefore, petitioner must be regarded as having obtained, for the period between the discharge and the judicial mandate, a “final” and “favorable” determination.
Furthermore, we read the applicable regulation as equitably designed to compensate employees whose security clearance has been improperly or wrongly denied. The directive’s language does not reasonably warrant the implication that a claimant, who has sustained the burden of demonstrating that the Government acted without authority in revoking his clearance without fair procedures, must take on the additional burden of showing at a later time that if he had been afforded fair procedures in the first instance he would have been able to demonstrate successfully that he was entitled to access authorization. On the contrary, the regulation should be interpreted to mean that where a claimant establishes that the Government has improperly denied clearance by its failure to provide fair procedures, the Government is liable and petitioner is entitled to recover “in an equitable amount for any loss of earnings during the interim resulting directly from a suspension of clearance.”
In a case such as the present, where the Government has acted without authority in causing the discharge of an employee without providing adequate procedural safeguards, we should be reluctant to conclude that a regulation, not explicitly so requiring, conditions restitution on a retrospective determination of the validity of the substantive reasons for the Government action — reasons which the employee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to meet or rebut at the time of his discharge. This principle is analogous to that reflected in state court decisions recognizing that “a private association’s failure to afford procedural safeguards may result in the imposition of damage liability without inquiry into whether the association’s action lacked substantive basis . . . .” See authorities cited in Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341, 365, n. 18.
Having determined that petitioner was entitled to compensation under the 1955 regulation, we must consider whether it was proper, as the Government contends here and the Court of Claims held, to remit petitioner to further administrative proceedings under the 1960 regulation.
The Department of Defense, after considering petitioner’s claim for nearly a year and a half following this Court’s decision in Greene v. McElroy, supra, specifically determined that “Mr. Greene does not qualify for monetary restitution under the provisions” of the 1955 regulation. Petitioner’s legitimate claim thus having been presented and rejected, there can be no doubt that he had exhausted the reasonable possibility of administrative proceedings under the applicable regulation. The Government argues in effect, however, that the claim could be administratively processed, and petitioner possibly could recover, under the 1960 regulation and that, by failing to resort to proceedings under the newly issued regulation, petitioner thereby failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies.
The Department of Defense had clearly declared that in the course of applying the 1960 regulation, it would necessarily “process the question of Mr. Greene’s current eligibility for access authorization . . . .” As we have indicated, however, petitioner, who had to find non-security employment as a result of the 1953 clearance revocation,’ does not now require and is not seeking current access authorization. Therefore, an administrative review of his present eligibility is wholly irrelevant to a determination of his damages under the 1955 regulation. In view of the substantial differences between the two regulations and in view of the additional factual determinations that would be relevant under the 1960 regulation but irrelevant under the 1955 regulation, we conclude the 1960 regulation does not provide a reasonable basis for reviewing petitioner’s rights under the 1955 regulation. We do not suggest that a claimant, seeking damages under a former regulation, need not resort to administrative proceedings under a new regulation where the new regulation contains essentially the same substantive requirements as its predecessor. Since in this case the only available administrative procedure entailed the burden of presenting the claim under an inapplicable and substantially revised regulation, that procedure must be regarded as inappropriate and inadequate and therefore need not be pursued. It follows that petitioner, having exhausted administrative proceedings under the applicable 1955 regulation, properly resorted to the Court of Claims which Congress has invested with jurisdiction to entertain claims asserted against the United States and founded upon “any regulation of an executive department.” 28 U. S. C. § 1491.
In summary, then, we hold that petitioner was entitled as a matter of right to compensation under the 1955 regulation and that, when the Department of Defense rejected his claim under that regulation, he was not required to proceed administratively under the newly issued 1960 regulation. In so holding, we do not suggest that if petitioner were now seeking access to security-classified information, he would be entitled to have his clearance qualifications judged by other than current regulations. But all he seeks are damages for the Government’s unauthorized action and to this much, we hold, he is certainly entitled.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed and the case remanded to that court for a determination of the amount of restitution due petitioner.
Reversed and remanded.
The text of the District Court order, dated December 14, 1959, is as follows:
“Upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in this case (Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474) and the copy of the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court heretofore filed with the clerk of this Court; and
“It appearing that counsel for the respective parties have consented hereto, it is hereby
“ORDERED that the action of the Secretary of Defense and his subordinates in finally revoking plaintiff’s security clearance was and the same is hereby declared to be not validly authorized; and it is further
“ORDERED that any or all rulings, orders, or determinations wherein or whereby plaintiff’s security clearance was revoked are hereby annulled and expunged from all records of the Government of the United States.”
In the prior litigation this Court noted that the Court of Appeals had concluded:
“We have no doubt that Greene has in fact been injured. He was forced out of a job that paid him $18,000 per year. He has since been reduced, so far as this record shows, to working as an architectural draftsman at a salary of some $4,400 per year. Further, as an aeronautical engineer of considerable experience he says (without real contradiction) that he is effectively barred from pursuit of many aspects of his profession, given the current dependence of most phases of the aircraft industry on Defense Department contracts not only for production but for research and development work as well. ... Nor do we doubt that, following the Government’s action, some stigma, in greater or less degree, has attached to Greene.” 360 U. S. 474, 491, n. 21, quoting 103 U. S. App. D. C. 87, 95-96, 254 F. 2d 944, 952-953.
The pertinent regulation is Paragraph 26, Department of Defense Directive 6220.6, 20 Fed. Reg. 1653, dated February 2, 1955:
“Monetary Restitution. In cases where a final determination is favorable to a contractor employee, the department whose activity originally forwarded the case to the Director will reimburse the contractor employee in an equitable amount for any loss of earnings during the interim resulting directly from a suspension of clearance. Such amount shall not exceed the difference between the amount the contractor employee would have earned at the rate he was receiving on the date of suspension and the amount of his interim net earnings. No contractor employee shall be compensated for any increase in his loss of earnings caused by his voluntary action in unduly delaying the processing of his case under this part.”
The July 28, 1960, regulation (Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, 25 Fed. Reg. 7523), issued pursuant to an Executive Order of February 20, 1960 (Exec. Order No. 10865, 25 Fed. Reg. 1583), contains the following provision for “monetary restitution”:
“If an applicant suffers a loss of earnings resulting directly from a suspension, revocation, or denial of his access authorization, and at a later time a final administrative determination is made that the granting to him of an access authorization at least equivalent to that which was suspended, revoked or denied, would be clearly consistent with the national interest and it is determined by the board making a final favorable determination that the administrative determination which resulted in the loss of earnings was unjustified, reimbursement of such loss of earnings may be allowed in an amount which shall not exceed the difference between the amount the applicant would have earned at the rate he was receiving on the date of suspension, revocation, or denial of his access authorization and the amount of his interim net earnings.”
The order declared that: “In view of the action this day by the court in Stephen L. Kreznar v. The United States, No. 47-60, and Novera Herbert Spector v. The United States, No. 48-60, further proceedings herein are hereby suspended pending pursuit of administrative remedies [made available] by the Department of Defense.” The cases cited are now pending in this Court on petition for a writ of certiorari, No. 85, this Term.
See Greene v. McElroy, supra, at 476, n. 1: “Petitioner was given a Confidential clearance by the Army on August 9,1949, a Top Secret clearance by the Assistant Chief of Staff G-2, Military District of Washington on November 9, 1949, and a Top Secret clearance by the Air Materiel Command on February 3, 1950.”
At the time the Secretary acted, the administrative boards that had reviewed petitioner’s earlier clearance had been abolished. See Greene v. McElroy, supra, at 480-483.
The full text of the order is set forth in note 1, supra.
See note 3, supra.
Petitioner stated that he had incurred a $49,960.41 loss of earnings from April 23, 1953, the date of his dismissal, to December 31, 1959.
The text of the new provision is set forth in note 4, supra.
The text of the order is set forth in note 5, supra.
Although petitioner asserts that the Government in this Court in effect concedes that the 1955 regulation must govern, we understand the Government to have framed alternative arguments rather than to have made such a concession.
See, e. g., Claridge Apartments Co. v. Commissioner, 323 U. S. 141, 164; Smead, The Rule Against Retroactive Legislation: A Basic Principle of Jurisprudence, 20 Minn. L. Rev. 776-781 (1936).
The purpose of insuring “equity and justice” is reflected by the testimony in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations of the House Committee on Appropriations, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 774r-781.
The “interim resulting” would, we believe, in this case extend from petitioner’s discharge in 1953 to issuance of the District Court order expunging the revocation of security clearance.
See supra, pp. 156-157.
See, e. g., Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 562-563; Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 270 U. S. 587, 591; Township of Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 625-626; 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1958), §20.07; Jaffe, The Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, 12 Buff. L. Rev. 327, 329-331 (1963).
Since we remand the cause to the Court of Claims to fix the amount of compensation, we need not and do not pass on petitioner’s claim under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth 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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case turns on the interpretation and proper application of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and requires us to address the Rule’s operation in the context of foreign sovereign immunity.
This interpleader action was commenced to determine the ownership of property allegedly stolen by Ferdinand Marcos when he was the President of the Republic of the Philippines. Two entities named in the suit invoked sovereign immunity. They are the Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Presidential Commission on Good Governance, referred to in turn as the Republic and the Commission. They were dismissed, but the interpleader action proceeded to judgment over their objection. Together with two parties who remained in the suit, the Republic and the Commission now insist it was error to allow the litigation to proceed. Under Rule 19, they contend, the action should have been dismissed once it became clear they could not be joined as parties without their consent.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, agreeing with the District Court, held the action could proceed without the Republic and the Commission as parties. Among the reasons the Court of Appeals gave was that the absent, sovereign entities would not prevail on their claims. We conclude the Court of Appeals gave insufficient weight to the foreign sovereign status of the Republic and the Commission, and that the court further erred in reaching and discounting the merits of their claims.
I
A
When the opinion of the Court of Appeals is consulted, the reader will find its quotations from Rule 19 do not accord with its text as set out here; for after the case was in the Court of Appeals and before it came here, the text of the Rule changed. The Rules Committee advised the changes were stylistic only, see Advisory Committee’s Notes on 2007 Amendment to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19, 28 U. S. C., p. 826 (2006 ed., Supp. I); and we agree. These are the three relevant stylistic changes. First, the word “required” replaced the word “necessary” in subparagraph (a). Second, the 1966 Rule set out factors in longer clauses and the 2007 Rule sets out the factors affecting joinder in separate lettered headings. Third, the word “indispensable,” which had remained as a remnant of the pre-1966 Rule, is altogether deleted from the current text. Though the word “indispensable” had a lesser place in the 1966 Rule, it still had the latent potential to mislead.
As the substance and operation of the Rule both pre- and post-2007 are unchanged, we will refer to the present, revised version. The pre-2007 version is printed in the appendix to this opinion, infra, at 873-875. The current Rule states, in relevant part, as follows:
“Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties
“(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.
“(1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
“(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
“(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may:
“(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or
“(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
“(2) Joinder by Court Order. If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.
“(3) Venue. If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party.
“(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:
“(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
“(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
“(A) protective provisions in the judgment;
“(B) shaping the relief; or “(C) other measures;
“(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
“(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.” Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 19(a)-(b), 28 U. S. C.
See also Rule 19(c) (imposing pleading requirements); Rule 19(d) (creating exception for class actions).
B
In 1972, Ferdinand Marcos, then President of the Republic, incorporated Arelma, S. A. (Arelma), under Panamanian law. Around the same time, Arelma opened a brokerage account with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (Merrill Lynch) in New York, in which it deposited $2 million. As of the year 2000, the account had grown to approximately $35 million.
Alleged crimes and misfeasance by Marcos during his presidency became the subject of worldwide attention and protest. A class action by and on behalf of some 9,539 of his human rights victims was filed against Marcos and his estate, among others. The class action was tried in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and resulted in a nearly $2 billion judgment for the class. See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F. 3d 767 (CA9 1996). We refer to that litigation as the Pimentel case and to its class members as the Pimentel class. In a related action, the Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha [sic] Corporation (the Roxas claimants) claim a right to execute against the assets to satisfy their own judgment against Marcos’ widow, Imelda Marcos. See Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Haw. 91, 113-115, 969 P. 2d 1209, 1231-1233 (1998).
The Pimentel class claims a right to enforce its judgment by attaching the Arelma assets held by Merrill Lynch. The Republic and the Commission claim a right to the assets under a 1955 Philippine law providing that property derived from the misuse of public office is forfeited to the Republic from the moment of misappropriation. See An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor, Rep. Act No. 1379, 51:9 O. G. 4457 (June 18, 1955).
After Marcos fled the Philippines in 1986, the Commission was created to recover any property he wrongfully took. Almost immediately the Commission asked the Swiss Government for assistance in recovering assets — including shares in Arelma — that Marcos had moved to Switzerland. In compliance the Swiss Government froze certain assets and, in 1990, that freeze was upheld by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In 1991, the Commission asked the Sandiganbayan, a Philippine court of special jurisdiction over corruption cases, to declare forfeited to the Republic any property Marcos had obtained through misuse of his office. That litigation is still pending in the Sandiganbayan.
The Swiss assets were transferred to an escrow account set up by the Commission at the Philippine National Bank (PNB), pending the Sandiganbayan’s decision as to their rightful owner. The Republic and the Commission requested that Merrill Lynch follow the same course and transfer the Arelma assets to an escrow account at PNB. Merrill Lynch did not do so. Facing claims from various Marcos creditors, including the Pimentel class, Merrill Lynch instead filed an interpleader action under 28 U. S. C. § 1335. The named defendants in the interpleader action were, among others, the Republic and the Commission, Arelma, PNB, and the Pimentel class (the respondents here).
The Pimentel case had been tried as a class action before Judge Manuel Real of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, who was sitting by designation in the District of Hawaii after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the various human rights complaints against Marcos in that court. See Hilao, supra, at 771. Judge Real directed Merrill Lynch to file the interpleader action in the District of Hawaii, and he presided over the matter.
After being named as defendants in the interpleader action, the Republic and the Commission asserted sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U. S. C. § 1604. They moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 19(b), based on the premise that the action could not proceed without them. Arelma and PNB also moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 19(b). Without addressing whether they were entitled to sovereign immunity, Judge Real initially rejected the request by the Republic and the Commission to dismiss the interpleader action. They appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. It held the Republic and the Commission are entitled to sovereign immunity and that under Rule 19(a) they are required parties (or “necessary” parties under the old terminology). See In re Republic of the Philippines, 309 F. 3d 1143, 1149-1152 (CA9 2002). The Court of Appeals entered a stay pending the outcome of the litigation in the Sandiganbayan over the Marcos assets. See id., at 1152-1153.
After concluding that the pending litigation in the Sandiganbayan could not determine entitlement to the Arelma assets, Judge Real vacated the stay, allowed the action to proceed, and awarded the assets to the Pimentel class. A week later, in the case initiated before the Sandiganbayan in 1991, the Republic asked that court to declare the Arelma assets forfeited, arguing the matter was ripe for decision. The Sandiganbayan has not yet ruled.
In the interpleader case the Republic, the Commission, Arelma, and PNB appealed the District Court’s judgment in favor of the Pimentel claimants. This time the Court of Appeals affirmed. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. ENC Cory., 464 F. 3d 885 (CA9 2006). Dismissal of the interpleader suit, it held, was not warranted under Rule 19(b) because, though the Republic and the Commission were required (“necessary”) parties under Rule 19(a), their claim had so little likelihood of success on the merits that the interpleader action could proceed without them. One of the reasons the court gave was that any action commenced by the Republic and the Commission to recover the assets would be barred by New York’s 6-year statute of limitations for claims involving the misappropriation of public property. See N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. §213 (West Supp. 2008). The court thus found it unnecessary to consider whether any prejudice to the Republic and the Commission might be lessened by some form of judgment or interim decree in the interpleader action. The court also considered the failure of the Republic and the Commission to obtain a judgment in the Sandiganbayan — despite the Arelma share certificates having been located and held in escrow at PNB since 1997-1998 — to be an equitable consideration counseling against dismissal of the interpleader suit. The court further found it relevant that allowing the interpleader case to proceed would serve the interests of the Pimentel class, which, at this point, likely has no other available forum in which to enforce its judgment against property belonging to Marcos.
This Court granted certiorari. See 552 U. S. 1061 (2007).
II
We begin with the question we asked the parties to address when we granted certiorari: Whether the Republic and the Commission, having been dismissed from the inter-pleader action based on their successful assertion of sovereign immunity, had the right to appeal the District Court’s determination under Rule 19 that the action could proceed in their absence; and whether they have the right to seek this Court’s review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming the District Court. See ibid.
Respondents contend that the Republic and the Commission were not proper parties in the Court of Appeals when it reviewed the District Court’s judgment allowing the action to proceed without them; and, respondents continue, the Republic and the Commission are not proper parties in the instant proceeding before us. See Brief for Respondent Pimentel 21.
Without implying that respondents are correct in saying the Republic and the Commission could neither appeal nor become parties here, we conclude we need not rule on this point. Other parties before us, Arelma and PNB, also seek review of the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the District Court. They, too, moved to dismiss the action under Rule 19(b), appealed from the denial of their motion, and are petitioners before this Court. As a general matter any party may move to dismiss an action under Rule 19(b). A court with proper jurisdiction may also consider sua sponte the absence of a required person and dismiss for failure to join. See, e. g., Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U. S. 199, 235 (1902); see also Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U. S. 102, 111 (1968).
Respondents argue, however, that Arelma and PNB have no standing to raise before this Court the question whether the action may proceed in the absence of the Republic and the Commission. Arelma and PNB lost on the merits of their underlying claims to the interpleaded assets in both the District Court and the Court of Appeals. By failing to petition for certiorari on that merits ruling, respondents contend, Arelma and PNB abandoned any entitlement to the interpleaded assets and therefore lack a concrete stake in the outcome of further proceedings. We disagree. Dismissal of the action under Rule 19(b) would benefit Arelma and PNB by vacating the judgment denying them the interpleaded assets. A party that seeks to have a judgment vacated in its entirety on procedural grounds does not lose standing simply because the party does not petition for certiorari on the substance of the order.
Ill
We turn to the question whether the interpleader action could proceed in the District Court without the Republic and the Commission as parties.
Subdivision (a) of Rule 19 states the principles that determine when persons or entities must be joined in a suit. The Rule instructs that nonjoinder even of a required person does not always result in dismissal. Subdivision (a) opens by noting that it addresses joinder “if Feasible.” Where joinder is not feasible, the question whether the action should proceed turns on the factors outlined in subdivision (b). The considerations set forth in subdivision (b) are nonexclusive, as made clear by the introductory statement that “[t]he factors for the court to consider include.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(b). The general direction is whether “in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.” Ibid. The design of the Rule, then, indicates that the determination whether to proceed will turn upon factors that are case specific, which is consistent with a Rule based on equitable considerations. This is also consistent with the fact that the determination of who may, or must, be parties to a suit has consequences for the persons and entities affected by the judgment; for the judicial system and its interest in the integrity of its processes and the respect accorded to its decrees; and for society and its concern for the fair and prompt resolution of disputes. See, e. g., Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 720, 737-739 (1977). For these reasons, the issue of joinder can be complex, and determinations are case specific. See, e. g., Provident Bank, supra, at 118-119.
Under the earlier Rules the term “indispensable party” might have implied a certain rigidity that would be in tension with this case-specific approach. The word “indispensable” had an unforgiving connotation that did not fit easily with a system that permits actions to proceed even when some persons who otherwise should be parties to the action cannot be joined. As the Court noted in Provident Bank, the use of “indispensable” in Rule 19 created the “verbal anomaly” of an “indispensable person who turns out to be dispensable after all.” 390 U. S., at 117, n. 12. Though the text has changed, the new Rule 19 has the same design and, to some extent, the same tension. Required persons may turn out not to be required for the action to proceed after all.
In all events it is clear that multiple factors must bear on the decision whether to proceed without a required person. This decision “must be based on factors varying with the different cases, some such factors being substantive, some procedural, some compelling by themselves, and some subject to balancing against opposing interests.” Id., at 119.
IV
We turn to Rule 19 as it relates to this case. The application of subdivision (a) of Rule 19 is not contested. The Republic and the Commission are required entities because “[w]ithout [them] as parties in this interpleader action, their interests in the subject matter are not protected.” In re Republic of Philippines, 309 F. 3d, at 1152; see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(a)(l)(B)(i). All parties appear to concede this. The disagreement instead centers around the application of subdivision (b), which addresses whether the action may proceed without the Republic and the Commission, given that the Rule requires them to be parties.
We have not addressed the standard of review for Rule 19(b) decisions. The case-specific inquiry that must be followed in applying the standards set forth in subdivision (b), including the direction to consider whether “in equity and good conscience” the case should proceed, implies some degree of deference to the district court. In this case, however, we find implicit in the District Court’s rulings, and explicit in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, errors of law that require reversal. Whatever the appropriate standard of review, a point we need not decide, the judgment could not stand. Cf. Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81, 99-100 (1996) (a court “by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law”).
The Court of Appeals erred in not giving the necessary weight to the absent entities’ assertion of sovereign immunity. The court in effect decided the merits of the Republic and the Commission’s claims to the Arelma assets. Once it was recognized that those claims were not frivolous, it was error for the Court of Appeals to address them on their merits when the required entities had been granted sovereign immunity. The court’s consideration of the merits was itself an infringement on foreign sovereign immunity; and, in any event, its analysis was flawed. We discuss these errors first in the context of how they affected the Court of Appeals’ analysis under the first factor of Rule 19(b). We then explain that the outcome suggested by the first factor is confirmed by our analysis under the other provisions of Rule 19(b). The action may not proceed.
A
As to the first Rule 19(b) factor — the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(b)(1) — the judgment of the Court of Appeals is incorrect.
In considering whether the Republic and the Commission would be prejudiced if the action were to proceed in their absence, the Court of Appeals gave insufficient weight to their sovereign status. The doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity has been recognized since early in the history of our Nation. It is premised upon the “perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns, and th[e] common interest impelling them to mutual intercourse.” Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 137 (1812). The Court has observed that the doctrine is designed to “give foreign states and their instrumentalities some protection from the inconvenience of suit,” Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U. S. 468, 479 (2003).
The privilege is codified by federal statute. FSIA, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1330, 1602-1611, provides that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607,” absent existing international agreements to the contrary. § 1604; see Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 486-489 (1983) (explaining the history of the doctrine’s codification). Exceptions to the general principle of foreign sovereign immunity are contained in §§ 1605-1607 of the statute. They are inapplicable here, or at least the parties do not invoke them. Immunity in this case, then, is uncontested; and pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ earlier ruling on the issue, the District Court dismissed the Republic and the Commission from the action on this ground.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals failed to give full effect to sovereign immunity when they held the action could proceed without the Republic and the Commission. Giving full effect to sovereign immunity promotes the comity interests that have contributed to the development of the immunity doctrine. See, e. g., id., at 486 (“[F]oreign sovereign immunity is a matter of grace and comity”); National City Bank of N. Y. v. Republic of China, 348 U. S. 356, 362, and n. 7 (1955) (foreign sovereign immunity derives from “standards of public morality, fair dealing, reciprocal self-interest, and respect for the ‘power and dignity’ of the foreign sovereign” (citing Schooner Exchange, supra, at 136-137, 143-144)).
Comity and dignity interests take concrete form in this case. The claims of the Republic and the Commission arise from events of historical and political significance for the Republic and its people. The Republic and the Commission have a unique interest in resolving the ownership of or claims to the Arelma assets and in determining if, and how, the assets should be used to compensate those persons who suffered grievous injury under Marcos. There is a comity interest in allowing a foreign state to use its own courts for a dispute if it has a right to do so. The dignity of a foreign state is not enhanced if other nations bypass its courts without right or good cause. Then, too, there is the more specific affront that could result to the Republic and the Commission if property they claim is seized by the decree of a foreign court. Cf. Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U. S. 30, 35-36 (1945) (pre-FSIA, common-law doctrine dictated that courts defer to executive determination of immunity because “[t]he judicial seizure” of the property of a friendly state may be regarded as “an affront to its dignity and may... affect our relations with it”).
Though this Court has not considered a case posing the precise question presented here, there are some authorities involving the intersection of joinder and the governmental immunity of the United States. See, e. g., Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U. S. 371, 373-375 (1945) (dismissing an action where the Under Secretary of the Navy was sued in his official capacity, because the Government was a required entity that could not be joined when it withheld consent to be sued); Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 386-388 (1939) (dismissing the action for nonjoinder of a required entity where the United States was the owner of the land in question but had not consented to suit). The analysis of the joinder issue in those cases was somewhat perfunctory, but the holdings were clear: A case may not proceed when a required-entity sovereign is not amenable to suit. These cases instruct us that where sovereign immunity is asserted, and the claims of the sovereign are not frivolous, dismissal of the action must be ordered where there is a potential for injury to the interests of the absent sovereign.
The Court of Appeals accordingly erred in undertaking to rule on the merits of the Republic and the Commission’s claims. There may be eases where the person who is not joined asserts a claim that is frivolous. In that instance a court may have leeway under both Rule 19(a)(1), defining required parties, and Rule 19(b), addressing when a suit may go forward nonetheless, to disregard the frivolous claim. Here, the claims of the absent entities are not frivolous; and the Court of Appeals should not have proceeded on the premise that those claims would be determined against the sovereign entities that asserted immunity.
The Court of Appeals determined that the claims of the Republic and the Commission as to the assets would not succeed because a suit would be time barred in New York. This is not necessarily so. If the Sandiganbayan rules that the Republic owns the assets or stock of Arelma because Marcos did not own them and the property was forfeited to the Republic under Philippine law, then New York misappropriation rules might not be the applicable law. For instance, the Republic and the Commission, standing in for Arelma based upon the Sandiganbayan’s judgment, might not pursue a misappropriation of public property suit, as the Court of Appeals assumed they would. They might instead, or in the alternative, file suit for breach of contract against Merrill Lynch. They would argue the statute of limitations would start to run if and when Merrill Lynch refused to hand over the assets. See N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 213 (West Supp. 2008); Ely-Cruikshank, Co. v. Bank of Montreal, 81 N. Y. 2d 399, 402, 615 N. E. 2d 985, 986 (1993) (“In New York, a breach of contract cause of action accrues at the time of the breach”). Or the Republic and the Commission might bring an action either in state or federal court to enforce the Sandiganbayan’s judgment. See 1 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 482, Comment a (1986) (jurisdiction of foreign court rendering judgment is presumed); id., Comment d (providing exceptions not relevant here); see also 28 U. S. C. § 2467(c) (providing for enforcement of foreign forfeiture judgments in certain circumstances). Merrill Lynch makes arguments why these actions would not succeed, see Brief for Merrill Lynch as Amicus Curiae 26-27, to which the Republic, the Commission, and the United States respond, see Reply Brief for Petitioners 14-18; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24-28. We need not seek to predict the outcomes. It suffices that the claims would not be frivolous.
As these comments indicate, Rule 19 cannot be applied in a vacuum, and it may require some preliminary assessment of the merits of certain claims. For example, the Rule directs a court, in determining who is a required person, to consider whether complete relief can be afforded in their absence. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(a)(1)(A). Likewise, in the Rule 19(b) inquiry, a court must examine, to some extent, the claims presented and the interests likely to be asserted both by the joined parties and the absent entities or persons. Here, however, it was improper to issue a definitive holding regarding a nonfrivolous, substantive claim made by an absent, required entity that was entitled by its sovereign status to immunity from suit. That privilege is much diminished if an important and consequential ruling affecting the sovereign’s substantial interest is determined, or at least assumed, by a federal court in the sovereign’s absence and over its objection.
As explained above, the decision to proceed in the absence of the Republic and the Commission ignored the substantial prejudice those entities likely would incur. This most directly implicates Rule 19(b)’s first factor, which directs consideration of prejudice both to absent persons and those who are parties. We have discussed the absent entities. As to existing parties, we do not discount the Pimentel class’ interest in recovering damages it was awarded pursuant to a judgment. Furthermore, combating public corruption is a significant international policy. The policy is manifested in treaties providing for international cooperation in recovering forfeited assets. See, e. g., United Nations Convention Against Corruption, G. A. Res. 58/4, chs. IV and V, U. N. Doc. A/RES/58/4, pp. 22, 32 (Dec. 11, 2003) (reprinted in 43 I. L. M. 37 (2004)); Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Art. 16, Nov. 13, 1994, S. Treaty Doc. No. 104-18 (1995). This policy does support the interest of the Pimentel class in recovering damages awarded to it. But it also underscores the important comity concerns implicated by the Republic and the Commission in asserting foreign sovereign immunity. The error is not that the District Court and the Court of Appeals gave too much weight to the interest of the Pimentel class, but that it did not accord proper weight to the compelling claim of sovereign immunity.
Based on these considerations we conclude the District Court and the Court of Appeals gave insufficient weight to the likely prejudice to the Republic and the Commission should the interpleader proceed in their absence.
B
As to the second Rule 19(b) factor — the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by relief or measures alternative to dismissal, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(b)(2)— there is no substantial argument to allow the action to proceed. No alternative remedies or forms of relief have been proposed to us or appear to be available. See 7 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1608, pp. 106-110 (3d ed. 2001) (collecting cases using alternative forms of relief, including the granting of money damages rather than specific performance, the use of declaratory judgment, and the direction that payment be withheld pending suits against the absent party). If the Marcos estate did not own the assets, or if the Republic owns them now, the claim of the Pimentel class likely fails; and in all events, if there are equally valid but competing claims, that too would require adjudication in a case where the Republic and the Commission are parties. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 534, and n. 16 (1967); Russell v. Clark’s Executors, 7 Cranch 69, 98-99 (1812) (Marshall, C. J.); Wichita & Affiliated Tribes of Okla. v. Hodel, 788 F. 2d 765, 774 (CADC 1986) (“Conflicting claims by beneficiaries to a common trust present a textbook example of a case where one party may be severely prejudiced by a decision in his absence” (citing Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 563, 570-571 (1874))).
C
As to the third Rule 19(b) factor — whether a judgment rendered without the absent party would be adequate, Fed. Rule Civ. Proe. 19(b)(3) — the Court of Appeals understood “adequacy” to refer to satisfaction of the Pimentel class’ claims. But adequacy refers to the “public stake in settling disputes by wholes, whenever possible.” Provident Bank, 390 U. S., at 111. This “social interest in the efficient administration of justice and the avoidance of multiple litigation” is an interest that has “traditionally been thought to support compulsory joinder of absent and potentially adverse claimants.” Illinois Brick Co., 431 U. S., at 737-738. Going forward with the action without the Republic and the Commission would not further the public interest in settling the dispute as a whole because the Republic and the Commission would not be bound by the judgment in an action where they were not parties.
D
As to the fourth Rule 19(b) factor — whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(b)(4) — the Court of Appeals made much of what it considered the tort victims’ lack of an alternative forum should this action be dismissed. This seems to assume the plaintiff in this interpleader action was the Pimentel class. It is Merrill Lynch, however, that has the statutory status of plaintiff as the stakeholder in the interpleader action.
It is true that, in an interpleader action, the stakeholder is often neutral as to the outcome, while other parties press claims in the manner of a plaintiff. That is insufficient, though, to overcome the statement in the interpleader statute that the stakeholder is the plaintiff. See 28 U. S. C. § 1335(a) (conditioning jurisdiction in part upon whether “the plaintiff has deposited such money or property” at issue with the district court or has “given bond payable to the clerk of the court in such amount and with such surety as the court or judge may deem proper”). We do not ignore that, in context, the Pimentel class (and indeed all interpleader claimants) are to some extent comparable to the plaintiffs in noninterpleader cases. Their interests are not irrelevant to the Rule 19(b) equitable balance; but the other provisions of the Rule are the relevant ones to consult.
Merrill Lynch, as the stakeholder, makes the point that if the action is dismissed it loses the benefit of a judgment allowing it to disburse the assets and be done with the matter. Dismissal of the action, it urges, leaves it without an adequate remedy, for it “could potentially be forced... to defend lawsuits by the various claimants in different jurisdictions, possibly leading to inconsistent judgments.” Brief for Merrill Lynch as Amicus Curiae 14. A dismissal of the action on the ground of nonjoinder, however, will protect Merrill Lynch in some respects. That disposition will not provide Merrill Lynch with a judgment determining the party entitled to the assets, but it likely would provide Merrill Lynch with an effective defense against piecemeal litigation and inconsistent, conflicting judgments. As matters presently stand, in any later suit against it Merrill Lynch may seek to join the Republic and the Commission and have the action dismissed under Rule 19(b) should they again assert sovereign immunity. Dismissal for nonjoinder to some extent will serve the purpose of interpleader, which is to prevent a stakeholder from having to pay two or more parties for one claim.
Any prejudice to Merrill Lynch in this regard is outweighed by prejudice to the absent entities invoking sovereign immunity. Dismissal under Rule 19(b) will mean, in some instances, that plaintiffs will be left without a forum for definitive resolution of their claims. But that result is contemplated under the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. See, e. g., Verlinden, 461 U. S., at 497 (“[I
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
The petitioner, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, brought an action under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 and 42 U. S. C. § 1983, § 1979 of the Revised Statutes, alleging that solely because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The District Court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 324 F. 2d 165 (C. A. 7th Cir.). We reverse the judgment below. Taking as true the allegations of the complaint, as they must be on a motion to dismiss, the complaint stated a cause of action and it was error to dismiss it. See Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F. 2d 233 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Sewell v. Pegelow, 291 F. 2d 196 (C. A. 4th Cir.).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents an important question under § 2 of the Sherman Act, which makes it an offense for any person to “monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States.” This is a civil suit brought by the United States against Grinnell Corporation (Grinnell), American District Telegraph Co. (ADT), Holmes Electric Protective Co. (Holmes) and Automatic Fire Alarm Co. of Delaware (AFA). The District Court held for the Government and entered a decree. All parties appeal, the United States because it deems the relief inadequate and the defendants both on the merits and on the relief and on the ground that the District Court denied them a fair trial. We noted probable jurisdiction. 381 U. S. 910.
Grinnell manufactures plumbing supplies and fire sprinkler systems. It also owns 76% of the stock of ADT, 89% of the stock of AFA, and 100% of the stock of Holmes. ADT provides both burglary and fire protection servicesj Holmes provides burglary services alone; AFA supplies only fire protection service. Each offers a central station service under which hazard-detecting devices installed on the protected premises automatically transmit an electric signal to a central station. The central station is manned 24 hours a day. Upon receipt of a signal, the central station, where appropriate, dispatches guards to the protected premises and notifies the police or fire department direct. There are other forms of protective services. But the record shows that subscribers to accredited central station service (i. e., that approved by the insurance underwriters) receive reductions in their insurance premiums that are substantially greater than the reduction received by the users of other kinds of protection service. In 1961 accredited companies in the central station service business grossed $65,000,000. ADT, Holmes, and AFA are the three largest companies in the business in terms of revenue: ADT (with 121 central stations in 115 cities) has 73% of the business; Holmes (with 12 central stations in three large cities) has 12.5%; AFA (with three central stations in three large cities) has 2%. Thus the three companies that Grinnell controls have over 87% of the business.
Over the years ADT purchased the stock or assets of 27 companies engaged in the business of providing burglar or fire alarm services. Holmes acquired the stock or assets of three burglar alarm companies in New York City using a central station. Of these 30, the officials of seven agreed not to engage in the protective service business in the area for periods ranging from five years to permanently. After Grinnell acquired control of the other defendants, the latter continued in their attempts to acquire central station companies — offers being made to at least eight companies between the years 1955 and 1961, including four of the five largest nondefendant companies in the business. When the present suit was filed, each of those defendants had outstanding an offer to purchase one of the four largest nondefendant companies.
In 1906, prior to the affiliation of ADT and Holmes, they made a written agreement whereby ADT transferred to Holmes its burglar alarm business in a major part of the Middle Atlantic States and agreed to refrain forever from engaging in that business in that area, while Holmes transferred to ADT its watch signal business and agreed to limit its activities to burglar alarm service and night watch service for financial institutions. While this agreement was modified several times and terminated in 1947, in 1961 Holmes still restricted its business to burglar alarm service and operated only in those areas which had been allocated to it under the 1906 agreement. Similarly, ADT continued to refrain from supplying burglar alarm service in those areas earlier allocated to Holmes.
In 1907 Grinnell entered into a series of agreements with the other defendant companies and with Automatic Fire Protection Co. to the following effect:
AFA received the exclusive right to provide central station sprinkler supervisory and waterflow alarm and automatic fire alarm service in New York City, Boston and Philadelphia, and agreed not to provide burglar alarm service in those cities or central station service elsewhere in the United States.
Automatic Fire Protection Co. obtained the exclusive right to provide central station sprinkler supervisory and waterflow alarm service everywhere else in the United States except for the three cities in which AFA received that exclusive right, and agreed not to engage in burglar alarm service.
ADT received the exclusive right to render burglar alarm and nightwatch service throughout the United States. (Under ADT’s 1906 agreement with Holmes, however, it could not provide burglar alarm services in the areas for which it had given Holmes the exclusive right to do so.) It agreed not to furnish sprinkler supervisory and waterflow alarm service anywhere in the country and not to- furnish automatic fire alarm service in New York City, Boston or Philadelphia (the three cities allocated to AFA). ADT agreed to connect to its central stations the systems installed by AFA and Automatic.
Grinnell agreed to furnish and install all sprinkler supervisory and waterflow alarm actuating devices used in systems that AFA and Automatic would install, and otherwise not to engage in the central station protection business.
AFA and Automatic received 25% of the revenue produced by the sprinkler supervisory waterflow alarm service which they provided in their respective territories; ADT and Grinnell received 50% and 25%, respectively, of the revenue which resulted from such service. The agreements were to continue until February 1954.
The agreements remained substantially unchanged until 1949 when ADT purchased all of Automatic Fire Protection Co.’s rights under it for $13,500,000. After these 1907 agreements expired in 1954, AFA continued to honor the prior division of territories; and ADT and AFA entered into a new contract providing for the continued sharing of revenues on substantially the same basis as before. In 1954 Grinnell and ADT renewed an agreement with a Rhode Island company which received the exclusive right to render central station service within Rhode Island at prices no lower than those of ADT and which agreed to use certain equipment supplied by Grinnell and ADT and to share its revenues with those companies. ADT had an informal agreement with a competing central station company in Washington, D. C., “that we would not solicit each other’s accounts.”
ADT over the years reduced its minimum basic rates to meet competition and renewed contracts at substantially increased rates in cities where it had a. monopoly of accredited central station service. ADT threatened retaliation against firms that contemplated inaugurating central station service. And the record indicates that, in contemplating opening a new central station, ADT officials frequently stressed that such action would deter their competitors from opening a new station in that area.
The District Court found that the defendant companies had committed per se violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act as well as § 2 and entered a decree. 236 F. Supp. 244.
I.
The offense of monopoly under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. We shall see that this second ingredient presents no major problem here, as what was done in building the empire was done plainly and explicitly for a single purpose. In United States v. du Pont & Co., 351 U. S. 377, 391, we defined monopoly power as “the power to control prices or exclude competition.” The existence of such power ordinarily may be inferred from the predominant share of the market. In American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, 797, we said that “over two-thirds of the entire domestic field of cigarettes, and . . . over 80% of the field of comparable cigarettes” constituted “a substantial monopoly.” In United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 429, 90% of the market constituted monopoly power. In the present case, 87% of the accredited central station service business leaves no doubt that the congeries of these defendants have monopoly power — power which, as our discussion of the record indicates, they did not hesitate to wield — if that business is the relevant market. The only remaining question therefore is, what is the relevant market?
In case of a product it may be of such a character that substitute products must also be considered, as customers may turn to them if there is a slight increase in the price of the main product. That is the teaching of the du Pont. case {supra, at 395, 404), viz., that commodities reasonably interchangeable make up that “part” of trade or commerce which § 2 protects against monopoly power.
The District Court treated the entire accredited central station service business as a single market and we think it was justified in so doing. Defendants argue that the different central station services offered are so diverse that they cannot under du Pont be lumped together to make up the relevant market. For example, burglar alarm services are not interchangeable with fire alarm services. They further urge that du Pont requires that protective services other than those of the central station variety be included in the market definition.
But there is here a single use, i. e., the protection of property, through a central station that receives signals. It is that service, accredited, that is unique and that competes with all the other forms of property protection. We see no barrier to combining in a single market a number of different products or services where that combination reflects commercial realities. To repeat, there is here a single basic service — the protection of property through use of a central service station — that must be compared with all other forms of property protection.
In § 2' cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities. We do not pursue that question here. First, we deal with services, not with products; and second, we conclude that the accredited central station is a type of service that makes up a relevant market and that domination or control of it makes out a monopoly of a “part” of trade or commerce within the meaning of § 2 of the Sherman Act. The defendants have not made out a case for fragmentizing the types of services into lesser units.
Burglar alarm service is in a sense different from fire alarm service; from waterflow alarms; and so on. But it would be unrealistic on this record to break down the market into the various kinds of central station protective services that are available. Central station companies recognize that to compete effectively, they must offer all or nearly all types of service. The different forms of accredited central station service are provided from a single office and customers utilize different services in combination. We held in United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 356, that “the cluster” of services denoted by the term “commercial banking” is “a distinct line of commerce.” There is, in our view, a comparable cluster of services here. That bank case arose under § 7 of the Clayton Act where the question was whether the effect of a merger “in any line of commerce” may be “substantially to lessen competition.” We see no reason to differentiate between “line” of commerce in the context of the Clayton Act and “part” of commerce for purposes of the Sherman Act. See United States v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 376 U. S. 665, 667-668. In the § 7 national bank case just mentioned, services, not products in the mercantile sense, were involved. In our view the lumping together of various kinds of services makes for the appropriate market here as it did in the § 7 case.
There are, to be sure, substitutes for the accredited central station service. But none of them appears to operate on the same level as the central station service so as to meet the interchangeability test of the du Pont case. Nonautomatic and automatic local alarm systems appear on this record to have marked differences, not the low degree of differentiation required of substitute services as well as substitute articles.
Watchman service is far more costly and less reliable. Systems that set off an audible alarm at the site of a fire or burglary are cheaper but often less reliable. They may be inoperable without anyone’s knowing it. Moreover, there is a risk that the íocal ringing of an alarm will not attract the needed attention and help. Proprietary systems that a customer purchases and operates are available; but they can be used only by a very large business or by government and are not realistic alternatives for most concerns. There are also protective services connected directly to a municipal police or fire department. But most cities with an accredited central station do not permit direct, connected service for private businesses. These alternate services and devices differ, we are told, in utility, efficiency, reliability, responsiveness, and continuity, and the record sustains that position. And, as noted, insurance companies generally allow a greater reduction in premiums for accredited central station service than for other types of protection.
Defendants earnestly urge that despite these differences, they face competition from these other modes of protection. They seem to us seriously to overstate the degree of competition, but we recognize that (as the District Court found) they “do not have unfettered power to control the price of their services . . . due to the fringe competition of other alarm or watchmen services.” 236 F. Supp., at 254. What defendants overlook is that the high degree of differentiation between central station protection ánd the other forms means that for many customers, only central station protection will do. Though some customers may be willing to accept higher insurance rates in favor of cheaper forms of protection, others will, not be willing or able to risk serious interruption to their businesses, even though covered by insurance, and will thus be unwilling to consider anything but central station protection.
The accredited, as distinguished from nonaccredited service, is a relevant part of commerce. Virtually the only central station companies in the status of the non-accredited are those that have not yet been able to meet the standards of the rating bureau. The accredited ones are indeed those that have achieved, in the eyes of underwriters, superiorities that other central stations do not have. The accredited central station is located in a building of approved design, provided with an emergency lighting system and two alternate main power sources, manned constantly by at least a required minimum of operators, provided with a direct line to fire headquarters and, where possible, a direct line to a police station; and equipped with all the devices, circuits and equipment meeting the requirements of the underwriters. These standards are important as insurance carriers often require accredited central station service as a condition to writing insurance. There is indeed evidence that customers consider the unaccredited service as inferior.
We also agree with the District Court that the geographic market for the accredited central station service is national. The activities of an individual station are in a sense local as it serves, ordinarily, only that area which is within a radius of 25 miles. But the record amply supports the conclusion that the business of providing such a service is operated on a national level. There is national planning. The agreements we have discussed covered activities in many States. The inspection, certification and rate-making is largely by national insurers. The appellant ADT has a national schedule of prices, rates, and terms, though the rates may be varied to meet local conditions. It deals with multistate businesses on the basis of nationwide contracts. The manufacturing business of ADT is interstate. The fact that Holmes is more nearly local than the others does not save it, for it is part and parcel of the combine presided over and controlled by Grinnell.
As the District Court found, the relevant market for determining whether the defendants have monopoly power is not the several local areas which the individual stations serve, but the broader national market that reflects the reality of the way in which they built and conduct their business.
We have said enough about the great hold that the defendants have on this market. The percentage is so high as to justify the finding of monopoly. And, as the facts already related indicate, this monopoly was achieved in large part by unlawful and exclusionary practices. The restrictive agreements that pre-empted for each company a segment of the market where it was free of competition of the others were one device. Pricing practices that contained competitors were another. The acquisitions by Grinnell of ADT, AFA, and Holmes were still another. Grinnell long faced a problem of competing with ADT. That was one reason it acquired AFA and Holmes. Prior to settlement of its dispute and controversy with ADT, Grinnell prepared to go into the central station service business. By acquiring ADT in 1953, Grinnell eliminated that alternative. Its control of the three other defendants eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition that might have occurred when the 1907 agreements terminated. By those acquisitions it perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices.
II.
The final decree enjoins the defendants in general terms from restraining trade or attempting or conspiring to restrain trade in this particular market, from further monopolizing, and attempting or conspiring to monopolize. The court ordered the alarm companies to file with the Department of Justice standard lists of prices and terms and every quotation to customers that deviated from those lists and enjoined the defendants from acquiring stock, assets, or business of any enterprise in the market. Grinnell was ordered to file, not later than April 1, 1966, a plan of divestiture of its stock in each of the other defendant companies. It was given the option either to sell the stock or distribute it to its stockholders or combine or vary those methods. The court further enjoined any of the defendants from employing in any capacity the President and Chairman of the Board of Grinnell, James D. Fleming. Both the Government and the defendants challenge aspects of the decree.
We start from the premise that adequate relief in a monopolization case should put an end to the combination and deprive the defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal conduct, and break up or render impotent the monopoly power found to be in violation of the Act. That is the teaching of our cases, notably Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110, 128-129.
We largely agree with the Government’s views on the relief aspect of the case. We start with ADT, which presently does 73% of the business done by accredited central stations throughout the country. It is indeed the keystone of the defendants’ monopoly power. The mere dissolution of the combination through the divestiture by Grinnell of its interests in the other companies does not reach the root of the evil. In 92 of the 115 cities in which ADT operates there are no other accredited central stations. Perhaps some cities could not support more than one. Defendants recognized prior to trial that at least 13 cities can; the Government urged divestiture in 48 cities. That there should be some divestiture on the part of ADT seems clear; but the details of such divestiture must be determined by the District Court as the matter cannot be resolved on this record.
Two of the means by which ADT acquired and maintained its large share of the market are the requirement that subscribers sign five-year contracts and the retention by ADT of title to the protective services equipment installed on a subscriber’s premises. On this record it appears that these practices constitute substantial barriers to competition and that relief against them is appropriate. The pros and cons are argued with considerable vehemence here. Again, we cannot resolve them on this record. The various aspects of this controversy must be explored by the District Court and suitable protective provisions included in the decree that deprive these two devices of the coercive power that they apparently have had towards restraining competition and creating a monopoly.
The Government proposed that the defendants be required to sell, on nondiscriminatory terms, any devices manufactured by them for use in furnishing central station service. It seems clear that if the competitors are to be able to compete effectively for the existing customers of the defendants when the present service contracts expire, they must be assured of replacement parts to maintain those systems.
The Government urges visitation rights, that is, requiring reports, examining documents, and interviewing company personnel, a relief commonly granted for the purpose of determining whether a defendant has complied with an antitrust decree. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 95. The District Court gave no explanation for its refusal to grant this relief. It is so important and customary a provision that the District Court should reconsider it.
Defendants urge and the Government concedes that the barring of Mr. Fleming from the employment of any of the defendants is unduly harsh and quite unnecessary on this record. While relief of that kind may be appropriate where the predatory conduct is conspicuous, we cannot see that any such case was made out on this record.
The Government objects, as do the defendants, to the broad and generalized terms of the restraining order. They properly point out, as we emphasized in Schine Theatres v. United States, supra, at 125-126, that the precise practices found to have violated the Act should be specifically enjoined. On remand we suggest that that course be taken.
The defendants object to the requirements that Grin-nell divest itself of its hqldings in the three alarm company defendants, but' we think that provision is wholly justified. Dissolution of the combination is essential as indicated by many of our cases, starting with Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 78. The defendants object to that portion of the decree that bars them from acquiring interests in firms in the accredited central station business. But since acquisition was one of the methods by which the defendants acquired their market power and was the method by which Grinnell put the combination together, an injunction against the repetition of the practice seems fully warranted. The defendants further object to the requirement in the decree that the alarm company defendants report to the Department of Justice any deviation they make from their list prices. We make no comment on that because in view of the other extensive changes necessary in the decree, the District Court might well deem it to be unnecessary in the fashioning of the new decree. In other words, we leave that matter open, to rest finally in the discretion of the District Court.
III.
The defendants contend that Judge Wyzanski, who tried the case, was personally biased and prejudiced and should have been disqualified from sitting in the case, and that he denied them a fair trial. We think this point is without merit.
The complaint was filed in April 1961, the answers in July 1961. Shortly thereafter extensive taking of depositions began. The District Court in January 1963 directed that no depositions be taken after September 1, 1963. In response to an inquiry from the court both sides suggested that the trial be set no earlier than January 1964.
At a pretrial conference in December 1963, government counsel told the court that the parties had been trying to reach agreement on a consent decree but were far apart and asked how the court would like to handle the presentation of the evidence in the event a settlement was not reached. Grinnell’s lawyer suggested that the next appropriate procedure would be a pretrial on the question of relief — a suggestion that the District Court construed as an invitation to the court to discuss the relief apart from the merits. The Government objected. The court then asked for a brief from each side setting forth its views on relief if the Government prevailed on the merits. In response to the court’s statement that “as I understand it, you want to find out what kind of relief I would be likely to allow if the government’s case stood virtually uncontradicted,” Grinnell’s counsel replied: “That is what I had in mind, your Honor, yes.” Thereupon the court set a day for such a hearing. At the next pretrial conference Grinnell’s counsel stated that “if your Honor would indicate the relief that might be appropriate in this case that would help both sides to come to a better understanding.”
Then the following colloquy occurred:
“The Court. I don’t think it would help very much.
“Mr. McInerney. Well, your Honor, I think it would help both the plaintiff and the defendants to know what is really at stake here in this trial.
“The Court. I assure you that you would not be helped by anything I would say. You would do better to get together with the government rather than run the risk of what I would say from what I have seen. Let me just assure you of that. . . .”
The case was then set for trial on June 15,1964. When Grinnell’s counsel sought to argue further, the court stated: “There is no use in discussing it with me. I have read enough to know that if I have to decide this case on what I have seen from the government you will not be in a position at this stage to agree to it.”
On June 3, 1964, defendants argued for a postponement of the trial, saying they needed more time. The court denied the motion. Then they argued that the relief issues to be tried be limited to those raised by the pleadings so as to eliminate what they considered to be extraneous issues raised by the Government. To that the court replied:
“I can’t understand frankly why you don’t realize that you have forced me to look at the documents in this case, which I dislike doing in advance of trial. You have invited me, therefore, into what I regard as, from your point of view, a rather undesirable situation. I think I made that clear at the beginning. I have told you that, forced by you to look, my views are more extreme than those of the government; and I have also made you realize that if I am required to make Findings and reach Conclusions I am opening up third-party suits that will make, in view of the size of the industry, the percentage of people involved higher than in the electrical cases.”
Shortly thereafter defendants filed a motion for the disqualification of Judge Wyzanski on the grounds of personal bias and prejudice.
The alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case. Berger v. United States, 255 U. S. 22, 31. Any adverse attitudes that Judge Wyzanski evinced toward the defendants were based on his study of the depositions and briefs which the parties had requested him to make. What he said reflected no more than his view that, if the facts were as the Government alleged, stringent relief was called for.
During the trial he repeatedly stated that he had not made up his mind on the merits. During the trial he ruled certain evidence to be irrelevant to the issues and when the lawyer persisted in offering it Judge Wyzanski said, “Maybe you will persuade somebody else. And if you think so, all right. I just assure you it is a great ceremonial act, as far as I am concerned.” We do not read this statement as manifesting a closed mind on the merits of the case but consider it merely a terse way of repeating the previously stated ruling that this particular evidence was irrelevant.
We have examined all the other claims of the defendants made against Judge Wyzanski and find that the claim of bias and prejudice is not made out. Our discussion of the relief which he granted shows indeed that he was, in several critical respects, too lenient with those who now charge him with bias and prejudice.
The judgment below is affirmed except as to the decree. We remand for further hearings on the nature of the relief consistent with the views expressed herein.
It is so ordered.
26 Stat. 209, as.amended, 15 U. S. C. §2 (1964 ed.).
Expediting Act § 2, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29 (1964 ed.); United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U. S. 38.
These are the record figures. Since the time of the trial, Grinnell’s holdings have increased. Counsel for Grinnell has advised this Court that Grinnell now holds 80% of ADT’s stock and 90% of the stock of AFA.
Among the various central station services offered are the following:
(1) automatic burglar alarms;
(2) automatic fire alarms;
(3) sprinkler supervisory service (any malfunctions in the fire sprinkler system — e. g., changes in water pressure, dangerously low water temperatures, etc. — are reported to the central station); and
(4) watch signal service (night watchmen, by operating a key-triggered device on the protected premises, indicate to the central station that they are making their rounds and that all is well; the failure of a watchman to make his electrical report alerts the central station that something may be amiss).
In 1959, ADT complained that AFA’s share of the revenues was excessive. AFA replied, in a letter to the president of Grinnell (which by that time controlled both ADT and AFA), that its share was just compensation for its continued observance of the service and territorial restrictions: “[T]he geographic restrictions placed upon us plus the requirement that we confine our activities to sprinkler and fire alarm services exclusively, since 1907 and presumably into the future, has definitely retarded our expansion in the past to the benefit of ADT growth. . . . [AFA’s] contribution must also include the many things that helped make ADT big.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, of the 38 nondefendant firms operating a central service station protective service in the United States in 1961, 24 offered all of the following services: automatic fire alarm; waterflow alarm and sprinkler supervision; watchman’s reporting and manual fire alarm; and burglar alarm. Of the other firms, 11 provided no watchman’s reporting and manual fire alarm service; six provided no automatic fire alarm service; and two offered no sprinkler supervisory and waterflow alarm service. Moreover, of the 14 firms not providing the full panoply of services, 10 lacked only one of the above-described services. Appellant ADT’s assertion that “very few accredited central stations furnish the full variety of services” is flatly contradicted by the record.
Since the record clearly shows that this monopoly power was consciously acquired, we have no reason to reach the further position of the District Court that once monopoly power is shown to exist, the burden is on the defendants to show that their dominance is due to skill, acumen, and the like.
Although the Government originally urged that the decree was inadequate as to divestiture in -that it permitted Grinnell to distribute the stock of the other companies to Grinnell’s shareholders, it has abandoned that point in this Court.
Specifically, the areas of disagreement are: (1) Defendants urge that barring them from offering five-year contracts would put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-á-vis nondefendant firms; the Government responds that since they violated the law, they may properly be subjected to restrictions not borne by others. See United States v. Bausch & Lomb Co., 321 U. S. 707, 723-724. (2) Some customers of defendants may wish to have long-term contracts; the Government responds that this may be explored on remand. (3) There is some dispute as to whether, if the central station company cannot retain title to the equipment it installs, the insurance companies will accredit the system. This, too, is a proper subject for inquiry on remand.
Prior to trial, the defendants agreed that this would be an appropriate provision in a decree were the Government to prevail in all its claims of antitrust violations. Although defendants now maintain that this pretrial discussion was “settlement talk,” that earlier concession is a relevant factor that the District Judge can properly take into account on remand.
This provision, too, gained pretrial acceptance. See n. 10, supra.
28 U. S. C. § 144 (1964 ed.) provides in relevant part:
“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.”
Judge Wyzanski referred the question of his disqualification to Chief Judge Woodbury of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit who after hearing oral argument held that no case of bias and prejudice had been made out under § 144.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitions for certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is set aside with direction to that court to enter a new judgment consistent with this opinion.
The Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing upon a charge filed by the International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (IUE). The charge alleged that General Electric Company violated §§ 8 (a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (a)(1) and (5), in refusing to bargain upon the renewal of an expiring collective bargaining agreement because of “the inclusion among the persons designated by the Union to represent it ... of persons who also represented other labor organizations which engaged in collective bargaining with” the company. Pursuant to § 10 (j) of the Act the Regional Director also obtained a temporary injunction in the District Court for the Southern District of New York restraining the company from “[fjailing or refusing to meet, confer and bargain collectively in good faith with . . . [IUE], by declining to meet with the selected representatives of . . . [IUE] because of the presence of any representatives of other unions whom IUE and its constituent locals have invited to attend for the purpose of participating in the discussion and advising ór consulting with IUE and its constituent locals.” The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 366 F. 2d 847. Mr. Justice Harlan stayed the Court of Appeals’ judgment pending action on the petition for writ of certiorari filed in No. 645.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals differed regarding the proper standard which should be determinative of the right to injunctive relief under § 10 (j). The District Court applied a dual test: (1) whether “the impact upon the public interest is grave enough to justify swifter corrective action than the normal process of Board adjudication and court enforcement,” 257 F. Supp. 690, 708, and (2) “whether the Board has ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the accused party has been guilty of unfair labor practices.” 257 F. Supp., at 709. The Court of Appeals on the other hand considered the proper standard to be whether the Board had “demonstrated that an injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo or to prevent any irreparable harm.” 366 F. 2d, at 850.
We do not think it appropriate however to decide at this time the proper construction of § 10 (j). For on October 14, 1966, after the decision of the Court of Appeals, the company and IUE agreed upon a three-year collective bargaining agreement to replace the expired contract. We think th$t the District Court should determine in the first instance the effect of this supervening event upon the appropriateness of injunctive relief. The controversy over the proper standard for injunctive relief is immaterial if such relief is now improper whichever standard is applied. We therefore dissolve the stay granted by Mr. Justice Harlan and set.aside the judgment of the Court of Appeals with direction to enter a new judgment setting aside the order of the District Court and remanding to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in light of the supervening event. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263; Scranton v. Drew, 379 U. S. 40.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented in this case is whether capital stock held by petitioner Arkansas Best Corporation (Arkansas Best) is a “capital asset” as defined in § 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code regardless of whether the stock was purchased and held for a business purpose or for an investment purpose.
I
Arkansas Best is a diversified holding company. In 1968 it acquired approximately 65% of the stock of the National Bank of Commerce (Bank) in Dallas, Texas. Between 1969 and 1974, Arkansas Best more than tripled the number of shares it owned in the Bank, although its percentage interest in the Bank remained relatively stable. These acquisitions were prompted principally by the Bank’s need for added capital. Until 1972, the Bank appeared to be prosperous and growing, and the added capital was necessary to accommodate this growth. As the Dallas real estate market declined, however, so too did the financial health of the Bank, which had a heavy concentration of loans in the local real estate industry. In 1972, federal examiners classified the Bank as a problem bank. The infusion of capital after 1972 was prompted by the loan portfolio problems of the bank.
Petitioner sold the bulk of its Bank stock on June 30, 1975, leaving it with only a 14.7% stake in the Bank. On its federal income tax return for 1975, petitioner claimed a deduction for an ordinary loss of $9,995,688 resulting from the sale of the stock. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deduction, finding that the loss from the sale of stock was a capital loss, rather than an ordinary loss, and that it therefore was subject to the capital loss limitations in the Internal Revenue Code.
Arkansas Best challenged the Commissioner’s determination in the United States Tax Court. The Tax Court, relying on cases interpreting Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U. S. 46 (1955), held that stock purchased with a substantial investment purpose is a capital asset which, when sold, gives rise to a capital gain or loss, whereas stock purchased and held for a business purpose, without any substantial investment motive, is an ordinary asset whose sale gives rise to ordinary gains or losses. See 83 T. C. 640, 653-654 (1984). The court characterized Arkansas Best’s acquisitions through 1972 as occurring during the Bank’s “‘growth’ phase,” and found that these acquisitions “were motivated primarily by investment purpose and only incidentally by some business purpose.” Id., at 654. The stock acquired during this period therefore constituted a capital asset, which gave rise to a capital loss when sold in 1975. The court determined, however, that the acquisitions after 1972 occurred during the Bank’s “‘problem’ phase,” ibid., and, except for certain minor exceptions, “were made exclusively for business purposes and subsequently held for the same reasons.” Id., at 656. These acquisitions, the court found, were designed to preserve petitioner’s business reputation, because without the added capital the Bank probably would have failed. Id., at 656-657. The loss realized on the sale of this stock was thus held to be an ordinary loss.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s determination that the loss realized on stock purchased after 1972 was subject to ordinary-loss treatment, holding that all of the Bank stock sold in 1975 was subject to capital-loss treatment. 800 F. 2d 215 (1986). The court reasoned that the Bank stock clearly fell within the general definition of “capital asset” in Internal Revenue Code § 1221, and that the stock did not fall within any of the specific statutory exceptions to this definition. The court concluded that Arkansas Best’s purpose in acquiring and holding the stock was irrelevant to the determination whether the stock was a capital asset. We granted certiorari, 480 U. S. 930, and now affirm.
II
Section 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code defines “capital asset” broadly as “property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business),” and then excludes five specific classes of property from capital-asset status. In the statute’s present form, the classes of property exempted from the broad definition are (1) “property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer”; (2) real property or other depreciable property used in the taxpayer’s trade or business; (3) “a copyright, a literary, musical, or artistic composition,” or similar property; (4) “accounts or notes receivable acquired in the ordinary course of trade or business for services rendered” or from the sale of inventory; and (5) publications of the Federal Government. Arkansas Best acknowledges that the Bank stock falls within the literal definition of “capital asset” in § 1221, and is outside of the statutory exclusions. It asserts, however, that this determination does not end the inquiry. Petitioner argues that in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner, supra, this Court rejected a literal reading of § 1221, and concluded that assets acquired and sold for ordinary business purposes rather than for investment purposes should be given ordinary-asset treatment. Petitioner’s reading of Corn Products finds much support in the academic literature and in the courts. Unfortunately for petitioner, this broad reading finds no support in the language of § 1221.
In essence, petitioner argues that “property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business)” does not include property that is acquired and held for a business purpose. In petitioner’s view an asset’s status as “property” thus turns on the motivation behind its acquisition. This motive test, however, is not only nowhere mentioned in § 1221, but it is also in direct conflict with the parenthetical phrase “whether or not connected with his trade or business.” The broad definition of the term “capital asset” explicitly makes irrelevant any consideration of the property’s connection with the taxpayer’s business, whereas petitioner’s rule would make this factor dispositive.
In a related argument, petitioner contends that the five exceptions listed in § 1221 for certain kinds of property are illustrative, rather than exhaustive, and that courts are therefore free to fashion additional exceptions in order to further the general purposes of the capital-asset provisions. The language of the statute refutes petitioner’s construction. Section 1221 provides that “capital asset” means “property held by the taxpayer[,] . . . but does not include” the five classes of property listed as exceptions. We believe this locution signifies that the listed exceptions are exclusive. The body of § 1221 establishes a general definition of the term “capital asset,” and the phrase “does not include” takes out of that broad definition only the classes of property that are specifically mentioned. The legislative history of the capital-asset definition supports this interpretation, see H. R. Rep. No. 704, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 31 (1934) (“[T]he definition includes all property, except as specifically excluded”); H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., A273 (1954) (“[A] capital asset is property held by the taxpayer with certain exceptions”), as does the applicable Treasury regulation, see 26 CFR § 1.1221-1(a) (1987) (“The term ‘capital assets’ includes all classes of property not specifically excluded by section 1221”).
Petitioner’s reading of the statute is also in tension with the exceptions listed in § 1221. These exclusions would be largely superfluous if assets acquired primarily or exclusively for business purposes were not capital assets. Inventory, real or depreciable property used in the taxpayer’s trade or business, and accounts or notes receivable acquired in the ordinary course of business, would undoubtedly satisfy such a business-motive test. Yet these exceptions were created by Congress in separate enactments spanning 30 years. Without any express direction from Congress, we are unwilling to read § 1221 in a manner that makes surplusage of these statutory exclusions.
In the end, petitioner places all reliance on its reading of Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U. S. 46 (1955) — a reading we believe is too expansive. In Corn Products, the Court considered whether income arising from a taxpayer’s dealings in corn futures was entitled to capital-gains treatment. The taxpayer was a company that converted corn into starches, sugars, and other products. After droughts in the 1930’s caused sharp increases in corn prices, the company began a program of buying corn futures to assure itself an adequate supply of corn and protect against price increases. See id., at 48. The company “would take delivery on such contracts as it found necessary to its manufacturing operations and sell the remainder in early summer if no shortage was imminent. If shortages appeared, however, it sold futures only as it bought spot corn for grinding.” Id., at 48-49. The Court characterized the company’s dealing in corn futures as “hedging.” Id., at 51. As explained by the Court of Appeals in Corn Products, “[h]edging is a method of dealing in commodity futures whereby a person or business protects itself against price fluctuations at the time of delivery of the product which it sells or buys.” 215 F. 2d 513, 515 (CA2 1954). In evaluating the company’s claim that the sales of corn futures resulted in capital gains and losses, this Court stated:
“Nor can we find support for petitioner’s contention that hedging is not within the exclusions of [§1221]. Admittedly, petitioner’s corn futures do not come within the literal language of the exclusions set out in that section. They were not stock in trade, actual inventory, property held for sale to customers or depreciable property used in a trade or business. But the capital-asset provision of [§ 1221] must not be so broadly applied as to defeat rather, than further the purpose of Congress. Congress intended that profits and losses arising from the everyday operation of a business be considered as ordinary income or loss rather than capital gain or loss. . . . Since this section is an exception from the normal tax requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of a capital asset must be narrowly applied and its exclusions interpreted broadly.” 350 U. S., at 51-52 (citations omitted).
The Court went on to note that hedging transactions consistently had been considered to give rise to ordinary gains and losses, and then concluded that the corn futures were subject to ordinary-asset treatment. Id., at 52-53.
The Court in Corn Products proffered the oft-quoted rule of construction that the definition of “capital asset” must be narrowly applied and its exclusions interpreted broadly, but it did not state explicitly whether the holding was based on a narrow reading of the phrase “property held by the taxpayer,” or on a broad reading of the inventory exclusion of § 1221. In light of the stark language of § 1221, however, we believe that Corn Products is properly interpreted as involving an application of § 1221’s inventory exception. Such a reading is consistent both with the Court’s reasoning in that case and with § 1221. The Court stated in Corn Products that the company’s futures transactions were “an integral part of its business designed to protect its manufacturing operations against a price increase in its principal raw material and to assure a ready supply for future manufacturing requirements.” 350 U. S., at 50. The company bought, sold, and took delivery under the futures contracts as required by the company’s manufacturing needs. As Professor Bittker notes, under these circumstances, the futures can “easily be viewed as surrogates for the raw material itself.” 2 B. Bittker, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 51.10.3, p. 51-62 (1981). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Corn Products clearly took this approach. That court stated that when commodity futures are “utilized solely for the purpose of stabilizing inventory cost[,] . . . [they] cannot reasonably be separated from the inventory items,” and concluded that “property used in hedging transactions properly comes within the exclusions of [§1221].” 215 F. 2d, at 516. This Court indicated its acceptance of the Second Circuit’s reasoning when it began the central paragraph of its opinion: “Nor can we find support for petitioner’s contention that hedging is not within the exclusions of [§ 1221].” 350 U. S., at 51. In the following paragraph, the Court argued that the Treasury had consistently viewed such hedging transactions as a form of insurance to stabilize the cost of inventory, and cited a Treasury ruling which concluded that the value of a manufacturer’s raw-material inventory should be adjusted to take into account hedging transactions in futures contracts. See id., at 52-53 (citing G. C. M. 17322, XV-2 Cum. Bull. 151 (1936)). This discussion, read in light of the Second Circuit’s holding and the plain language of § 1221, convinces us that although the corn futures were not “actual inventory,” their use as an integral part of the taxpayer’s inventory-purchase system led the Court to treat them as substitutes for the corn inventory such that they came within a broad reading of “property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer” in § 1221.
Petitioner argues that by focusing attention on whether the asset was acquired and sold as an integral part of the taxpayer’s everyday business operations, the Court in Corn Products intended to create a general exemption from capital-asset status for assets acquired for business purposes. We believe petitioner misunderstands the relevance of the Court’s inquiry. A business connection, although irrelevant to the initial determination whether an item is a capital asset, is relevant in determining the applicability of certain of the statutory exceptions, including the inventory exception. The close connection between the futures transactions and the taxpayer’s business in Corn Products was crucial to whether the corn futures could be considered surrogates for the stored inventory of raw corn. For if the futures dealings were not part of the company’s inventory-purchase system, and instead amounted simply to speculation in corn futures, they could not be considered substitutes for the company’s corn inventory, and would fall outside even a broad reading of the inventory exclusion. We conclude that Corn Products is properly interpreted as standing for the narrow proposition that hedging transactions that are an integral part of a business’ inventory-purchase system fall within the inventory exclusion of § 1221. Arkansas Best, which is not a dealer in securities, has never suggested that the Bank stock falls within the inventory exclusion. Corn Products thus has no application to this case.
It is also important to note that the business-motive test advocated by petitioner is subject to the same kind of abuse that the Court condemned in Corn Products. The Court explained in Corn Products that unless hedging transactions were subject to ordinary gain and loss treatment, taxpayers engaged in such transactions could “transmute ordinary income into capital gain at will.” 350 U. S., at 53-54. The hedger could garner capital-asset treatment by selling the future and purchasing the commodity on the spot market, or ordinary-asset treatment by taking delivery under the future contract. In a similar vein, if capital stock purchased and held for a business purpose is an ordinary asset, whereas the same stock purchased and held with an investment motive is a capital asset, a taxpayer such as Arkansas Best could have significant influence over whether the asset would receive capital or ordinary treatment. Because stock is most naturally viewed as a capital asset, the Internal Revenue Service would be hard pressed to challenge a taxpayer’s claim that stock was acquired as an investment, and that a gain arising from the sale of such stock was therefore a capital gain. Indeed, we are unaware of a single decision that has applied the business-motive test so as to require a taxpayer to report a gain from the sale of stock as an ordinary gain. If the same stock is sold at a loss, however, the taxpayer may be able to garner ordinary-loss treatment by emphasizing the business purpose behind the stock’s acquisition. The potential for such abuse was evidenced in this case by the fact that as late as 1974, when Arkansas Best still hoped to sell the Bank stock at a profit, Arkansas Best apparently expected to report the gain as a capital gain. See 83 T. C., at 647-648.
Ill
We conclude that a taxpayer’s motivation in purchasing an asset is irrelevant to the question whether the asset is “property held by a taxpayer (whether or not connected with his business)” and is thus within §1221’s general definition of “capital asset.” Because the capital stock held by petitioner falls within the broad definition of the term “capital asset” in § 1221 and is outside the classes of property excluded from capital-asset status, the loss arising from the sale of the stock is a capital loss. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner, supra, which we interpret as involving a broad reading of the inventory exclusion of § 1221, has no application in the present context. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Title 26 U. S. C. § 1211(a) states that “[i]n the case of a corporation, losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets shall be allowed only to the extent of gains from such sales or exchanges.” Section 1212(a) establishes rules governing carrybacks and carryovers of capital losses, permitting such losses to offset capital gains in certain earlier or later years.
In 1975, when petitioner sold its Bank stock, § 1221 contained a different exception (5), which excluded certain federal and state debt obligations. See 26 U. S. C. § 1221(5) (1970 ed.). That exception was repealed by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, § 505(a), 95 Stat. 331. The present exception (5) was added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, § 2132(a), 90 Stat. 1925. These changes have no bearing on this case.
See, e. g.,2 B. Bittker, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 51.10.3, p. 51-62 (1981); Chirelstein, Capital Gain and the Sale of a Business Opportunity: The Income Tax Treatment of Contract Termination Payments, 49 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 41 (1964); Troxell & Noall, Judicial Erosion of the Concept of Securities as Capital Assets, 19 Tax L. Rev. 185, 187 (1964); Note, The Corn Products Doctrine and Its Application to Partnership Interests, 79 Colum. L. Rev. 341, and n. 3 (1979).
See, e. g., Campbell Taggart, Inc. v. United States, 744 F. 2d 442, 456-458 (CA5 1984); Steadman v. Commissioner, 424 F. 2d 1, 5 (CA6), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 869 (1970); Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 886, 893-896, 303 F. 2d 916, 920-921 (1962); W. W. Windle Co. v. Commissioner, 65 T. C. 694, 707-713 (1976).
Petitioner mistakenly relies on cases in which this Court, in narrowly applying the general definition of “capital asset,” has “construed ‘capital asset’ to exclude property representing income items or accretions to the value of a capital asset themselves properly attributable to income,” even though these items are property in the broad sense of the word. United States v. Midland-Ross Corp., 381 U. S. 54, 57 (1965). See, e. g., Commissioner v. Gillette Motor Co., 364 U. S. 130 (1960) (“capital asset” does not include compensation awarded taxpayer that represented fair rental value of its facilities); Commissioner v. P. G. Lake, Inc., 356 U. S. 260 (1958) (“capital asset” does not include proceeds from sale of oil payment rights); Hort v. Commissioner, 313 U. S. 28 (1941) (“capital asset” does not include payment to lessor for cancellation of unexpired portion of a lease). This line of cases, based on the premise that § 1221 “property” does not include claims or rights to ordinary income, has no application in the present context. Petitioner sold capital stock, not a claim to ordinary income.
The inventory exception was part of the original enactment of the capital-asset provision in 1924. See Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234, § 208(a)(8), 43 Stat. 263. Depreciable property used in a trade or business was excluded in 1938, see Revenue Act of 1938, ch. 289, § 117(a)(1), 52 Stat. 500, and real property used in a trade or business was excluded in 1942, see Revenue Act of 1942, ch. 619, § 151(a), 56 Stat. 846. The exception for accounts and notes receivable acquired in the ordinary course of trade or business was added in 1954. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 1221(4), 68A Stat. 322.
Although congressional inaction is generally a poor measure of congressional intent, we are given some pause by the fact that over 25 years have passed since Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner was initially interpreted as excluding assets acquired for business purposes from the definition of “capital asset,” see Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 886, 303 F. 2d 916 (1962), without any sign of disfavor from Congress. We cannot ignore the unambiguous language of § 1221, however, no matter how reticent Congress has been. If a broad exclusion from capital-asset status is to be created for assets acquired for business purposes, it must come from congressional action, not silence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The federal priority statute, 31 U. S. C. § 3713(a), provides that a claim of the United States Government “shall be paid first” when a decedent’s estate cannot pay all of its debts. The question presented is whether that statute requires that a federal tax claim be given preference over a judgment creditor’s perfected lien on real property even though such a preference is not authorized by the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, 26 U. S. C. § 6321 et seq.
I
On January 25,1985, the Court of Common Pleas of Cam-bria County, Pennsylvania, entered a judgment for $400,000 in favor of Romani Industries, Inc., and against Francis J. Romani. The judgment was recorded in the clerk’s office and therefore, as a matter of Pennsylvania law, it became a lien on all of the defendant’s real property in Cambria County. Thereafter, the Internal Revenue Service filed a series of notices of tax liens on Mr. Romani’s property. The claims for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties described in those notices amounted to approximately $490,000.
When Mr. Romani died on January 13,1992, his entire estate consisted of real estate worth only $53,001. Because the property was encumbered by both the judgment lien and the federal tax liens, the estate’s administrator sought permission from the Court of Common Pleas to transfer the property to the judgment creditor, Romani Industries, in lieu of execution. The Federal Government acknowledged that its tax liens were not valid as against the earlier judgment lien; but, giving new meaning to Franklin’s aphorism that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” it opposed the transfer on the ground that the priority statute (§3713) gave it the right to “be paid first.”
The Court of Common Pleas overruled the Government’s objection and authorized the conveyance. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, and the Supreme Court of the State also affirmed. 547 Pa. 41, 688 A. 2d 703 (1997). That court first determined that there was a “plain inconsistency” between § 3713, which appears to give the United States “absolute priority” over all competing claims, and the Tax Lien Act of 1966, which provides that the federal tax lien “shall not be valid” against judgment lien creditors until a prescribed notice has been given. Id., at 45, 688 A. 2d, at 705. Then, relying on the reasoning in United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U. S. 715 (1979), which had noted that the Tax Lien Act of 1966 modified the Federal Government’s preferred position in the tax area and recognized the priority of many state claims over federal tax liens, id., at 738, the court concluded that the 1966 Act had the effect of limiting the operation of § 3713 as to tax debts.
The decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court conflicts with two Federal Court of Appeals decisions, Kentucky ex rel. Luckett v. United States, 383 F. 2d 13 (CA6 1967), and Nesbitt v. United States, 622 F. 2d 433 (CA9 1980). Moreover, in its petition for certiorari, the Government submitted that the decision is inconsistent with our holding in Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396 (1817), and with the admonition that “ ‘[o]nly the plainest inconsistency would warrant our finding an implied exception to the operation of so clear a command as that of [31 U. S. C. § 3713],'” United States v. Key, 397 U. S. 322, 324-325 (1970) (quoting United States v. Emory, 314 U. S. 423, 433 (1941)). We granted certiorari, 521 U. S. 1117 (1997), to resolve the conflict and to consider whether Thelusson, Key, or any of our other cases construing the pí’iority statute requires a different result.
II
There is no dispute about the meaning of two of the three statutes that control the disposition of this case. It is therefore appropriate to comment on the Pennsylvania lien statute and the Federal Tax Lien Act before considering the applicability of the priority statute to property encumbered by an antecedent judgment creditor’s hen.
The Pennsylvania statute expressly provides that a judgment shall create a lien against real property when it is recorded in the county where the property is located. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4303(a) (1995). After the judgment has been recorded, the judgment creditor has the same right to notice of a tax sale as a mortgagee. The recording in one county does not, of course, create a lien on property located elsewhere. In this case, however, it is undisputed that the judgment creditor acquired a valid hen on the real property in Cambria County before the judgment debtor’s death and before the Government served notice of its tax liens. Romani Industries’ lien was “perfected in the sense that there is nothing more to be done to have a ehoate lien — when the identity of the lienor, the property subject to the lien, and the amount of the lien are established.” United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U. S. 81, 84 (1954); see also Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362, 375 (1946).
The Federal Government’s right to a lien on a delinquent taxpayer’s property has been a part of our law at least since 1865. Originally the lien applied, without exception, to all property of the taxpayer immediately upon the neglect or failure to pay the tax upon demand. An unrecorded tax lien against a delinquent taxpayer’s property was valid even against a bona fide purchaser who had no notice of the lien. United States v. Snyder, 149 U. S. 210, 213-215 (1893). In 1913, Congress amended the statute to provide that the federal tax lien “shall not be valid as against any mortgagee, purchaser, or judgment creditor5’ until notice has been filed with the clerk of the federal district court or with the appropriate local authorities in the district or county in which the property subject to the lien is located. Act of Mar. 4,1913, 37 Stat. 1016. In 1939, Congress broadened the protection against unfiled tax liens to include pledgees and the holders of certain securities. Act of June 29, 1939, §401, 53 Stat. 882-883. The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966 again broadened that protection to encompass a variety of additional secured transactions, and also included detailed provisions protecting certain secured interests even when a notice of the federal lien previously has been filed. 80 Stat. 1125-1132, as amended, 26 U. S. C. § 6323.
In sum, each time Congress revisited the federal tax lien, it ameliorated its original harsh impact on other secured creditors of the delinquent taxpayer. In this ease, it is agreed that by the terms of § 6323(a), the Federal Government’s liens are not valid as against the lien created by the earlier recording of Romani Industries’ judgment.
III
The text of the priority statute on which the Government places its entire reliance is virtually unchanged since its enactment in 1797. As we pointed out in United States v. Moore, 423 U. S. 77 (1975), not only were there earlier versions of the statute, but “its roots reach back even further into the English common law,” id., at 80. The sovereign prerogative that was exercised by the English Crown and by many of the States as “an inherent incident of sovereignty,” ibid., applied only to unsecured claims. As Justice Brandéis noted in Marshall v. New York, 254 U. S. 380, 384 (1920), the common-law priority “[did] not obtain over a specific lien created by the debtor before the sovereign undertakes to enforce its right.” Moreover, the statute itself does not create a lien in favor of the United States. Given this background, respondent argues that the statute should be read as giving the United States a preference over other unsecured creditors but not over secured creditors.
There are dicta in our earlier cases that support this contention as well as dicta that tend to refute it. Perhaps the strongest support is found in Justice Story’s statement:
“What then is the nature of the priority, thus limited and established in favour of the United States? Is it a right, which supersedes and overrules the assignment of the debtor, as to any property which the United States may afterwards elect to take in execution, so as to prevent such property from passing by virtue of such assignment to the assignees? Or, is it a mere right of prior payment, out of the general funds of the debtor, in the hands of the assignees? We are of opinion that it clearly falls, within the latter description. The language employed is that which naturally would be employed to express such an intent; and it must be strained from its ordinary import, to speak any other.” Concord v. Atlantic Ins. Co. of N. Y., 1 Pet. 386, 439 (1828).
Justice Story’s opinion that the language employed in the statute “must be strained” to give it any other meaning is entitled to special respect because he was more familiar with 18th-century usage than judges who view the statute from a 20th-century perspective.
We cannot, however, ignore the Court’s earlier judgment in Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat., at 426, or the more recent dicta in United States v. Key, 397 U. S., at 324-325. In Thelusson, the Court held that the priority statute gave the United States a preference over the claim of a judgment creditor who had a general lien on the debtor’s real property. The Court’s brief opinion is subject to the interpretation that the statutory priority always accords the Government a preference over judgment creditors. For two reasons, we do not accept that reading of the opinion.
First, as a factual matter, in 1817 when the ease was decided, there was no procedure for recording a judgment and thereby creating a ehoate lien on a specific parcel of real estate. See generally 2 L. Dembitz, A Treatise on Land Titles in the United States § 127, pp. 948-952 (1895). Notwithstanding the judgment, a bona fide purchaser could have acquired the debtor’s property free from any claims of the judgment creditor. See Semple v. Burd, 7 Serg. & Rawle 286, 291 (Pa. 1821) (“The prevailing object of the Legislature, has uniformly been, to support the security of a judgment creditor, by confirming his lien, except when it interferes with the circulation of property by embarrassing a fair purchaser”). That is not the ease with respect to Romani Industries’ choate lien on the property in Cambria Comity.
Second, and of greater importance, in his opinion for the Court in the Conard case, which was joined by Justice Washington, the author of Thelusson, Justice Story explained why that holding was fully consistent with his interpretation of the text of the priority statute:
“The real ground of the decision, was, that the judgment creditor had never perfected his title, by any execution and levy on the Sedgely estate; that he had acquired no title to the proceeds as his property, and that if the proceeds were to be deemed general funds of the debtor, the priority of the United States to payment had attached against all other creditors; and that a mere potential lien on land, did not carry a legal title to the proceeds of a sale, made under an adverse execution. This is the manner in which this case has been understood, by the Judges who concurred in the decision; and it is obvious, that it established no such proposition, as that a specific and perfected lien, can be displaced by the mere priority of the United States; since that priority is not of itself equivalent to a lien.” Conard, 1 Pet., at 444.
The Government also relies upon dicta from our opinion in United States v. Key, 397 U. S., at 324-325, which quoted from our earlier opinion in United States v. Emory, 314 U. S., at 433: “Only the plainest inconsistency would warrant our finding an implied exception to the operation of so clear a command as that of [§ 3713].” Because both Key and Emory were eases in which the competing claims were unsecured, the statutory command was perfectly clear even under Justice Story’s construction of the statute. The statements made in that context, of course, shed no light on the clarity of the command when the United States relies on the statute as a basis for claiming a preference over a secured creditor. Indeed, the Key opinion itself made this specific point: “This ease does not raise the question, never decided by this Court, whether § 3466 grants the Government priority over the prior specific liens of secured creditors. See United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U. S. 361, 365-366 (1953).” 397 U. S., at 332, n. 11.
The Key opinion is only one of many in which the Court has noted that despite the age of the statute, and despite the fact that it has been the subject of a great deal of litigation, the question whether it has any application to antecedent perfected liens has never been answered definitively. See United States v. Vermont, 377 U. S. 351, 358, n. 8 (1964) (citing cases). In his dissent in United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U. S. 361 (1953), Justice Frankfurter referred to the Court’s reluctance to decide the issue “not only today but for almost a century and a half.” 345 U. S., at 367.
The Government’s priority as against specific, perfected security interests is, if possible, even less settled with regard to real property. The Court has sometimes concluded that a competing creditor who has not “divested” the debtor of “either title or possession” has only a “general, unperfeeted lien” that is defeated by the Government’s priority. E. g., id., at 366. Assuming the validity of this “title or possession” test for deciding whether a lien on personal property is sufficiently ehoate for purposes of the priority statute (a question of federal law, see Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. Campbell, 329 U. S., at 371), we are not aware of any decisions since Thelusson applying that theory to claims for real property, or of any reason to require a lienor or mortgagee to acquire possession in order to perfect an interest in real estate.
Given the fact that this basic question of interpretation i’emains unresolved, it does not seem appropriate to view the issue in this case as whether the Tax Lien Act of 1966 has implicitly amended or repealed the priority statute. Instead, we think the proper inquiry is how best to harmonize the impact of the two statutes on the Government’s power to collect delinquent taxes.
IV
In his dissent from a particularly harsh application of the priority statute, Justice Jackson emphasized the importance of considering other relevant federal policies. Joined by three other Justices, he wrote:
“This decision announces an unnecessarily ruthless interpretation of a statute that at its best is an arbitrary one. The statute by which the Federal Government gives its own claims against an insolvent priority over claims in favor of a state government must be applied by courts, not because federal claims are more meritorious or equitable, but only because that Government has more power. But the priority statute is an assertion of federal supremacy as against any contrary state policy. It is not a limitation on the Federal Government itself, not an assertion that the priority policy shall prevail over all other federal policies. Its generalities should not lightly be construed to frustrate a specific policy embodied in a later federal statute.” Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U. S. 611, 635 (1948).
On several prior occasions the Court had followed this approach and concluded that a specific policy embodied in a later federal statute should control our construction of the priority statute, even though it had not been expressly amended. Thus, in Cook County Nat. Bank v. United States, 107 U. S. 445, 448-451 (1883), the Court concluded that the priority statute did not apply to federal claims against national banks because the National Bank Act comprehensively regulated banks’ obligations and the distribution of insolvent banks’ assets. And in United States v. Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y., 280 U. S. 478, 485 (1930), we determined that the Transportation Act of 1920 had effectively superseded the priority statute with respect to federal claims against the railroads arising under that Act.
The bankruptcy law provides an additional context in which another federal statute was given effect despite the priority statute’s literal, unconditional text. The early federal bankruptcy statutes had accorded to “ ‘all debts due to the United States, and all taxes and assessments under the laws thereof’” a preference that was “coextensive” with that established by the priority statute. Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 224 U. S. 152, 158 (1912) (quoting the Bankruptcy Act of 1867, Rev. Stat. § 5101). As such, the priority Act and the bankruptcy laws “were to be regarded as in pari materia, and both were unqualified;... as neither contained any qualification, none could be interpolated.” 224 U. S., at 158. The Bankruptcy Act of 1898, however, subordinated the priority of the Federal Government’s claims (except for taxes due) to certain other kinds of debts. This Court resolved the tension between the new bankruptcy provisions and the priority statute by applying the former and thus treating the Government like any other general creditor. Id., at 158-160; Davis v. Pringle, 268 U. S. 315, 317-319 (1925).
There are sound reasons for treating the Tax Lien Act of 1966 as the governing statute when the Government is claiming a preference in the insolvent estate of a delinquent taxpayer. As was the case with the National Bank Act, the Transportation Act of 1920, and the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, the Tax Lien Act is the later statute, the more specific statute, and its provisions are comprehensive, reflecting an obvious attempt to accommodate the strong policy objections to the enforcement of secret liens. It represents Congress5 detailed judgment as to when the Government’s claims for unpaid taxes should yield to many different sorts of interests (including, for instance, judgment liens, mechanic’s liens, and attorney’s liens) in many different types of property (including, for example, real property, securities, and motor vehicles). See 26 U. S. C. §6323. Indeed, given our unambiguous determination that the federal interest in the collection of taxes is paramount to its interest in enforcing other claims, see United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U. S., at 733-735, it would be anomalous to conclude that Congress intended the priority statute to impose greater burdens on the citizen than those specifically crafted for tax collection purposes.
Even before the 1966 amendments to the Tax Lien Act, this Court assumed that the more recent and specific provisions of that Act would apply were they to conflict with the older priority statute. In the Gilbert Associates ease, which concerned the relative priority of the Federal Government and a New Hampshire town to funds of an insolvent taxpayer, the Court first considered whether the town could qualify as a “judgment creditor” entitled to preference under the Tax Lien Act. 345 U. S., at 363-364. Only after deciding that question in the negative did the Court conclude that the United States obtained preference by operation of the priority statute. Id., at 365-366. The Government would now portray Gilbert Associates as a deviation from two other relatively recent opinions in which the Court held that the priority statute was not trumped by provisions of other statutes: United States v. Emory, 314 U. S., at 429-433 (the National Housing Act), and United States v. Key, 397 U. S., at 324-333 (Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act). In each of those cases, however, there was no “plain inconsistency” between the commands of the priority statute and the other federal Act, nor was there reason to believe that application of the priority statute would frustrate Congress’ intent. Id., at 329. The same cannot be saidin the present suit.
The Government emphasizes that when Congress amended the Tax Lien Act in 1966, it declined to enact the American Bar Association’s proposal to modify the federal priority statute, and Congress again failed to enact a similar proposal in 1970. Both proposals would have expressly provided that the Government’s priority in insolvency does not displace valid liens and security interests, and therefore would have harmonized the priority statute with the Tax Lien Act. See Hearings on H. R. 11256 and 11290 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 197 (1966) (hereinafter Hearings); S. 2197, 92d Cong., 1st Se1ss. (1971). But both proposals also would have significantly changed the priority statute in many other respects to follow the priority scheme created by the bankruptcy laws. See Hearings, at 85, 198; Plumb 10, n. 53, 33-37. The earlier proposal may have failed because its wide-ranging subject matter was beyond the House Ways and Means Committee’s jurisdiction. Id., at 8. The failure of the 1970 proposal in the Senate Judiciary Committee— explained by no reports or hearings — might merely reflect disagreement with the broad changes to the priority statute, or an assumption that the proposal was not needed because, as Justice Story had believed, the priority statute does not apply to prior perfected security interests, or any number of other views. Thus, the Committees’ failures to report the proposals to the entire Congress do not necessarily indicate that any legislator thought that the priority statute should supersede the Tax Lien Act in the adjudication of federal tax claims. They provide no support for the hypothesis that both Houses of Congress silently endorsed that position.
The actual measures taken by Congress provide a superior insight regarding its intent. As we have noted, the 1966 amendments to the Tax Lien Act bespeak a strong condemnation of secret liens, which unfairly defeat the expectations of innocent creditors and frustrate “the needs of our citizens for certainty and convenience in the legal rules governing their commercial dealings.” 112 Cong. Rec. 22227 (1966) (remarks of Rep. Byrnes); cf. United States v. Speers, 382 U. S. 266, 275 (1965) (referring to the “general policy against secret liens”). These policy concerns shed light on how Congress would want the conflicting statutory provisions to be harmonized:
“Liens may be a dry-as-dust part of the law, but they are not without significance in an industrial and commercial community where construction and credit are thought to have importance. One does not readily impute to Congress the intention that many common commercial liens should be congenitally unstable.” E. Brown, The Supreme Court, 1957 Term — Foreword: Process of Law, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 77, 87 (1958) (footnote omitted).
In sum, nothing in the text or the long history of interpreting the federal priority statute justifies the conclusion that it authorizes the equivalent of a secret lien as a substitute for the expressly authorized tax lien that Congress has said “shall not be valid” in a case of this kind.
The judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Ҥ3713. Priority of Government claims
“(a)(1) A claim of the United States Government shall be paid first when—
“(A) a person indebted to the Government is insolvent and—
“(i) the debtor without enough property to pay all debts makes a voluntary assignment of property;
“(ii) property of the debtor, if absent, is attached; or
“(iii) an act of bankruptcy is committed; or
“(B) the estate of a deceased debtor, in the custody of the executor or administrator, is not enough to pay all debts of the debtor.
“(2) This subsection does not apply to a case under title 11.” 81 U. S. G. §3713.
The present statute is the direct deseendent of §3466 of the Revised Statutes, which had been codified in 31U. S. G. §191.
Letter of Nov. 13, 1789, to Jean Baptiste Le Roy, in 10 Writings of Benjamin Franklin 69 (A. Smyth ed. 1907). As is often the case, the original meaning of the aphorism is clarified somewhat by its context: “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Ibid.
The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, 26 U. S. C. §6321 et seq., provides in pertinent part:
Ҥ6321. Lien for taxes
“If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.”
Ҥ 6323. Validity and priority against certain persons
“(a) Purchasers, holders of security interests, mechanic’s lienors, and judgment lien creditors
“The lien imposed by section 6321 shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic’s lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed by the Secretary.”
Section 6323(f)(l)(A)(i) provides that the required notice “shall be filed[,]... [i]n the case of real property, in one office within the State (or the county, or other governmental subdivision), as designated by the laws of such State, in which the property subject to the lien is situated.” If the State has not designated such an office, notice is to be filed with the clerk of the federal district court “for the judicial district in which the property subject to the lien is situated.” § 6323(f)(1)(B).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has elaborated:
“We must now decide whether judgment creditors are also entitled to personal or general notice by the [County Tax Claim] Bureau as a matter of due process of law.
“Judgment liens are a product of centimes of statutes which authorize a judgment creditor to seize and sell the land of debtors at a judicial sale to satisfy their debts out of the proceeds of the sale. The judgment represents a binding judicial determination of the rights and duties between the parties, and establishes their debtor-creditor relationship for all the world to notice when the judgment is recorded in a Prothonotary’s Office. When entered of record, the judgment also operates as a lien upon all real property of the debtor in that county.” In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau of Berks County, 505 Pa. 327, 334, 479 A. 2d 940, 943 (1984).
The post-avü War Reconstruction Congress imposed a tax of three cents per pound on “the producer, owner, or holder” of cotton and a lien on the cotton until the tax was paid. Act of July 13, 1866, § 1, 14 Stat. 98. The same statute also imposed a general lien on all of a delinquent taxpayer’s property, see § 9,14 Stat. 107, which was nearly identical to a provision in the revenue Act of Mar. 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 470-471, quoted in n. 6, infra.
The 1865 revenue Act contained the following sentence: “And if any person, bank, association, company, or corporation, liable to pay any duty, shall neglect or refuse to pay the same after demand, the amount shall be a lien in favor of the United States from the time it was due until paid, with the interests, penalties, and costs that may accrue in addition thereto, upon all property and rights to property; and the collector, after demand, may levy or by warrant may authorize a deputy collector to levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person, bank, association, company, or corporation, or on which the said lien exists, for the payment of the sum due as aforesaid, with interest and penalty for nonpayment, and also of such further sum as shall be sufficient for the fees, costs, and expenses of such levy.” 13 Stat. 470-471. This provision, as amended, became §3186 of the Revised Statutes.
For a more thorough description of the early history and of Congress’ reactions to this Court’s tax lien decisions, see Kennedy, The Relative Priority of the Federal Government: The Pernicious Career of the Inchoate and General Lien, 63 Yale L. J. 905, 919-922 (1954) (hereinafter Kennedy).
The Act of Mar. 3, 1797, § 5, 1 Stat. 515, provided:
“And be it further enacted, That where any revenue officer, or other person hereafter becoming indebted to the United States, by bond or otherwise, shall become insolvent, or where the estate of any deceased debtor, in the hands of executors or administrators, shall be insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased, the debt due to the United States shall be first satisfied; and the priority hereby established shall be deemed to extend, as well to eases in which a debtor, not having sufficient property to pay all his debts, shall make a voluntary assignment thereof, or in which the estate and effects of an absconding, concealed, or absent debtor, shall be attached by process of law, as to cases in which an act of legal bankruptcy shall be committed.” Compare § 3466 of the Revised Statutes with the present statute quoted in n. 1, supra.
It has long been settled that the federal priority covers the Government’s claims for unpaid taxes. Price v. United States, 269 U. S. 492, 499-502 (1926); Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U. S. 611, 625-626, and n. 24 (1948).
“The earliest priority statute was enacted in the Act of July 31,1789, 1 Stat. 29, which dealt with bonds posted by importers in lieu of payment of duties for release of imported goods. It provided that the ‘debt due to the United States’ for such duties shall be discharged first ‘in all cases of insolvency, or where any estate in the hands of executors or administrators shall be insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased....’ § 21, 1 Stat. 42. A 1792 enactment broadened the Act’s coverage by providing that the language ‘eases of insolvency’ should be taken to include eases in which a debtor makes a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors, and the other situations that § 3466, 31 U. S. C. § 191, now covers. 1 Stat. 263.” United States v. Moore, 423 U. S., at 81.
“In construing the statutes on this subject, it has been stated by the court, on great deliberation, that the priority to which the United States are entitled, does not partake of the character of a lien on the property of public debtors. This distinction is always to be recollected.” United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch 73, 90 (1805).
Although this argument was not presented to the state courts, respondent may defend the judgment on a ground not previously raised. Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 468-469, n. 12 (1983). We will rarely consider such an argument, however. Ibid.; see also Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein, 516 U. S. 367, 379, n. 5 (1996).
The relevant portion of the opinion reads, in fell, as follows:
“These [statutory] expressions are as general as any whieh could have been used, and exclude all debts due to individuals, whatever may be their dignity.... The law makes no exception in favour of prior judgment creditors; and no reason has been, or we think can be, shown to warrant this court in making one.
“... The United States are to be first satisfied; but then it must be out of the debtor’s estate. If, therefore, before the right of preference has accrued to the United States, the debtor has made a bona fide conveyance of his estate to a third person, or has mortgaged the same to secure a debt; or if his property has been seized under a fi. fa., the property is devested out of the debtor, and cannot be made liable to the United States. A judgment gives to the judgment creditor a lien on the debtor’s lands, and a preference over all subsequent judgment creditors. But the act of congress defeats this preference in favour of the United States, in the cases specified in the 65th section of the act of 1799.” Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396, 425-426 (1817).
In the later Canard case, Justice Story apologized for Thelusson: “The reasons for that opinion are not, owing to accidental circumstances, as fully given as they are usually given in this Court.” Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. of N. Y., 1 Pet. 386, 442 (1828).
Justice Washington’s opinion for this Court in Thelusson affirmed, and was essentially the same as, his own opinion delivered in the Circuit Court as a Circuit Justice. 2 Wheat., at 426, n. h.
Relying on this and several other cases, in 1857 the Attorney General of the United States issued an opinion concluding that Thelusson “has been distinctly overruled” and that the priority of the United States under this statute “will not reach back over any lien, whether it be general or specific.” 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 28, 29. See also Kennedy 908-911 (advancing this same interpretation of the early priority Act decisions).
Congress amended the priority statute in 1978 to make it expressly inapplicable to Title 11 bankruptcy cases. Pub. L. 95-598, § 322(b), 92 Stat. 2679, codified in 31 U. S. C. § 3713(a)(2). The differences between the bankruptcy laws and the priority statute have been the subject of criticism: “[A]s a result of the continuing discrepancies between the bankruptcy and insolvency rules, some creditors have had a distinct incentive to throw into bankruptcy a debtor whose ease might have been handled, with
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice Black.
Petitioner passed the New York bar éxaminatións in 1936 but has not yet been admitted to practice. The present case is the latest in a long series of proceedings whereby he seeks admission.
Under New York law the Appellate Division of-the' State Supreme Court of each of the four Judicial Departments has power to admit applicants to the Bar. Once the State Board of Bar' Examiners certifies that an applicant has passed the examination (or that an examinátion has been dispensed with), the Appellate Division shall admit him to practice “if it shall be satisfied that' such person possesses the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counsellor-at-law.” Judiciary Law § 90 (i)(a).
The Appellate Division is required by Rule 1 of the New York Rules of Civil Practice to appoint a committee of not less than three practicing lawyers “for the purpose of investigating the character and fitness” óf applicants. •“Unless otherwise ordered by the Appellate Division, no person shall be admitted to practice”'without a favorable .certificate from the Committee. Ibid. Provision is made for submission by the applicant to the Committee of “all the information and data required by the committee and the Appellate Division justices.” Ibid. If an applicant has once applied for -admission and failed to obtain a certificate of good character and fitness, he must obtain and .submit “the written consent” of the Appellate Division to a renewal of his application. Ibid.
The papers of an applicant for admission to the Bar .are required by Rule 1 (g) of the Rules of Civil Practice to be kept on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Appellate Division.
The. Court of Appeals pursuant to its rule-making authority (Judiciary Law § 53(1)) has promulgated Rules for the Admission of Attorneys and Counsellors-at-Law which provide, inter alia, that every applicant must produce before the Committee “evidence that he possesses the good moral character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counsellor-at-law”. (Rule VIII-1), and that justices of the Appellate Division shall adopt “such additional rules for ascertaining the moral and general fitness of applicants as to such justices may seem proper.” Rule VIII-4.
The Appellate Division to which petitioner has made application has not promulgated any “additional rules” under Rule VIII-4. Its Character and Fitness Committee consists of 10 members; and that Committee, we are advised, has not published or provided any rules of procedure.
The statute provides that “all papers, records and documents” of applicants “shall be sealed and be deemed private and confidential,” except that “upon good cause being shown, the justices of the appellate division . . . are empowered, in their discretion, by written order, to permit to be divulged all or any part of such papers, records and documents.” Judiciary Law §90(10). And for that purpose they may make such rules “as they may deem necessary.” Ibid.
But New York does not appear to have any procedure whereby an applicant for admission to the Bar is served with an order, to show cause by the Appellate Division before he is denied admission nor any other procedure that gives him a hearing prior to the court’s adverse action.
The present case started with a petition by Willner to the Appellate Division seeking leave to file a de novo application which alleged the following:
Willner had been certified by the State Board of Bar Examiners as having passed the bar'examinations in 1936, and the Committee in 1938, after several hearings, filed with the Appellate Division its determination that it was not satisfied'and could not “certify that the applicant possesses the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counsellor-at-law.” In 1943 Willner applied to the Appellate Division for an order directing the Committee to review its 1938 determination. This motion was denied without opinion. Willner in 1948 again petitioned the Appellate Division for a reexamination of his application, and for permission to file a new application. The Appellate Division permitted him to file a new application. Upon the filing of that application, the Committee conducted two hearings in 1948 and, by a report in 1950, refused to certify him for the second time. In 1951 Willner again made application to the Appellate Division for an order directing, inter alia, the Corn-mittee to furnish him with statements of its reasons for its refusal to certify him or that a referee be appointed to hear and report on the question of his character and fitness. This application was denied without opinion. In 1954 Willner filed a fourth application with the Appellate Division requesting leave to file an application for admission. This was denied without opinion. The Court of Appeals refused leave to appeal, and this Court denied certiorari. 348 U. S. 955. In 1960 Willner filed a fifth application with the Appellate Division, which application was denied without opinion.
The present petition further alleged that Willner has been a member in'good standing of the New York Society of Certified Public Accountants and of the American Institute of Accountants since 1951 and that he has been admitted to practice before the Tax Court and the Treasury Department since 1928. Petitioner alleged that in connection with his hearings before the Committee on his 1937 application he was shown a letter containing various adverse statements about him from a New York attorney; that a member of the Committee promised him a personal confrontation with that attorney; but that the promise was never kept. Petitioner also alleged that he had been involved in litigation with another lawyer who had as his purpose “to destroy me”; that the secretary of the Committee was taking orders from that lawyer and that two members of the Committee were' “in cahoots” with that lawyer.
The Appellate Division denied the petition without opinion and denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Willner thereupon sought leave to appeal to the Court, of Appeals and in an affidavit in support of his motion stated, “I was never afforded the opportunity of confronting my accusers, of having the accusers sworn and cross examining them, and the opportunity of refuting the accusations and accusers.”
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and the Clerk of that Court obtained from the Clerk of the Appellate Division the file in the case. Willner, in his brief before the-Court of Appeals, argued he had been denied his constitutional rights in that he had been denied confrontation of his accusers and.that, in, spite of the repeated attempts, he could not be sure of the Committee’s reasons for refusing to certify him for admission. The Court of Appeals, after oral argument, affirmed the order without opinion. 11. N. Y. 2d 866, 182 N. E. 2d 288. Thereafter, at Willner’s request, the Court of Appeals amended its remittitur to recite that
“Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz: Appellant contended that he was denied due process of law in. violation of his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' of the Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that appellant was not denied due process ixi violation of such constitutional rights.”
We granted certiorari, 370 U. S. 934.
The issue presented is justiciable. “A claim of a present right to admission to the bar of á state and a denial of that right is a controversy.” In re ,Summers, 325 U. S, 561, 568. Moreover, the requirements of procedural due process must be met before a-State can.exclude a person from practicing law. “A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law of from any other occupation in a manner of for reasons that contravéne the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 238-239. As the Court said in Ex parte Garland, 4, Wall. 333, 379, the right is not “a matter of grace and favor.”
We are not here concerned with grounds which justify denial of a license to practice law, but only with what procedural due process requires if the license is to be withheld. This is the problem which Chief Justice Taft adverted to in Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U. S. 117, involving an application of a certified public, accountant to practice before the Board of Tax Appeals. Chief Justice Taft writing for the Court said:
“We think that the petitioner having shown by . his application that, being a citizen of the United States and a certified public accountant under the laws of a State, he was within the class of those entitled to be admitted to practice under- the Board’s rules, he should not have been rejected upon charges of his unfitness without giving him an opportunity by notice’ for hearing and answer. The rules adopted by the Board provide that 'the Board may in its discretion deny admission, suspend or disbar any person.’ But this must be construed to mean the exercise of a discretion to be exercised after fair investigation, with such a notice, hearing and opportunity to answer for the applicant as would constitute due process.” Id., p. 123.
We have emphasized in recent years that procedural due process often requires confrontation and cross-examination of those whose word deprives a person of his livelihood. See Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 492, 496-497, and cases cited. That view has been taken by several state courts when it comes to procedural due process and the admission to practice law. Coleman v. Watts, 81 So. 2d 650; Application of Burke, 87 Ariz. 336, 351 P. 2d 169; In re Crum, 103 Ore. 296, 204 P. 948; Moity v. Louisiana State Bar Assn., 239 La. 1081, 121 So. 2d 87. Cf. Brooks v. Laws, 208 F. 2d 18, 33 (concurring opinion). We think the need for confrontation is a necessary conclusion from the requirements of procedural due process in a situation such as this. Cf. Greene v. McElroy, supra; Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886.
This result, is sought to be avoided in several ways. First, it is. said that the Committee’s action is merely advisory, that it is an investigator not a trier of facts, since under § 90 of the Judiciary Law it is the Appellate Division that ultimately must be convinced of an applicant’s good character. The answer is that “[ujnless otherwise ordered by the Appellate Division” (New York Rules of Civil Practice, Rule 1 (d)), á favorable certificate from the Committee is requisite to admission by the Appellate Division; and where, as here, the Appellate Division has held no hearings of its own to determine an applicant’s character, the role of the Committee is more than that of a mere investigator.
Second, it is said that petitioner has.sought relief too late. But the Court of Appeals did' not reject his peti-' tio'n on that ground. Instead, it stated that it “necessarily” ruled on the constitutional issue “presented.” We can only conclude that the Court of Appeals would have found it “unnecessary” to pass, upon any constitutional question if under state law some other ground had .existed for denying petitioner relief. See Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 U. S. 179, 182; Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U. S. 528, 535-536.
Third, it is said that the record,shows that petitioner was not rejected on the basis of ex parte statements but on the basis of his. own statements to the Committee. If the Court of Appeals reached this' conclusion, the only constitutional question which was presented and which it could have “necessarily” passed on was whether petitioner was denied due process by not being informed of aiid allowed, to rebut the bases for either the Committee’s or the Appellate Division’s failure to find his good character. It does not appear from the record that either the Committee or the Appellate Division, at any stage in. these proceedings, ever apprised petitioner of its reasons for failing to be convinced of his good character. Petitioner was clearly, entitled to notice of and a hearing on the grounds for his rejection either before the Committee or before the Appellate Division. Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals, supra; cf. In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273. There seems no question but that petitioner was apprised of the matters the Committee was considering.
“But a ‘full hearing’ — a fair and open hearing— requires more than that. . . . Those ' who are brought into .contest with . . . Government .in a quasi-judicial proceeding aimed at the control of their activities are entitled to be fairly advised of what the Government proposes and to be heard upon its proposals before it issues its final command.” Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1, 18-19.
Petitioner had no opportunity to ascertain and contest the bases of the Committee’s reports to the Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division gave him no separate hearing. Yet, “[t]he requirements of fairness are hot exhausted in the taking or consideration of evidence but extend to the concluding parts of the procedure as well as to the beginning and intermediate steps.” Id., at 20. Cf. Gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407, 414.
If the Court of Appeals based its decision on the ground that denying petitioner the right of confrontation did not violate due process, we also hold that it erred for the reasons earlier stated. But because respondent has asserted that the ex parte statements involved in this case played no part in any of the decisions below, we have searched the record to assess this contention. It shows that the Committee • had several complaints against petitioner. The various intra-Committee memoranda and reports to the Appellate Division contained in this record .support the conclusion that the Committee did in fact rely on these complaints, at least to some extent, in reaching its determinations. And there is no- indication in the record that any of the Appellate Division’s orders were based solely on petitioner’s own statements. Thus, despite respondent’s assurances that the Committee never bases its final action on ex parte statements, we cannot say that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that' this constitutional question was “necessarily” decided.
We hold that petitioner was denied procedural due process when he was denied admission to the Bar by the Appellate Division without a hearing on the charges filed against him before either the Committee or the Appellate Division.
Reversed.
In New Jersey the Committee on Character and Fitness is directed by Rule 1:20-6 (a) of the Supreme Court Rules to take the •following steps in case of an adverse report:
“If the committee believes that an applicant is not of fit character or has not served a satisfactory clerkship, it shall promptly notify the applicant of • its intention to' file an .adverse report as to his moral character or clerkship and of the time, not less than 5 days, within which the applicant may file with the committee a written request fór a hearing. If the applicant does not request a hearing within the time fixed by the committee, it shall promptly notify'him of its action and file its report with the court for appropriate action by it. If the applicant requests a hearing within the time fixed by the committee, it shall promptly notify him of the time and' place of the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in private and in a formal manner. A complete stenographic record shall be kept and to this end an official court reporter of the county, assigned by the supervising court reporter for that purpose, shall serve the committee and prepare, without additional compensation, such transcripts as may be ordered by it. A transcript may be ordered by the applicant at his own expense. The committee shall submit a report of its findings and conclusions to the court, with a copy to the applicant, for appropriate action by it. An applicant aggrieved by the determination of the committee may, on notice to the committee, petition the court for relief.”
Rule 1:20-6 (b) goes on to provide:
“The Board of Bar Examiners, subject to the approval of the court, shall prescribe the procedures to be followed by the committees on character and fitness in the performance of their duties under paragraph (a) of this rule.”
Cf. Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, where only “the opportunity to work at one isolated and specific military installation” was involved. Id., at 896.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent Grace Oleeh and her late husband Thaddeus asked petitioner Village of Willowbrook (Village) to connect their property to the municipal water supply. The Village at first conditioned the connection on the Olechs granting the Village a 33-foot easement. The Olechs objected, claiming that the Village only required a 15-foot easement from other property owners seeking access to the water supply. After a 3-month delay, the Village relented and agreed to provide water service with only a 15-foot easement.
Oleeh sued the Village, claiming that the Village’s demand of an additional 18-foot easement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Oleeh asserted that the 33-foot easement demand was “irrational and wholly arbitrary”; that the Village’s demand was actually motivated by ill will resulting from the Olechs’ previous filing of an unrelated, successful lawsuit against the Village; and that the Village acted either with the intent to deprive Oleeh of her rights or in reckless disregard of her rights. App. 10, 12.
The District Court dismissed the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Relying on Circuit precedent, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that a plaintiff can allege an equal protection violation by asserting that state action was motivated solely by a “ ‘spiteful effort to “get” him for reasons wholly unrelated to any legitimate state objective.’” 160 F. 3d 386, 387 (1998) (quoting Esmail v. Macrane, 53 F. 3d 176, 180 (CA7 1995)). It determined that Olech’s complaint sufficiently alleged such a claim. 160 F. 3d, at 388. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a “class of one” where the plaintiff did not allege membership in a class or group. 527 U. S. 1067 (1999).
Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441 (1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty., 488 U. S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’ ” Sioux City Bridge Co., supra, at 445 (quoting Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of Wakefield, 247 U. S. 350, 352 (1918)).
That reasoning is applicable to this ease. Oleeh’s complaint can fairly be construed as alleging that the Village intentionally demanded a 33-foot easement as a condition of connecting her property to the municipal water supply where the Village required only a 15-foot easement from other similarly situated property owners. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The complaint also alleged that the Village’s demand was “irrational and wholly arbitrary” and that the Village ultimately connected her property after receiving a clearly adequate 15-foot easement. These allegations, quite apart from the Village’s subjective motivation, are sufficient to state a claim for relief under traditional equal protection analysis. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but do not reach the alternative theory of “subjective ill will” relied on by that court.
It is so ordered.
We note that the complaint in this case could be read to allege a class of five. In addition to Grace and Thaddeus Olech, their neighbors Rodney and Phyllis Zimmer and Howard Brinkman requested to be connected to the municipal water supply, and the Village initially demanded the 33-foot easement from all of them. The Zimmers and Mr. Brinkman were also involved in the previous, successful lawsuit against the Village, which allegedly created the ill will motivating the excessive easement demand. Whether the complaint alleges a class of one or of five is of no consequence because we conclude that the number of individuals in a class is immaterial for equal protection analysis.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 convicted of armed robbery after a jury trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. At the trial several articles which had been found by police officers in a search of the petitioner’s hotel room during his absence were admitted into evidence over his objection. A District Court of Appeal of California affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court of California denied further review. We granted certiorari, limiting review “to the question of whether evidence was admitted which had been obtained by an unlawful search and seizure.” 374 U. S. 826. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the petitioner’s conviction must be set aside.
The essential facts are not in dispute. On the night of October 25, 1960, the Budget Town Food Market in Monrovia, California, was robbed by two men, one of whom was described by eyewitnesses as carrying a gun and wearing horn-rimmed glasses and a grey jacket. Soon after the robbery a checkbook belonging to the petitioner was found in an adjacent parking lot and turned over to the police. Two of the stubs in the checkbook indicated that checks had been drawn to the order of the Mayfair Hotel in Pomona, California. Pursuing this lead, the officers learned from the Police Department of Pomona that the petitioner had a previous criminal record, and they obtained from the Pomona police a photograph of the petitioner. They showed the photograph to the two eyewitnesses to the robbery, who both stated that the picture looked like the man who had carried the gun. On the basis of this information the officers went to the Mayfair Hotel in Pomona at about 10 o’clock on the night of October 27. They had neither search nor arrest warrants. There then transpired the following events, as later recounted by one of the officers:
“We approached the desk, the night clerk, and asked him if there was a party by the name of Joey L. Stoner living at the hotel. He checked his records and stated ‘Yes, there is.’ And we asked him what room he was in. He stated he was in Room 404 but he was out at this time.
“We asked him how he knew that he was out. He stated that the hotel regulations required that the key to the room would be placed in the mail box each time they left the hotel. The key was in the mail box, that he therefore knew he was out of the room.
“We asked him if he would give us permission to enter the room, explaining our reasons for this.
“Q. What reasons did you explain to the clerk?
“A. We explained that we were there to make an arrest of a man who had possibly committed a robbery in the City of Monrovia, and that we were concerned about the fact that he had a weapon. He stated ‘In this case, I will be more than happy to give you permission and I will take you directly to the room.’
“Q. Is that what the clerk told you?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. What else happened?
“A. We left one detective in the lobby, and Detective Oliver, Officer Collins, and myself, along with the night clerk, got on the elevator and proceeded to the fourth floor, and went to Room 404. The night clerk placed a key in the lock, unlocked the door, and says, ‘Be my guest.’ ”
The officers entered and made a thorough search of the room and its contents. They found a pair of horn-rimmed glasses and a grey jacket in the room, and a .45-caliber automatic pistol with a clip and several cartridges in the bottom of a bureau drawer. The petitioner was arrested two days later in Las Vegas, Nevada. He waived extradition and was returned to California for trial on the charge of armed robbery. The gun, the cartridges and clip, the horn-rimmed glasses, and the grey jacket were all used as evidence against him at his trial.
The search of the petitioner’s room by the police officers was conducted without a warrant of any kind, and it therefore “can survive constitutional inhibition only upon a showing that the surrounding facts brought it within one of the exceptions to the rule that a search must rest upon a search warrant. Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 499; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 51.” Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253, 261. The District Court of Appeal thought the search was justified as an incident to a lawful arrest. But a search can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20. Whatever room for leeway there may be in these concepts, it is clear that the search of the petitioner’s hotel room in Pomona, California, on October 27 was not incident to his arrest in Las Yegas, Nevada, on October 29. The search was completely unrelated to the arrest, both as to time and as to place. See Preston v. United States, decided this day, ante, p. 364.
In this Court the respondent has recognized that the reasoning of the California District Court of Appeal cannot be reconciled with our decision in Agnello, nor, indeed, with the most recent California decisions. Accordingly, the respondent has made no argument that the search can be justified as an incident to the petitioner’s arrest. Instead, the argument is made that the search of the hotel room, although conducted without the petitioner’s consent, was lawful because it was conducted with the consent of the hotel clerk. We find this argument unpersuasive.
Even if it be assumed that a state law which gave a hotel proprietor blanket authority to authorize the police to search the rooms of the hotel’s guests could survive constitutional challenge, there is no intimation in the California cases cited by the respondent that California has any such law. Nor is there any substance to the claim that the search was reasonable because the police, relying upon the night clerk’s expressions of consent, had a reasonable basis for the belief that the clerk had authority to consent to the search. Our decisions make clear that the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are not to be eroded by strained applications of the law of agency or by unrealistic doctrines of “apparent authority.” As this Court has said,
“it is unnecessary and ill-advised to import into the law surrounding the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures subtle distinctions, developed and refined by the common law in evolving the body of private property law which, more than almost any other branch of law, has been shaped by distinctions whose validity is largely historical. . . . [W] e ought not to bow to them in the fair administration of the criminal law. To do so would not comport with our justly proud claim of the procedural protections accorded to those charged with crime.” Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 266-267.
It is important to bear in mind that it was the petitioner’s constitutional right which was at stake here, and not the night clerk’s nor the hotel’s. It was a right, therefore, which only the petitioner could waive by word or deed, either directly or through an agent. It is true that the night clerk clearly and unambiguously consented to the search. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that the police had any basis whatsoever to believe that the night clerk had been authorized by the petitioner to permit the police to search the petitioner’s room.
At least twice this Court has explicitly refused to permit an otherwise unlawful police search of a hotel room to rest upon consent of the hotel proprietor. Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48. In Lustig the manager of a hotel allowed police to enter and search a room without a warrant in the occupant’s absence, and the search was held unconstitutional. In Jeffers the assistant manager allowed a similar search, and that search was likewise held unconstitutional.
It is true, as was said in Jeffers, that when a person engages a hotel room he undoubtedly gives “implied or express permission” to “such persons as maids, janitors or repairmen” to enter his room “in the performance of their duties.” 342 U. S., at 51. But the conduct of the night clerk and the police in the present case was of an entirely different order. In a closely analogous situation the Court has held that a search by police officers of a house occupied by a tenant invaded the tenant’s constitutional right, even though the search was authorized by the owner of the house, who presumably had not only apparent but actual authority to enter the house for some purposes, such as to “view waste.” Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610. The Court pointed out that the officers’ purpose in entering was not to view waste but to search for distilling equipment, and concluded that to uphold such a search without a warrant would leave tenants’ homes secure only in the discretion of their landlords.
No less than a tenant of a house, or the occupant of a room in a boarding house, McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, a guest in a hotel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10. That protection would disappear if it were left to depend upon the unfettered discretion of an employee of the hotel. It follows that this search without a warrant was unlawful. Since evidence obtained through the search was admitted at the trial, the judgment must be reversed. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643.
It is so ordered.
205 Cal. App. 2d 108, 22 Cal. Rptr. 718.
205 Cal. App. 2d, at 116.
The court reasoned that the officers had probable cause to arrest the petitioner prior to their entry into the hotel room; that they were not obliged to accept as true the night clerk’s statement that the petitioner was not in his room; that “it may be reasonably inferred that they entered his room for the purpose of making an arrest,” that their observation of the glasses in plain sight reasonably led them to a further search; and that in the circumstances the arrest and the search and seizure were “part of the same transaction.” 205 Cal. App. 2d 108, 113, 22 Cal. Rptr. 718, 722.
“The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody, is not to be doubted. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 158; Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392. . . . But the right does not extend to other places.” Id., at 30. See also Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 42, n. 13; Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74, 79-80.
Although some members of this Court have expressed the view that the statement in Agnello defining the permissible bounds of a search incident to arrest went too far, see, e. g., Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145, 155, 183, 195 (dissenting opinions); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, 68 (dissenting opinion), the Agnello holding as to what may not be searched — a house substantially removed geographically from the place of arrest at a time not substantially contemporaneous with the arrest — has never been questioned in this Court.
“[T]he search cannot be justified as incident to the arrest ‘for it was at a distance from the place thereof and was not contemporaneous therewith.’ (Castaneda v. Superior Court, 59 A. C. 456, 459, 30 Cal. Rptr. 1, 3, 380 P. 2d 641, 643; Tompkins v. Superior Court, 59 A. C. 75, 77, 27 Cal. Rptr. 889, 378 P. 2d 113; People v. Gorg, 45 Cal. 2d 776, 781, 291 P. 2d 469.)” People v. King, 60 Cal. 2d 308, 311, 32 Cal. Rptr. 825, 826, 384 P. 2d 153, 155.
See Roberts v. Casey, 36 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 767, 93 P. 2d 654; Fox v. Windemere Hotel Apt. Co., 30 Cal. App. 162, 157 P. 820; People v. Vaughan, 65 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 844; 150 P. 2d 964. “The mere fact that ca person is a hotel manager does not import an authority to permit the police to enter and search the rooms of her guests.” People v. Burke, 208 Cal. App. 2d 149, 160, 24 Cal. Rptr. 912, 919.
The respondent has argued that the case should be remanded to let the California District Court of Appeal decide whether the admission of this evidence was harmless error. But the conviction depended in large part upon the jury’s resolution of the question of the credibility of witnesses, and that determination must almost certainly have been influenced by the incriminating nature of the physical evidence illegally seized and erroneously admitted. There is thus at least “a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85, 86.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we re-examine the holding of Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195 (1962), that the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act preclude a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike obligation under a collective-bargaining agreement, even though that agreement contains provisions, enforceable under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, for binding arbitration of the grievance dispute concerning which the strike was called. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, considering itself bound by Sinclair, reversed the grant by the District Court for the Central District of California of petitioner’s prayer for injunctive relief. 416 F. 2d 368 (1969). We granted certiorari. 396 U. S. 1000 (1970). Having concluded that Sinclair was erroneously decided and that subsequent events have undermined its continuing validity, we overrule that decision and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
In February 1969, at the time of the incidents that produced this litigation, petitioner and respondent were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement which provided, inter alia, that all controversies concerning its interpretation or application should be resolved by adjustment and arbitration procedures set forth therein and that, during the life of the contract, there should be “no cessation or stoppage of work, lock-out, picketing or boycotts . The dispute arose when petitioner’s frozen foods supervisor and certain members of his crew who were not members of the bargaining unit began to rearrange merchandise in the frozen food cases of one of petitioner’s supermarkets. A union representative insisted that the food cases be stripped of all merchandise and be restocked by union personnel. When petitioner did not accede to the union’s demand, a strike was called and the union began to picket petitioner’s establishment. Thereupon petitioner demanded that the union cease the work stoppage and picketing and sought to invoke the grievance and arbitration procedures specified in the contract.
The following day, since the strike had not been terminated, petitioner filed a complaint in California Superior Court seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction, and specific performance of the contractual arbitration provision. The state court issued a temporary restraining order forbidding continuation of the strike and also an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. Shortly thereafter, the union removed the case to the Federal District Court and there made a motion to quash the state court’s temporary restraining order. In opposition, petitioner moved for an order compelling arbitration and enjoining continuation of the strike. Concluding that the dispute was subject to arbitration under the collective-bargaining agreement and that the strike was in violation of the contract, the District Court ordered the parties to arbitrate the underlying dispute and simultaneously enjoined the strike, all picketing in the vicinity of petitioner’s supermarket, and any attempts by the union to induce the employees to strike or to refuse to perform their services.
II
At the outset, we are met with respondent’s contention that Sinclair ought not to be disturbed because the decision turned on a question of statutory construction which Congress can alter at any time. Since Congress has not modified our conclusions in Sinclair, even though it has been urged to do so, respondent argues that principles of stare decisis should govern the present case.
We do not agree that the doctrine of stare decisis bars a re-examination of Sinclair in the circumstances of this case. We fully recognize that important policy considerations militate in favor of continuity and predictability in the law. Nevertheless, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter wrote for the Court, “[Sitare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable, when such adherence involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience.” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940). See Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 116 (1965). It is precisely because Sinclair stands as a significant departure from our otherwise consistent emphasis upon the congressional policy to promote the peaceful settlement of labor disputes through arbitration and our efforts to accommodate and harmonize this policy with those underlying the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act that we believe Sinclair should be reconsidered. Furthermore, in light of developments subsequent to Sinclair, in particular our decision in Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735, 390 U. S. 557 (1968), it has become clear that the Sinclair decision does not further but rather frustrates realization of an important goal of our national labor policy.
Nor can we agree that conclusive weight should be accorded to the failure of Congress to respond to Sinclair on the theory that congressional silence should be interpreted as acceptance of the decision. The Court has cautioned that “[i]t is at best treacherous to find in congressional silence alone the adoption of a controlling rule of law.” Girouard v. United States, 328 U. S. 61, 69 (1946). Therefore, in the absence of any persuasive circumstances evidencing a clear design that congressional inaction be taken as acceptance of Sinclair, the mere silence of Congress is not a sufficient reason for refusing to reconsider the decision. Helvering v. Hallock, supra, at 119-120.
Ill
From the time Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), was decided, we have frequently found it necessary to consider various substantive and procedural aspects of federal labor contract law and questions concerning its application in both state and federal courts. Lincoln Mills held generally that “the substantive law to apply in suits under § 301 (a) is federal law, which the courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws,” 353 U. S., at 456, and more specifically that a union can obtain specific performance of an employer’s promise to arbitrate grievances. We rejected the contention that the anti-injunction proscriptions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibited this type of relief, noting that a refusal to arbitrate was not “part and parcel of the abuses against which the Act was aimed,” id., at 458, and that the Act itself manifests a policy determination that arbitration should be encouraged. See 29 U. S. C. § 108. Subsequently in the Steelworkers Trilogy we emphasized the importance of arbitration as an instrument of federal policy for resolving disputes between labor and management and cautioned the lower courts against usurping the functions of the arbitrator.
Serious questions remained, however, concerning the role that state courts were to play in suits involving collective-bargaining agreements. Confronted with some of these problems in Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962), we held that Congress clearly intended not to disturb the pre-existing jurisdiction of the state courts over suits for violations of collective-bargaining agreements. We noted that the
“clear implication of the entire record of the congressional debates in both 1946 and 1947 is that the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the federal district courts was not to displace, but to supplement, the thoroughly considered jurisdiction of the courts of the various States over contracts made by labor organizations.” Id., at 511.
Shortly after the decision in Dowd Box, we sustained, in Teamsters Local 174 v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), an award of damages by a state court to an employer for a breach by the union of a no-strike provision in its contract.. While emphasizing that “in enacting § 301 Congress intended doctrines of federal labor law uniformly to prevail over inconsistent local rules,” id., at 104, we did not consider the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to state court proceedings because the employer’s prayer for relief sought only damages and not specific performance of a no-strike obligation.
Subsequent to the decision in Sinclair, we held in Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735, supra, that § 301 (a) suits initially brought in state courts may be removed to the designated federal forum under the federal question removal jurisdiction delineated in 28 U. S. C. § 1441. In so holding, however, the Court expressly left open the questions whether state courts are bound by the anti-injunction proscriptions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and whether federal courts, after removal of a § 301 (a) action, are required to dissolve any injunctive relief previously granted by the state courts. See generally General Electric Co. v. Local Union 191, 413 F. 2d 964 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1969) (dissolution of state injunction required). Three Justices who concurred expressed the view that Sinclair should be reconsidered “upon an appropriate future occasion.” 390 U. S., at 562 (Stewart, J., concurring).
The decision in Avco, viewed in the context of Lincoln Mills and its progeny, has produced an anomalous situation which, in our view, makes urgent the reconsideration of Sinclair. The principal practical effect of Avco and Sinclair taken together is nothing less than to oust state courts of jurisdiction in § 301 (a) suits where injunc-tive relief is sought for breach of a no-strike obligation. Union defendants can, as a matter of course, obtain removal to a federal court, and there is obviously a compelling incentive for them to do so in order to gain the advantage of the strictures upon injunctive relief which Sinclair imposes on federal courts. The sanctioning of this practice, however, is wholly inconsistent with our conclusion in Dowd Box that the congressional purpose embodied in § 301 (a) was to supplement, and not to encroach upon, the pre-existing jurisdiction of the state courts. It is ironic indeed that the very provision that Congress clearly intended to provide additional remedies for breach of collective-bargaining agreements has been employed to displace previously existing state remedies. We are not at liberty thus to depart from the clearly expressed congressional policy to the contrary.
On the other hand, to the extent that widely disparate remedies theoretically remain available in state, as opposed to federal, courts, the federal policy of labor law uniformity elaborated in Lucas Flour Co., is seriously offended. This policy, of course, could hardly require, as a practical matter, that labor law be administered identically in all courts, for undoubtedly a certain diversity exists among the state and federal systems in matters of procedural and remedial detail, a fact that Congress evidently took into account in deciding not to disturb the traditional jurisdiction of the States. The injunction, however, is so important a remedial device, particularly in the arbitration context, that its availability or nonavailability in various courts will not only produce rampant forum shopping and maneuvering from one court to another but will also greatly frustrate any relative uniformity in the enforcement of arbitration agreements.
Furthermore, the existing scheme, with the injunction remedy technically available in the state courts but rendered inefficacious by the removal device, assigns to removal proceedings a totally unintended function. While the underlying purposes of Congress in providing for federal question removal jurisdiction remain somewhat obscure, there has never been a serious contention that Congress intended that the removal mechanism be utilized to foreclose completely remedies otherwise available in the state courts. Although federal question removal jurisdiction may well have been intended to provide a forum for the protection of federal rights where such protection was deemed necessary or to encourage the development of expertise by the federal courts in the interpretation of federal law, there is no indication that Congress intended by the removal mechanism to effect a wholesale dislocation in the allocation of judicial business between the state and federal courts. Cf. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U. S. 808 (1966).
It is undoubtedly true that each of the foregoing objections to Sinclair-Avco could be remedied either by overruling Sinclair or by extending that decision to the States. While some commentators have suggested that the solution to the present unsatisfactory situation does lie in the extension of the Sinclair prohibition to state court proceedings, we agree with Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court that “whether or not Congress could deprive state courts of the power to give such [injunctive] remedies when enforcing collective bargaining agreements, it has not attempted to do so either in the Norris-LaGuardia Act or section 301.” McCarroll v. Los Angeles County Dist. Council of Carpenters, 49 Cal. 2d 45, 63, 315 P. 2d 322, 332 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U. S. 932 (1958). See, e. g., American Dredging Co. v. Marine Local 25, 338 F. 2d 837 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U. S. 935 (1965); Shaw Electric Co. v. I. B. E. W., 418 Pa. 1, 208 A. 2d 769 (1965).
An additional reason for not resolving the existing dilemma by extending Sinclair to the States is the devastating implications for the enforceability of arbitration agreements and their accompanying no-strike obligations if equitable remedies were not available. As we have previously indicated, a no-strike obligation, express or implied, is the quid pro quo for an undertaking by the employer to submit grievance disputes to the process of arbitration. See Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, supra, at 455. Any incentive for employers to enter into such an arrangement is necessarily dissipated if the principal and most expeditious method by which the no-strike obligation can be enforced is eliminated. While it is of course true, as respondent contends, that other avenues of redress, such as an action for damages, would remain open to an aggrieved employer, an award of damages after a dispute has been settled is no substitute for an immediate halt to an illegal strike. Furthermore, an action for damages prosecuted during or after a labor dispute would only tend to aggravate industrial strife and delay an early resolution of the difficulties between employer and union.
Even if management is not encouraged by the unavailability of the injunction remedy to resist arbitration agreements, the fact remains that the effectiveness of such agreements would be greatly reduced if injunctive relief were withheld. Indeed, the very purpose of arbitration procedures is to provide a mechanism for the expeditious settlement of industrial disputes without resort to strikes, lockouts, or other self-help measures. This basic purpose is obviously largely undercut if there is no immediate, effective remedy for those very tactics that arbitration is designed to obviate. Thus, because Sinclair, in the aftermath of Avco, casts serious doubt upon the effective enforcement of a vital element of stable labor-management relations — arbitration agreements with their attendant no-strike obligations — we conclude that Sinclair does not make a viable contribution to federal labor policy.
IV
We have also determined that the dissenting opinion in Sinclair states the correct principles concerning the accommodation necessary between the seemingly absolute terms of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the policy considerations underlying § 301 (a). 370 U. S., at 215. Although we need not repeat all that was there said, a few points should be emphasized at this time.
The literal terms of § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act must be accommodated to the subsequently enacted provisions of § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and the purposes of arbitration. Statutory interpretation requires more than concentration upon isolated words; rather, consideration must be given to the total corpus of pertinent law and the policies that inspired ostensibly inconsistent provisions. See Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 11 (1962); Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270, 285 (1956); United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219, 235 (1941).
The Norris-LaGuardia Act was responsive to a situation totally different from that which exists today. In the early part of this century, the federal courts generally were regarded as allies of management in its attempt to prevent the organization and strengthening of labor unions; and in this industrial struggle the injunction became a potent weapon that was wielded against the activities of labor groups. The result was a large number of sweeping decrees, often issued ex parte, drawn on an ad hoc basis without regard to any systematic elaboration of national labor policy. See Drivers’ Union v. Lake Valley Co., 311 U. S. 91, 102 (1940).
In 1932 Congress attempted to bring some order out of the industrial chaos that had developed and to correct the abuses that had resulted from the interjection 6f the federal judiciary into union-management disputes on the behalf of management. See declaration of public policy, Norris-LaGuardia Act, § 2, 47 Stat. 70. Congress, therefore, determined initially to limit severely the power of the federal courts to issue injunctions “in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute . . . § 4, 47 Stat. 70. Even as initially enacted, however, the prohibition against federal injunctions was by no means absolute. See Norris-LaGuardia Act, §§ 7, 8, 9, 47 Stat. 71, 72. Shortly thereafter Congress passed the Wagner Act, designed to curb various management activities that tended to discourage employee participation in collective action.
As labor organizations grew in strength and developed toward maturity, congressional emphasis shifted from protection of the nascent labor movement to the encouragement of collective bargaining and to administrative techniques for the peaceful resolution of industrial disputes. This shift in emphasis was accomplished, however, without extensive revision of many of the older enactments, including the anti-injunction section of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Thus it became the task of the courts to accommodate, to reconcile the older statutes with the more recent ones.
A leading example of this accommodation process is Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Ind. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30 (1957). There we were confronted with a peaceful strike which violated the statutory duty to arbitrate imposed by the Railway Labor Act. The Court concluded that a strike in violation of a statutory arbitration duty was not the type of situation to which the Norris-LaGuardia Act was responsive, that an important federal policy was involved in the peaceful settlement of disputes through the statutorily mandated arbitration procedure, that this important policy was imperiled if equitable remedies were not available to implement it, and hence that Norris-LaGuardia’s policy of nonintervention by the federal courts should yield to the overriding interest in the successful implementation of the arbitration process.
The principles elaborated in Chicago River are equally applicable to the present case. To be sure, Chicago River involved arbitration procedures established by statute. However, we have frequently noted, in such cases as Lincoln Mills, the Steelworkers Trilogy, and Lucas Flour, the importance that Congress has attached generally to the voluntary settlement of labor disputes without resort to self-help and more particularly to arbitration as a means to this end. Indeed, it has been stated that Lincoln Mills, in its exposition of § 301 (a), “went a long way towards making arbitration the central institution in the administration of collective bargaining contracts.”
The Sinclair decision, however, seriously undermined the effectiveness of the arbitration technique as a method peacefully to resolve industrial disputes without resort to strikes, lockouts, and similar devices. Clearly employers will be wary of assuming obligations to arbitrate specifically enforceable against them when no similarly efficacious remedy is available to enforce the concomitant undertaking of the union to refrain from striking. On the other hand, the central purpose of the Norris-LaGuar-dia Act to foster the growth and viability of labor organizations is hardly retarded — if anything, this goal is advanced — by a remedial device that merely enforces the obligation that the union freely undertook under a specifically enforceable agreement to submit disputes to arbitration. We conclude, therefore, that the unavailability of equitable relief in the arbitration context presents a serious impediment to the congressional policy favoring the voluntary establishment of a mechanism for the peaceful resolution of labor disputes, that the core purpose of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is not sacrificed by the limited use of equitable remedies to further this important policy, and consequently that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar the granting of injunctive relief in the circumstances of the instant case.
V
Our holding in the present case is a narrow one. We do not undermine the vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. We deal only with the situation in which a collective-bargaining contract contains a mandatory grievance adjustment or arbitration procedure. Nor does it follow from what we have said that injunctive relief is appropriate as a matter of course in every case of a strike over an arbitrable grievance. The dissenting opinion in Sinclair suggested the following principles for the guidance of the district courts in determining whether to grant injunctive relief — principles that we now adopt:
“A District Court entertaining an action under § 301 may not grant injunctive relief against concerted activity unless and until it decides that the case is one in which an injunction would be appropriate despite the Norris-LaGuardia Act. When a strike is sought to be enjoined because it is over a grievance which both parties are contractually bound to arbitrate, the District Court may issue no injunc-tive order until it first holds that the contract does have that effect; and the employer should be ordered to arbitrate, as a condition of his obtaining an injunction against the strike. Beyond this, the District Court must, of course, consider whether issuance of an injunction would be warranted under ordinary principles of equity — whether breaches are occurring and will continue, or have been threatened and will be committed; whether they have caused or will cause irreparable injury to the employer; and whether the employer will suffer more from the denial of an injunction than will the union from its issuance.” 370 U. S., at 228. (Emphasis in original.)
In the present case there is no dispute that the grievance in question was subject to adjustment and arbitration under the collective-bargaining agreement and that the petitioner was ready to proceed with arbitration at the time an injunction against the strike was sought and obtained. The District Court also concluded that, by reason of respondent’s violations of its no-strike obligation, petitioner “has suffered irreparable injury and will continue to suffer irreparable injury.” Since we now overrule Sinclair, the holding of the Court of Appeals in reliance on Sinclair must be reversed. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case with directions to enter a judgment affirming the order of the District Court.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the decision of this case.
“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 remain in any relation of employment;
“(e) Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence;
“ (f) Assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute;
“(i) Advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts heretofore specified . . . .” § 4, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 104.
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.” 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a).
“ARTICLE XIV “ADJUSTMENT AND ARBITRATION
“A. CONTROVERSY, DISPUTE OR DISAGREEMENT.
“Any and all matters of controversy, dispute or disagreement of any kind or character existing between the parties and arising out of or in any way involving the interpretation or application of the terms of this Agreement . . . [with certain exceptions not relevant to the instant case] shall be settled and resolved by the procedures and in the manner hereinafter set forth.
“B. ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE.
“C. ARBITRATION.
“1. Any matter not satisfactorily settled or resolved in Paragraph B hereinabove shall be submitted to arbitration for final determination upon written demand of either party. . . .
“4. The arbitrator or board of arbitration shall be empowered to hear and determine the matter in question and the determination shall be final and binding upon the parties, subject only to their rights under law. . .
“D. POWERS, LIMITATIONS AND RESERVATIONS.
“2. Work Stoppages. Matters subject to the procedures of this Article shall be settled and resolved in the manner provided herein. During the term of this Agreement, there shall be no cessation or stoppage of work, lock-out, picketing or boycotts, except that this limitation shall not be binding upon either party hereto if the other party refuses to perform any obligation under this Article or refuses or fails to abide by, accept or perform a decision or award of an arbitrator or board.”
See, e. g., Report of Special Atkimon-Sinclair Committee, A. B. A. Labor Relations Law Section — Proceedings 226 (1963) [hereinafter cited as A. B. A. Sinclair Report].
See, e. g., United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U. S. 574 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593 (1960); Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957).
See, e. g., Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Ind. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30 (1957); Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, supra; cf. Graham v. Brotherhood of Firemen, 338 U. S. 232 (1949). See also United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219 (1941).
Section 108 provides:
“No restraining order or injunctive relief shall be granted to any complainant who has failed to comply with any obligation imposed by law which is involved in the labor dispute in question, or who has failed to make every reasonable effort to settle such dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of any available governmental machinery of mediation or voluntary arbitration.”
See generally Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Toledo, Peoria & W. R. Co., 321 U. S. 50 (1944).
United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., supra; United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., supra; United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., supra.
Shortly after Sinclair was decided, an erosive process began to weaken its underpinnings. Various authorities suggested methods of mitigating the absolute rigor of the Sinclair rule. For example, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Sinclair does not prevent a federal district court from enforcing an arbitrator’s order directing a union to terminate work stoppages in violation of a no-strike clause. New Orleans Steamship Assn. v. General Longshore Workers, 389 F. 2d 369, cert. denied, 393 U. S. 828 (1968); see Pacific Maritime Assn. v. International Longshoremen, 304 F. Supp, 1316 (D. C. N, D. Cal. 1969). See generally Keene, The Supreme Court, Section 301 and No-Strike Clauses: From Lincoln Mills to Avco and Beyond, 15 Vill. L. Rev. 32 (1969).
Section 301 (a) suits require neither the existence of diversity of citizenship nor a minimum jurisdictional amount in controversy. All § 301 (a) suits may be removed pursuant to 28 TJ. S. C. § 1441.
The view that state court jurisdiction would not be disturbed by § 301 (a) was perhaps most clearly articulated by Senator Ferguson, a spokesman for that provision, in a Senate debate in 1946:
“Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, there is nothing whatever in the now-being-considered amendment which takes away from the State courts all the present rights of the State courts to adjudicate the rights between parties in relation to labor agreements. The amendment merely says that the Federal courts shall have jurisdiction. It does not attempt to take away the jurisdiction of the State courts, and the mere fact that the Senator and I disagree does not change the effect of the amendment.
“Mr. MURRAY. But it authorizes the employers to bring suit in the Federal courts, if they so desire.
“Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. That is all it does. It takes away no jurisdiction of the State courts.” 92 Cong. Rec. 5708.
The legislative history of the federal question removal provision is meager, but it has been suggested that its purpose was the same as original federal question jurisdiction, enacted at the same time in the Judiciary Act of 1875, 18 Stat. 470, namely, to protect federal rights, see H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 727-733 (1953), and to provide a forum that could more accurately interpret federal law, see Mishkin, The Federal “Question” in the District Courts, 53 Col. L. Rev. 157, 159 (1953). 113 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1096, 1098 and n. 17 (1965).
See, e. g., Bartosic, Injunctions and Section 301: The Patchwork of Avco and Philadelphia Marine on the Fabric of National Labor Policy, 69 Col. L. Rev. 980 (1969); Dunau, Three Problems in Labor Arbitration, 55 Va. L. Rev. 427 (1969).
It is true that about one-half of the States have enacted so-called “little Norris-LaGuardia Acts” that place various restrictions upon the granting of injunctions by state courts in labor disputes. However, because many States do not bar injunctive relief for violations of collective-bargaining agreements, in only about 14 jurisdictions is there a significant Norris-LaGuardia-type prohibition against equitable remedies for breach of no-strike obligations. See Bartosic, supra, n. 14, at 1001-1006; Keene, supra, n. 10, at 49 and nn. 79, 80.
We held in Teamsters Local 174 v. Lucas Flour Co., supra, that, even in the absence of an express no-strike clause in the collective-bargaining contract, an agreement that certain disputes “will be exclusively covered by compulsory terminal arbitration” (369 U. S., at 106) gives rise to an implied promise by the union not to strike during the term of the contract in response to these arbitrable disputes. Id., at 104-106. In the present case, there was an express no-strike clause in the union-management contract. See n. 4, supra.
As the neutral members of the A. B. A. committee on the problems raised by Sinclair noted in their report:
“Under existing laws, employers may maintain an action for damages resulting from a strike in breach of contract and may discipline the employees involved. In many cases, however, neither of these alternatives will be feasible. Discharge of the strikers is often inexpedient because of a lack of qualified replacements or because of the adverse effect on relationships within the plant. The damage remedy may also be unsatisfactory because the employer’s losses are often hard to calculate and because the employer may hesitate to exacerbate relations with the union by bringing a damage action. Hence, injunctive relief will often be the only effective means by which to remedy the breach of the no-strike pledge and thus effectuate federal labor policy.” A. B. A. Sinclair Report 242.
Scholarly criticism of Sinclair has been sharp, and it appears to be almost universally recognized that Sinclair, particularly after Avco, has produced an untenable situation. The commentators are divided, however, with respect to proposed solutions, some favoring reconsideration of Sinclair, others suggesting extension of Sinclair to the States, and still others recommending that any action in this area be left to Congress. See generally Aaron,, Strikes in Breach of Collective Agreements: Some Unanswered Questions, 63 Col. L. Rev. 1027 (1963); Aaron, The Labor Injunction Reappraised, 10 U. C, L. A. L„ Rev. 292 (1963); Bartosic,, supra, n, 14; Dunau, supra, n. 14; Keene, supra, n, 10; Kiernan, Availability of Injunctions Against Breaches of No-Strike Agreements in Labor Contracts, 32 Albany L. Rev. 303 (1968); Wellington, The No-Strike Clause and the Labor Injunction: Time for a Re-examination, 30 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 293 (1968); Wellington & Albert, Statutory Interpretation and the Political Process: A Comment on Sinclair v. Atkinson, 72 YaleL. J. 1547 (1963).
See generally F. Frankfurter & N. Greene, The Labor Injunction (1930).
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.
Wellington & Albert, supra, n. 18, at 1557.
As well stated by the neutral members of the A. B. A. Sinclair committee:
“Any proposal which would subject unions to injunctive relief must take account of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the opposition expressed in that Act to the issuing of injunctions in labor disputes. Nevertheless, the reasons behind the Norris-LaGuardia Act seem scarcely applicable to the situation ... [in which a strike in violation of a collective-bargaining agreement is enjoined]. The Act was passed primarily because of widespread dissatisfaction with the tendency of judges to enjoin concerted activities in accordance with ‘doctrines of tort law which made the lawfulness of a strike depend upon judicial views of social and economic policy.’ [Citation omitted.] Where an injunction is used against a strike in breach of contract, the union is not subjected in this fashion to judicially-created limitations on its freedom of action but is simply compelled to comply with limitations to which it has previously agreed. Moreover, where the underlying dispute is arbitrable, the union is not deprived of any practicable means of pressing its claim but is only required to submit the dispute to the impartial tribunal that it has agreed to establish for this purpose.” A. B. A. Sinclair Report 242.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Glendora seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Second Circuit. The District Court dismissed petitioner’s claims alleging violation of her due process rights and a conspiracy to violate her due process rights under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and 42 U. S. C. § 1985, respectively. The claims, which arose out of a dispute with her landlord, were based on purported “sewer service” used by her landlord’s lawyers and acceptance of the affidavits of service by the state-court trial judge. The Second Circuit denied petitioner’s motion to proceed informa pauperis and dismissed her appeal as frivolous.
We deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. She is allowed until March 30,1998, to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. For the reasons discussed below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless she first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Petitioner has filed 14 petitions with this Court since 1994. All have been denied without recorded dissent. In 1997, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner informa pauperis status. Glendora v. DiPaola, 522 U. S. 965. Petitioner nevertheless has filed another frivolous petition with this Court.' In her petition, Glendora asserts that the state trial court judge who presided over her dispute with her landlord sanctioned “sewer service” by her landlord’s lawyers, and that the District Court and Court of Appeals sanctioned this conduct. She does not address the District Court’s reasons for dismissing her complaint.
Accordingly, we enter this order barring prospective in forma pauperis filings by petitioner in noneriminal eases for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
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.
On the basis of evidence obtained in a police search of respondents’ trash, respondents were charged with possession of marihuana in violation of § 11530 of the California Health & Safety Code. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the superior court’s judgment of dismissal and order suppressing the evidence on the grounds that, under the circumstances of this case, respondents “had a reasonable expectation that their trash would not be rummaged through and picked over by police officers acting without a search warrant.” People v. Krivda, 5 Cal. 3d 357, 366-367, 486 P. 2d 1262, 1268 (1971) (en banc). We granted certiorari. 405 U. S. 1039.
After briefing and argument, however, we are unable to determine whether the California Supreme Court based its holding upon the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or upon the equivalent provision of the California Constitution, or both. In reaching its result in this case, the California court cited pertinent excerpts from its earlier decision in People v. Edwards, 71 Cal. 2d 1096, 458 P. 2d 713 (1969) (en banc), which relied specifically upon both the state and federal provisions. 5 Cal. 3d, at 367, 486 P. 2d, at 1269. Thus, as in Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194, 196-197 (1965), “[wjhile we might speculate from the choice of words used in the opinion, and the authorities cited by the court, which provision was the basis for the judgment of the state court, we are unable to say with any degree of certainty that the judgment of the California Supreme Court was not based on an adequate and independent nonfederal ground.” We therefore vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of California and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, supra; Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940); State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511 (1939). We intimate no view on the merits of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issue presented.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
At issue in this case is the question whether elementary requirements of impartiality taken for granted in every judicial proceeding are suspended when the parties agree to resolve a dispute through arbitration.
The petitioner, Commonwealth Coatings Corporation, a subcontractor, sued the sureties on the prime contractor's bond to recover money alleged to be due for a painting job. The contract for painting contained an agreement to arbitrate such controversies. Pursuant to this agreement petitioner appointed one arbitrator, the prime contractor appointed a second, and these two together selected the third arbitrator. This third arbitrator, the supposedly neutral member of the panel, conducted a large business in Puerto Rico, in which he served as an engineering consultant for various people in connection with building construction projects. One of his regular customers in this business was the prime contractor that petitioner sued in this case. This relationship with the prime contractor was in a sense sporadic in that the arbitrator’s services were used only from time to time at irregular intervals, and there had been no dealings between them for about a year immediately preceding the arbitration. Nevertheless, the prime contractor’s patronage was repeated and significant, involving fees of about $12,000 over a period of four or five years, and the relationship even went so far as to include the rendering of services on the very projects involved in this lawsuit. An arbitration was held, but the facts concerning the close business connections between the third arbitrator and the prime contractor were unknown to petitioner and were never revealed to it by this arbitrator, by the prime contractor, or by anyone else until after an award had been made. Petitioner challenged the award on this ground, among others, but the District Court refused to set aside the award. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 382 F. 2d 1010 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1967), and we granted certiorari, 390 U. S. 979 (1968).
In 1925 Congress enacted the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §§ 1-14, which sets out a comprehensive plan for arbitration of controversies coining under its terms, and both sides here assume that this Federal Act governs this case. Section 10, quoted below, sets out the conditions upon which awards can be vacated. The two courts below held, however, that § 10 could not be construed in such a way as to justify vacating the award in this case. We disagree and reverse. Section 10 does authorize vacation of an award where it was “procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means” or “[w]here there was evident partiality .... in the arbitrators.” These provisions show a desire of Congress to provide not merely for any arbitration but for an impartial one. It is true that petitioner does not charge before us that the third arbitrator was actually guilty of fraud or bias in deciding this case, and we have no reason, apart from the undisclosed business relationship, to suspect him of any improper motives. But neither this arbitrator nor the prime contractor gave to petitioner even an intimation of the close financial relations that had existed between them for a period of years. We have no doubt that if a litigant could show that a foreman of a jury or a judge in a court of justice had, unknown to the litigant, any such relationship, the judgment would be subject to challenge. This is shown beyond doubt by Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927), where this Court held that a conviction could not stand because a small part of the judge’s income consisted of court fees collected from convicted defendants. Although in Tumey it appeared the amount of the judge’s compensation actually depended on whether he decided for one side or the other, that is too small a distinction to allow this manifest violation of the strict morality and fairness Congress would have expected on the part of the arbitrator and the other party in this case. Nor should it be at all relevant, as the Court of Appeals apparently thought it was here, that “[t]he payments received were a very small part of [the arbitrator’s] income . ...” For in Tumey the Court held that a decision should be set aside where there is “the slightest pecuniary interest” on the part of the judge, and specifically rejected the State’s contention that the compensation involved there was “so small that it is not to be regarded as likely to influence improperly a judicial officer in the discharge of his duty . ...” Since in the case of courts this is a constitutional principle, we can see no basis for refusing to find the same concept in the broad statutory language that governs arbitration proceedings and provides that an award can be set aside on the basis of “evident partiality” or the use of “undue means.” See also Rogers v. Schering Corp., 165 F. Supp. 295, 301 (D. C. N. J. 1958). It is true that arbitrators cannot sever all their ties with the business world, since they are not expected to get all their income from their work deciding cases, but we should, if anything, be even more scrupulous to safeguard the impartiality of arbitrators than judges, since the former have completely free rein to decide the law as well as the facts and are not subject to appellate review. We can perceive no way in which the effectiveness of the arbitration process will be hampered by the simple requirement that arbitrators disclose to the parties any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias.
While not controlling in this case, § 18 of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, in effect at the time of this arbitration, is highly significant. It provided as follows:
“Section 18. Disclosure by Arbitrator of Disqualification — At the time of receiving his notice of appointment, the prospective Arbitrator is requested to disclose any circumstances likely to create a presumption of bias or which he believes might disqualify him as an impartial Arbitrator. Upon receipt of such information, the Tribunal Clerk shall immediately disclose it to the parties, who if willing to proceed under the circumstances disclosed, shall, in writing, so advise the Tribunal Clerk. If either party declines to waive the presumptive disqualification, the vacancy thus created shall be filled in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Rule.”
And based on the same principle as this Arbitration Association rule is that part of the 33d Canon of Judicial Ethics which provides:
“33. Social Relations.
“. . . [A judge] should, however, in pending or prospective litigation before him be particularly careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to awaken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships, constitute an element in influencing his judicial conduct.”
This rule of arbitration and this canon of judicial ethics rest on the premise that any tribunal permitted by law to try cases and controversies not only must be unbiased but also must avoid even the appearance of bias. We cannot believe that it was the purpose of Congress to authorize litigants to submit their cases and controversies to arbitration boards that might reasonably be thought biased against one litigant and favorable to another.
Reversed.
“In either of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration—
“ (a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
“(b) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.
“(c) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
“(d) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
“(e) Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.”
382 F. 2d, at 1011.
273 U. S., at 524.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Interstate Commerce Commission has the authority to approve rail carrier consolidations under certain conditions. 49 U. S. C. § 11301 et seq. A carrier in an approved consolidation “is exempt from the antitrust laws and from all other law, including State and municipal law, as necessary to let [it] carry out the transaction... § 11341(a). These cases require us to decide whether the carrier’s exemption under § 11341(a) “from all other law” extends to its legal obligations under a collective-bargaining agreement. We hold that it does.
I
A
“Prior to 1920, competition was the desideratum of our railroad economy.” St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 347 U. S. 298, 315 (1954). Following a period of Government ownership during World War I, however,“many of the railroads were in very weak condition and their continued survival was in jeopardy.” Ibid. At that time, the Nation made a commitment to railroad carrier consolidation as a means of promoting the health and efficiency of the railroad industry. Beginning with the Transportation Act of 1920, ch. 91, 41 Stat. 456, “consolidation of the railroads of the country, in the interest of economy and efficiency, became an established national policy... so intimately related to the maintenance of an adequate and efficient rail transportation system that the ‘public interest’ in the one cannot be dissociated from that in the other.” United States v. Lowden, 308 U. S. 225, 232 (1939). See generally St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra, at 315-321.
Chapter 113 of the Interstate Commerce Act, recodified in 1978 at 49 U. S. C. § 11301 et seq., contains the current statement of this national policy. The Act grants the Interstate Commerce Commission exclusive authority to examine, condition, and approve proposed mergers and consolidations of transportation carriers within its jurisdiction. § 11343(a)(1). The Act requires the Commission to “approve and authorize” the transactions when they are “consistent with the public interest.” § 11344(c). Among the factors the Commission must consider in making its public interest determination are “the interests of carrier employees affected by the proposed transaction.” § 11344(b)(1)(D). In authorizing a merger or consolidation, the Commission “may impose conditions governing the transaction.” § 11344(c). Once the Commission approves a transaction, a carrier is “exempt from the antitrust laws and from all other law, including State and municipal law, as necessary to let [it] carry out the transaction.” § 11341(a).
When a proposed merger involves rail carriers, the Act requires the Commission to impose labor-protective conditions on the transaction to safeguard the interests of adversely affected railroad employees. § 11347. In New York Dock Railway—Control—Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 360 I. C. C. 60, 84-90, aff’d sub nom. New York Dock Railway v. United States, 609 F. 2d 83 (CA2 1979), the Commission announced a comprehensive set of conditions and procedures designed to meet its obligations under §11347. Section 2 of the New York Dock conditions provides that the “rates of pay, rules, working conditions and all collective bargaining and other rights, privileges and benefits... under applicable laws and/or existing collective bargaining agreements... shall be preserved unless changed by future collective bargaining agreements.” 360 I. C. C., at 84. Section 4 sets forth negotiation and arbitration procedures for resolution of labor disputes arising from an approved railroad merger. Id., at 85. Under §4, a merged or consolidated railroad which plans an operational change that may cause dismissal or displacement of any employee must provide the employee and his union 90 days’ written notice. Ibid. If the carrier and union cannot agree on terms and conditions within 30 days, each party may submit the dispute for an expedited “final, binding and conclusive” determination by a neutral arbitrator. Ibid. Finally, the New York Dock conditions provide affected employees with up to six years of income protection, as well as reimbursements for moving costs and losses from the sale of a home. See id., at 86-89 (§§5-9, 12).
B
The two cases before us today involve separate ICC orders exempting parties to approved railway mergers from the provisions of collective-bargaining agreements.
1. In No. 89-1027, the Commission approved an application by NWS Enterprises, Inc., to acquire control of two previously separate rail carriers, petitioners Norfolk and Western Railway Company (N&W) and Southern Railway Company (Southern). See Norfolk Southern Corp.—Control—Norfolk & W. R. Co. and Southern R. Co., 366 I. C. C. 173 (1982). In its order approving control, the Commission imposed the standard Neto York Dock labor-protective conditions and noted the possibility that “further displacement [of employees] may arise as additional coordinations occur.” 366 I. C. C., at 230-231.
In September 1986, this possibility became a reality. The carriers notified the American Train Dispatchers’ Association, the bargaining representative for certain N&W employees, that they proposed to consolidate all “power distribution” — the assignment of locomotives to particular trains and facilities — for the N&W-Southern operation. To effect the efficiency move, the carriers informed the union that they would transfer work performed at the N&W power distribution center in Roanoke, Virginia, to the Southern center in Atlanta, Georgia. The carriers proposed an implementing agreement in which affected N&W employees would be made management supervisors in Atlanta, and would receive increases in wages and benefits in addition to the relocation expenses and wage protections guaranteed by the New York Dock conditions. The union contended that this proposal involved a change in the existing collective-bargaining agreement that was subject to mandatory bargaining under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. The union also maintained that the carriers were required to preserve the affected employees’ collective-bargaining rights, as well as their right to union representation under the RLA.
Pursuant to § 4 of the New York Dock procedures, the parties negotiated concerning the terms of the implementing agreement, but they failed to resolve their differences. As a result, the carriers invoked the New York Dock arbitration procedures. After a hearing, the arbitration committee ruled in the carriers’ favor. The committee noted that the transfer of work to Atlanta was an incident of the control transaction approved by the ICC, and that it formed part of the “additional coordinations” the ICC predicted would be necessary to achieve “greater efficiencies.” The committee also held it had the authority to abrogate the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement and of the RLA as necessary to implement the merger. Finally, it held that because the application of the N&W bargaining agreement would impede the transfer, the transferred employees did not retain their collective-bargaining rights.
The union appealed to the Commission, which affirmed by a divided vote. It explained that “[i]t has long been the Commission’s view that private collective bargaining agreements and [Railway Labor Act] provisions must give way to the Commission-mandated procedures of section 4 [of the New York Dock conditions] when parties are unable to agree on changes in working conditions required to implement a transaction authorized by the Commission.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 89-1027, p. 33a. Accordingly, the Commission upheld the arbitration committee’s determination that the “compulsory, binding arbitration required by Article I, section 4 of New York Dock, took precedence over RLA procedures whether asserted independently or based on existing collective bargaining agreements.” Id., at 35a. The Commission also held that because the work transfer was incident to the approved merger, it was “immunized from conflicting laws by section 11341(a).” Ibid. Noting that “Composition of the collective bargaining agreement would jeopardize the transaction because the work rules it mandates are inconsistent with the carriers’ underlying purpose of integrating the power distribution function,” the Commission upheld the decision to override the collective-bargaining agreement and RLA provisions. Id., at 37a.
2. In No. 89-1028, the Commission approved an application by CSX Corporation to acquire control of the Chessie System, Inc., and Seaboard Coastline Industries, Inc. CSX Corp. —Control—Chessie System, Inc., and Seaboard Coastline Industries, Inc., 363 I. C. C. 521 (1980). Chessie was the parent of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and the Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company; Seaboard was the parent of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. In approving the control acquisition, the Commission imposed the New York Dock conditions and recognized that “additional coordinations may occur that could lead to further employee displacements.” 363 I. C. C., at 589.
In August 1986, the consolidated carrier notified respondent Brotherhood of Railway Carmen that it planned to close Seaboard’s heavy freight car repair shop at Waycross, Georgia, and transfer the Waycross employees to Chessie’s similar shop in Raceland, Kentucky. The carrier informed the Brotherhood that the proposed transfer would result in a net decrease of jobs at the two shops. Pursuant to New York Dock, the carrier and the union negotiated concerning the terms of an agreement to implement the transfer. The sticking point in the negotiations involved a 1966 collective-bargaining agreement between the union and Seaboard known as the “Orange Book.” The Orange Book provided that the carrier would employ each covered employee and maintain each employee’s work conditions and benefits for the remainder of the employee’s working life. The Brotherhood contended that the Orange Book prevented CSX from moving work or covered employees from Waycross to Raceland.
When negotiations broke down, both the union and the carrier invoked the arbitration procedures under §4 of New York Dock. The arbitration committee ruled for the carrier. It agreed with the union that the Orange Book prohibited the proposed transfer of work and employees. It determined, however, that it could override any Orange Book or RLA provision that impeded an operational change authorized or required by the ICC’s decision approving the original merger. The committee then held that the carrier could transfer the heavy repair work, which it found necessary to the original control acquisition, but could not transfer employees protected by the Orange Book, which it found would only slightly impair the original control acquisition. Both parties appealed the award to the Commission.
A divided Commission affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Commission agreed the committee possessed authority to override collective-bargaining rights and RLA rights that prevent implementation of a proposed transaction. It reasoned, however, that “[ijmposition of an Orange Book employee exception would effectively prevent implementation of the proposed transaction.” CSX Corp.—Control—Chessie System, Inc. and Seaboard Coast Line Industries, Inc., 4 I. C. C. 2d 641, 650 (1988). The Commission thus affirmed the arbitration committee’s order permitting the transfer of work but reversed the holding that the carriers could not transfer Orange Book employees.
3. The unions appealed both cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals considered the cases together and reversed and remanded to the Commission. Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. ICC, 279 U. S. App. D. C. 239, 880 F. 2d 562 (1989). The court held that § 11341(a) does not authorize the Commission to relieve a party of collective-bargaining agreement obligations that impede implementation of an approved transaction. The court stated various grounds for its conclusion. First, because the court did not read the phrase “all other law” in § 11341(a) to include “all legal obstacles,” it found “no support in the language of the statute” to apply the statute to obligations imposed by collective-bargaining agreements. Id., at 244, 880 F. 2d, at 567. Second, the court analyzed the Transportation Act of 1920, ch. 91, §407, 41 Stat. 482, which contained a predecessor to § 11341(a), and found that Congress “did not intend, when it enacted the immunity provision, to override contracts.” 279 U. S. App. D. C., at 247, 880 F. 2d, at 570. The court noted that Congress had “focused nearly exclusively... on specific types of laws it intended to eliminate — all of which were positive enactments, not common law rules of liability, as on a contract.” Ibid. The court further noted that Congress had often revisited the immunity provision without making it clear that it included contracts or collective-bargaining agreements. Ibid. Finally, the court did not defer to the ICC’s interpretation of the Act, presumably because it determined that the Commission’s interpretation was belied by the contrary “ ‘unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,’” id., at 244, 880 F. 2d, at 567 (quoting Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984)).
In ruling that § 11341(a) did not apply to collective-bargaining agreements, the court “decline[d] to address the question” whether the section could operate to override provisions of the RLA. Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, supra, at 247-250, 880 F. 2d, at 570-573. It also declined to consider whether the labor-protective conditions required by § 11347 are exclusive, or whether §4 of the New York Dock conditions gives an arbitration committee the right to override provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement. 279 U. S. App. D. C., at 250, 880 F. 2d, at 573. The court remanded the case to the Commission for a determination on these issues.
After the Court of Appeals denied the carriers’ petitions for rehearing, the carriers in the consolidated cases filed petitions for certiorari, which we granted on March 26, 1990. 494 U. S. 1055. We now reverse.
HH
Title 49 U. S. C. § 11341(a) provides:
"... A carrier, corporation, or person participating in that approved or exempted transaction is exempt from the antitrust laws and from all other law, including State and municipal law, as necessary to let that person carry out the transaction, hold, maintain, and operate property, and exercise control or franchises acquired through the transaction....”
We address the narrow question whether the exemption in § 11341(a) from “all other law” includes a carrier’s legal obligations under a collective-bargaining agreement.
By its terms, the exemption applies only when necessary to carry out an approved transaction. These predicates, however, are not at issue here, for the Court of Appeals did not pass on them and the parties do not challenge them. For purposes of this decision, we assume, without deciding, that the Commission properly considered the public interest factors of § 11344(b)(1) in approving the original transaction, that its decision to override the carriers’ obligations is consistent with the labor-protective requirements of § 11347, and that the override was necessary to the implementation of the transaction within the meaning of § 11341(a). Under these assumptions, we hold that the exemption from “all other law” in § 11341(a) includes the obligations imposed by the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement.
As always, we begin with the language of the statute and ask whether Congress has spoken on the subject before us. “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843. The contested language in § 11341(a), exempting carriers from “the antitrust laws and all other law, including State and municipal law,” is clear, broad, and unqualified. It does not admit of the distinction the Court of Appeals drew, based on its analysis of legislative history, between positive enactments and common-law rules of liability. Nor does it support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Congress did not intend the immunity clause to apply to contractual obligations.
By itself, the phrase “all other law” indicates no limitation. The circumstance that the phrase “all other law” is in addition to coverage for “the antitrust laws” does not detract from this breadth. There is a canon of statutory construction which, on first impression, might seem to dictate a different result. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, when a general term follows a specific one, the general term should be understood as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific enumeration. See Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U. S. 73, 84-85 (1990). The canon does not control, however, when the whole context dictates a different conclusion. Here, there are several reasons the immunity provision cannot be interpreted to apply only to antitrust laws and similar statutes. First, because “[rjepeals of the antitrust laws by implication from a regulatory statute are strongly disfavored,” United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350 (1963), Congress may have determined that it should make a clear and separate statement to include antitrust laws within the general exemption of § 11341(a). Second, the otherwise general term “all other law” “includes]” (but is not limited to) “State and municipal law.” This shows that “all other law” refers to more than laws related to antitrust. Also, the fact that “all other law” entails more than “the antitrust laws,” but is not limited to “State and municipal law,” reinforces the conclusion, inherent in the word “all,” that the phrase “all other law” includes federal law other than the antitrust laws. In short, the immunity provision in § 11341 means what it says: A carrier is exempt from all law as necessary to carry out an ICC-approved transaction.
The exemption is broad enough to include laws that govern the obligations imposed by contract. “The obligation of a contract is ‘the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement.’” Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 429 (1934) (quoting Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 197 (1819)). A contract depends on a regime of common and statutory law for its effectiveness and enforcement.
“Laws which subsist at the time and place of the making of a contract, and where it is to be performed, enter into and form a part of it, as fully as if they had been expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms. This principle embraces alike those laws which affect its construction and those which affect its enforcement or discharge.” Farmers and Merchants Bank of Monroe v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 262 U. S. 649, 660 (1923).
A contract has no legal force apart from the law that acknowledges its binding character. As a result, the exemption in § 11341(a) from “all other law” effects an override of contractual obligations, as necessary to carry out an approved transaction, by suspending application of the law that makes the contract binding.
Schwabacher v. United States, 334 U. S. 182 (1948), which construed the immediate precursor of § 11341(a), §5(11) of the Transportation Act of 1940, ch. 722, §7, 54 Stat. 908-909, supports this conclusion. In Schwabacher, minority stockholders in a carrier involved in an ICC-approved merger complained that the terms of the merger diminished the value of their shares as guaranteed by the corporate charter and thus “deprived [them] of contract rights under Michigan law... 334 U. S., at 188. We explained that the Commission was charged under the Act with passing upon and approving all capital liabilities assumed or discharged by the merged company, and that once the Commission approved a merger in the public interest and on just and reasonable terms, the immunity provision relieved the parties to the merger of “restraints, limitations, and prohibitions of law, Federal, State, or municipal,” as necessary to carry out the transaction. Id., at 194-195, 198. We noted that before approving the merger, the Commission had a duty “to see that minority interests are protected,” and emphasized that any such minority rights were, “as a matter of federal law, accorded recognition in the obligation of the Commission not to approve any plan which is not just and reasonable.” Id., at 201. Once these interests were accounted for, however, “[i]t would be inconsistent to allow state law to apply a liquidation basis [for valuation] to what federal law designates as a basis for continued public service.” Id., at 200. Relying in part on the immunity provision, we held the contract rights protected by state law did not survive the merger agreement found by the Commission to be in the public interest. Id., at 194-195, 200-201. Because the Commission had disclaimed jurisdiction to settle the shareholders’ complaints, we remanded the case to the Commission to ensure that the terms of the merger were just and reasonable. Id., at 202.
Just as the obligations imposed by state contract law did not survive the merger at issue in Schwabacher, the obligations imposed by the law that gives force to the carriers’ collective-bargaining agreements, the RLA, do not survive the merger in this case. The RLA governs the formation, construction, and enforcement of the labor-management contracts in issue here. It requires carriers and employees to make reasonable efforts “to make and maintain” collective-bargaining agreements, 45 U. S. C. § 152 First, and to refrain from making changes in existing agreements except in accordance with RLA procedures, 45 U. S. C. §§152 Seventh, 156. The Act “extends both to disputes concerning the making of collective agreements and to grievances arising under existing agreements.” Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239, 242 (1950). As the law which gives “legal and binding effect to collective agreements,” Detroit & T. S. L. R. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 396 U. S. 142, 156 (1969), the RLA is the law that, under § 11341(a), is superseded when an ICC-approved transaction requires abrogation of collective-bargaining obligations. See ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 287 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Boston & Maine Corp., 788 F. 2d 794, 801 (CA1 1986); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 782 F. 2d 107, 111 (CA8 1986); Burlington Northern, Inc. v. American Railway Supervisors Assn., 503 F. 2d 58, 62-63 (CA7 1974); Bundy v. Penn Central Co., 455 F. 2d 277, 279-280 (CA6 1972); Nemitz v. Norfolk & Western R. Co., 436 F. 2d 841, 845 (CA6), aff’d, 404 U. S. 37 (1971); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 314 F. 2d 424 (CA8 1963); Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 307 F. 2d 151, 161-162 (CA5 1962); Railway Labor Executives Assn. v. Guilford Transp. Industries, Inc., 667 F. Supp. 29, 35 (Me. 1987), aff’d, 843 F. 2d 1383 (CA1 1988).
Our determination that § 11341(a) supersedes collective-bargaining obligations via the RLA as necessary to carry out an ICC-approved transaction makes sense of the consolidation provisions of the Act, which were designed to promote “economy and efficiency in interstate transportation by the removal of the burdens of excessive expenditure.” Texas v. United States, 292 U. S. 522, 534-535 (1934). The Act requires the Commission to approve consolidations in the public interest. 49 U. S. C. § 11343(a)(1). Recognizing that consolidations in the public interest will “result in wholesale dismissals and extensive transfers, involving expense to transferred employees” as well as “the loss of seniority rights,” United States v. Lowden, 308 U. S. 225, 233 (1939), the Act imposes a number of labor-protecting requirements to ensure that the Commission accommodates the interests of affected parties to the greatest extent possible. 49 U. S. C. §§ 11344(b)(1)(D), 11347; see also New York Dock Railway-Control—Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 360 I. C. C. 60 (1979). Section 11341(a) guarantees that once these interests are accounted for and once the consolidation is approved, obligations imposed by laws such as the RLA will not prevent the efficiencies of consolidation from being achieved. If § 11341(a) did not apply to bargaining agreements enforceable under the RLA, rail carrier consolidations would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. The resolution process for major disputes under the RLA would so delay the proposed transfer of operations that any efficiencies the carriers sought would be defeated. See, e. g., Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Maintenance of Way Employes, 481 U. S. 429, 444 (1987) (resolution procedures for major disputes “virtually endless”); Detroit & T. S. L. R. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 396 U. S. 142, 149 (1969) (dispute resolution under RLA involves “an almost interminable process”); Railway Clerks v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 384 U. S. 238, 246 (1966) (RLA procedures are “purposely long and drawn out”). The immunity provision of § 11341(a) is designed to avoid this result.
We hold that, as necessary to carry out a transaction approved by the Commission, the term “all other law” in § 11341(a) includes any obstacle imposed by law. In this case, the term “all other law” in § 11341(a) applies to the substantive and remedial laws respecting enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements. Our construction of the clear statutory command confirms the interpretation of the agency charged with its administration and expert in the field of railroad mergers. We affirm the Commission’s interpretation of § 11341(a), not out of deference in the face of an ambiguous statute, but rather because the Commission’s interpretation is the correct one.
This reading of § 11341(a) will not, as the Court of Appeals feared, lead to bizarre results. Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. ICC, 279 U. S. App. D. C., at 244, 880 F. 2d, at 567. The immunity provision does not exempt carriers from all law, but rather from all law necessary to carry out an approved transaction. We reiterate that neither the conditions of approval, nor the standard for necessity, is before us today. It may be, as the Commission held on remand from the Court of Appeals, that the scope of the immunity provision is limited by § 11347, which conditions approval of a transaction on satisfaction of certain labor-protective conditions. See n. 2, supra. It also might be true that “[t]he breadth of the exemption [in § 11341(a)] is defined by the scope of the approved transaction....” ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, supra, at 298 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). We express no view on these matters, as they are not before us here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.
The statutory exemption that the Court construes today had its source in § 407 of the Transportation Act of 1920 (1920 Act). 41 Stat. 482. Its wording was slightly changed in 1940, 54 Stat. 908-909, and again in 1978, 92 Stat. 1434. There is, however, no claim that either of those amendments modified the coverage of the exemption in any way. It is therefore appropriate to begin with a consideration of the purpose and the text of the 1920 Act.
Before the First World War, the railroad industry had been the prime target of antitrust enforcement. In 1920, however, Congress adopted a new national transportation policy that expressly favored the consolidation of railroads. The policy of consolidation embodied in the 1920 Act would obviously have been frustrated by the federal antitrust laws had Congress not chosen to exempt explicitly all approved mergers from these laws. Section 407 of that Act provided, in part:
“The carriers affected by any order made under the foregoing provisions of this section... shall be, and they are hereby, relieved from the operation of the ‘antitrust laws,’... and of all other restraints or prohibitions by law, State or Federal, in so far as may be necessary to enable them to do anything authorized or required by any order made under and pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this section.” 41 Stat. 482.
Both the background and the text of §407 make it absolutely clear that its primary focus was on federal antitrust laws. Sensibly, however, Congress wrote that section using language broad enough to cover any other federal or state law that might otherwise forbid the consummation of any approved merger or prevent the immediate operation of its properties under a new corporate owner. Not a word in the statute, or in its legislative history, contains any hint that the approval of a merger by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) would impair the obligations of valid and otherwise enforceable private contracts.
Given the present plight of our Nation’s railroads, it may be wise policy to give the ICC a power akin to, albeit greater than, that of a bankruptcy court to approve a trustee’s rejection of a debtor’s executory private contracts. Through nothing short of a tour de force, however, can one find any such power in 49 U. S. C. § 11341, or in either of its predecessors. Obviously, consolidated carriers would find it useful to have the ability to disavow disadvantageous long-term leases on obsolete car repair facilities, employment contracts with high salaried executives whose services are no longer needed, as well as collective-bargaining agreements that provide costly job security to a shrinking work force. If Congress had intended to give the ICC such broad ranging power to impair contracts, it would have done so in language much clearer than anything that can be found in the present Act.
The Court’s contrary conclusion rests on its reading of the “plain meaning” of the present statutory text and our decision in Schwabacher v. United States, 334 U. S. 182 (1948). Neither of these reasons is sufficient. Moreover, the Court’s reading is inconsistent with other unambiguous provisions in the statute.
I
With or without the ejusdem generis canon, I believe that the normal reader would assume that the text of § 11341 encompasses the antitrust laws, as well as other federal or state laws, that would otherwise prohibit rail carriers from consummating approved mergers, and nothing more. See ante, at 128. That text contains no suggestion that whenever a criminal law, tort law, or any regulatory measure impedes the efficient operation of a new merged carrier, the carrier can avoid such a restriction by virtue of the ICC approval of that merger. Nor does the text of § 11341 contain any sug-gestión that such an approval would impair the obligation of private contracts. Rather, as both an application of the ejusdem generis canon and an examination of the legislative history show, the purpose of the exemption was to relieve the carriers “from the operation of the antitrust and other restrictive or prohibitory laws.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 650, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 64 (1920) (emphasis added).
The Court speculates that the reason the 1920 Congress explicitly referred to the antitrust laws was simply to avoid the force of the rule that repeals of the antitrust laws by implication are not favored, citing United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350 (1963). In that case, however, the rule was announced in the context of the industry’s argument that federal regulatory approval of a transaction exempted the transaction from the antitrust laws even though the regulatory statute was entirely silent on the subject of exemption. Ibid. The authority cited in the Phila delphia decision to support this rule sheds no light on the question whether a statute creating a broad exemption for mergers would naturally be read to include all statutes that otherwise would have prohibited the consummation of a merger of large rail carriers.
Of greater importance, however, is the Court’s rather remarkable assumption that an exemption “from ‘all other law’ ” should be read to encompass the restraints created by-private contract. Ante, at 129-130. Even if the text of the present Act could bear that reading, it is flatly inconsistent with the text of the 1920 Act, which relieved the participating carriers “from the operation of the ‘antitrust laws’... and of all other restraints or prohibitions by law, State or federal....” 41 Stat. 482. Moreover, given the respect that our legal system has always paid to the enforceability of private contracts — a respect that is evidenced by express language in the Constitution itself’ — there should be a powerful presumption against finding an implied authority to impair contracts in a statute that was enacted to alleviate a legitimate concern about the antitrust laws. Had Congress intended to convey the message the Court finds in § 11341, it surely would have said expressly that the exemption was from all restraints imposed by law or by private contract.
HH i — i
In my opinion, the Court’s reliance on the decision in Schwabacher v. United States, 334 U. S. 182 (1948), is misplaced. In that case, the owners of two percent of the outstanding preferred stock of the Pere Marquette Railway brought suit in the United States District Court to set aside an ICC order approving a merger between that corporation and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Corporation. In approving the merger, the ICC had found that the market value of plaintiffs’ preferred shares ranged, at different times, from $87 to $99 per share, and that the stock that they received in exchange pursuant to the merger agreement would have realized about $90 and $111 on the same dates. Thus, the terms of the merger, as applied to the plaintiffs’ class, were just and reasonable. Plaintiffs contended, however, that the exchange value of their shares amounted to $172.50 per share because the merger was a “liquid
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On appeal of his criminal conviction to the Supreme Court of Missouri, petitioner contended that his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community had been denied by provisions of Missouri law allowing any woman who so elects to be excused from jury service. See Mo. Const., Art. 1, §22 (b); Mo. Rev. Stat. §494.031 (2) (Supp. 1975). The record did not reflect that petitioner had raised this objection in timely fashion in the trial court, but because the trial court had considered and rejected the contention on its merits in connection with petitioner’s motion for a new trial, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the issue under its “plain error” rule. Relying on its decision in State v. Duren, 556 S. W. 2d 11 (1977), that court rejected petitioner’s contention that the challenged provisions are invalid because they systematically exclude women from the jury-selection process. 556 S. W. 2d 42, 44 (1977). The highest state court having reached and decided this issue, its judgment is subject to review in this Court. See Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153, 157 (1974). The petition for certiorari is granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Duren v. Missouri, ante, p. 357.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a Federal District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1) of a suit by a taxpayer for the refund of income tax payments which did not discharge the entire amount of his assessment.
This is our second consideration of the case. In the 1957 Term, we decided that full payment of the assessment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, 357 U. S. 63. Subsequently the Court granted a petition for rehearing. 360 U. S. 922. The case has been exhaustively briefed and ably argued. After giving the problem our most careful attention, we have concluded that our original disposition of the case was correct.
Under such circumstances, normally a brief epilogue to the prior opinion would be sufficient to account for our decision. However, because petitioner in reargument has placed somewhat greater emphasis upon certain contentions than he had previously, and because our dissenting colleagues have elaborated upon the reasons for their disagreement, we deem it advisable to set forth our reasoning in some detail, even though this necessitates repeating much of what we have already said.
The Facts.
The relevant facts are undisputed and uncomplicated. This litigation had its source in a dispute between petitioner and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue concerning the proper characterization of certain losses which petitioner suffered during 1950. Petitioner reported them as ordinary losses, but the Commissioner treated them as capital losses and levied a deficiency assessment in the amount of $28,908.60, including interest. Petitioner paid $5,058.54 and then filed with the Commissioner a claim for refund of that amount. After the claim was disallowed, petitioner sued for refund in a District Court. The Government moved to dismiss, and the judge decided that the petitioner “should not maintain” the action because he had not paid the full amount of the assessment. But since there was a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this jurisdictional question, and since the Tenth Circuit had not yet passed upon it, the judge believed it desirable to determine the merits of the claim. He thereupon concluded that the losses were capital in nature and entered judgment in favor of the Government. 142 F. Supp. 602. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district judge upon the jurisdictional issue, and consequently remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint. 246 F. 2d 929. We granted certiorari because the Courts of Appeals were in conflict with respect to a question which is of considerable importance in the administration of the tax laws.
The Statute.
The question raised in this case has not only raised a conflict in the federal decisions, but has also in recent years provoked controversy among legal commentators. In view of this divergence of expert opinion, it would be surprising if the words of the statute inexorably dictated but a single reasonable conclusion. Nevertheless, one of the arguments which has been most strenuously urged is that the plain language of the statute precludes, or at the very least strongly militates against, a decision that full payment of the.income tax assessment is a jurisdictional condition precedent to maintenance of a refund suit in a District Court. If this were true, presumably we could but recite the statute and enter judgment for petitioner— though we might be pardoned some perplexity as to how such a simple matter could have caused so much confusion. Regrettably, this facile an approach will not serve.
Section 1346 (a)(1) provides that the District Courts shall have jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of
“(1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws... (Emphasis added.)
It is clear enough that the phrase “any internal-revenue tax” can readily be construed to refer to payment of the entire amount of an assessment. Such an interpretation is suggested by the nature of the income tax, which is “A tax... imposed for each taxable year,” with the “amount of the tax” determined in accordance with prescribed schedules. (Emphasis added.) But it is argued that this reading of the statute is foreclosed by the presence in § 1346 (a)(1) of the phrase “any sum.” This contention appears to be based upon the notion that “any sum” is a catchall which confers jurisdiction to adjudicate suits for refund of part of a tax. A catchall the phrase surely is; but to say this is not to define what it catches. The sweeping role which petitioner assigns these words is based upon a conjunctive reading of “any internal-revenue tax,” “any penalty,” and “any sum.” But we believe that the statute more readily lends itself to the disjunctive reading which is suggested by the connective “or.” That is, “any sum,” instead of being related to “any internal-revenue tax” and “any penalty,” may refer to amounts which are neither taxes nor penalties. Under this interpretation, the function of the phrase is to permit suit for recovery of items which might not be designated as either “taxes” or “penalties” by Congress or the courts. One obvious example of such a “sum” is interest. And it is significant that many old tax statutes described the amount which was to be assessed under certain circumstances as a “sum” to be added to the tax, simply as a “sum,” as a “percentum,” or as “costs.” Such a rendition of the statute, which is supported by precedent, frees the phrase “any internal-revenue tax” from the qualifications imposed upon it by petitioner and permits it to be given what we regard as its more natural reading — the full tax. Moreover, this construction, under which each phrase is assigned a distinct meaning, imputes to Congress a surer grammatical touch than does the alternative interpretation, under which the “any sum” phrase completely assimilates the other two. Surely a much clearer statute could have been written to authorize suits for refund of any part of a tax merely by use of the phrase “a tax or any portion thereof,” or simply “any sum paid under the internal revenue laws.” This Court naturally does not review congressional enactments as a panel of grammarians; but neither do we regard ordinary principles of English prose as irrelevant to a construction of those enactments. Cf. Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U. S. 87.
We conclude that the language of § 1346 (a)(1) can be more readily construed to require payment of the full tax before suit than to permit suit for recovery of a part payment. But, as we recognized in the prior opinion, the statutory language is not absolutely controlling, and consequently resort must be had to whatever other materials might be relevant.
Legislative History and Historical Background.
Although frequently the legislative history of a statute is the most fruitful source of instruction as to its proper interpretation, in this case that history is barren of any clue to congressional intent.
The precursor of § 1346 (a)(1) was § 1310 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1921, in which the language with which we are here concerned appeared for the first time in a jurisdictional statute. Section 1310 (c) had an overt purpose unrelated to the question whether full payment of an assessed tax was a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit for refund. Prior to 1921, tax refund suits against the United States could be maintained in the District Courts under the authority of the Tucker Act, which had been passed in 1887. Where the claim exceeded $10,000, however, such a suit could not be brought, and in such a situation the taxpayer’s remedy in District Court was against the Collector. But because the Collector had to be sued personally, no District Court action was available if he was deceased. The 1921 provision, which was an amendment to the Tucker Act, was explicitly designed to permit taxpayers to sue the United States in the District Courts for sums exceeding $10,000 where the Collector had died.
The ancestry of the language of § 1346 (a)(1) is no more enlightening than is the legislative history of the 1921 provision. This language, which, as we have stated, appeared in substantially its present form in the 1921 amendment, was apparently taken from R. S. § 3226 (1878). But § 3226 was not a jurisdictional statute at all; it simply specified that suits for recovery of taxes, penalties, or sums could not be maintained until after a claim for refund had been submitted to the Commissioner.
Thus there is presented a vexing situation — statutory language which is inconclusive and legislative history which is irrelevant. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that § 1346 (a) (1) expresses no congressional intent with respect to the issue before the Court; but it does make that intent uncommonly difficult to divine.
It is argued, however, that the puzzle may be solved through consideration of the historical basis of a suit to recover a tax illegally assessed. The argument proceeds as follows: A suit to recover taxes could, before the Tucker Act, be brought only against the Collector. Such a suit was based upon the common-law count of assumpsit for money had and received, and the nature of that count requires the inference that a suit for recovery of part payment of a tax could have been maintained. Neither the Tucker Act nor the 1921 amendment indicates an intent to change the nature of the refund action in any pertinent respect. Consequently, there is no warrant for importing into § 1346 (a)(1) a full-payment requirement.
For reasons which will appear later, we believe that the conclusion would not follow even if the premises were clearly sound. But in addition we have substantial doubt about the validity of the premises. As we have already indicated, the language of the 1921 amendment does in fact tend to indicate a congressional purpose to require full payment as a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit for refund. Moreover, we are not satisfied that the suit against the Collector was identical to the common-law action of assumpsit for money had and received. One difficulty is that, because of the Act of February 26, 1845, c. 22, 5 Stat. 727, which restored the right of action against the Collector after this Court had held that it had been implicitly eliminated by other legislation, the Court no longer regarded the suit as a common-law action, but rather as a statutory remedy which “in its nature [was] a remedy against the Government.” Curtis’s Administratrix v. Fiedler, 2 Black 461, 479. On the other hand, it is true that none of the statutes relating to this type of suit clearly indicate a congressional intention to require full payment of the assessed tax before suit. Nevertheless, the opinion of this Court in Cheatham v. United States, 92 U. S. 85, prevents us from accepting the analogy between the statutory action against the Collector and the common-law count. In this 1875 opinion, the Court described the remedies available to taxpayers as follows:
“So also, in the internal-revenue department, the statute which we have copied allows appeals from the assessor to the commissioner of internal revenue ; and, if dissatisfied with his decision, on paying the tax the party can sue the collector; and, if the money was wrongfully exacted, the courts will give him relief by a judgment, which the United States pledges herself to pay.
“... While a free course of remonstrance and appeal is allowed within the departments before the money is finally exacted, the general government has wisely made the payment of the tax claimed, whether of customs or of internal revenue, a condition precedent to a resort to the courts by the party against whom the tax is assessed.... If the compliance with this condition [that appeal must be made to the Commissioner and suit brought within six months of his decision] requires the party aggrieved to pay the money, he must do it. He cannot, after the decision is rendered against him, protract the time within which he can contest that decision in the courts by his own delay in paying the money. It is essential to the honor and orderly conduct of the government that its taxes should be promptly paid, and drawbacks speedily adjusted; and the rule prescribed in this class of cases is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable....
“The objecting party can take his appeal. He can, if the decision is delayed beyond twelve months, rest his case on that decision; or he can pay the amount claimed, and commence his suit at any time within that period. So, after the decision, he can pay at once, and commence suit within the six months....” 92 U. S., at 88-89. (Emphasis added.)
Reargument has not changed our view that this language reflects an understanding that full payment of the tax was a prerequisite to suit. Of course, as stated in our prior opinion, the Cheatham statement is dictum; but we reiterate that it appears to us to be “carefully considered dictum.” 357 U. S., at 68. Equally important is the fact that the Court was construing the claim-for-refund statute from which, as amended, the language of § 1346 (a)(1) was presumably taken. Thus it seems that in Cheatham the Supreme Court interpreted this language not only to specify which claims for refund must first be presented for administrative reconsideration, but also to constitute an additional qualification upon the statutory right to sue the Collector. It is true that the version of the provision involved in Cheatham contained only the phrase “any tax.” But the phrases “any penalty” and “any sum” were added well before the decision in Cheatham; the history of these amendments makes it quite clear that they were not designed to effect any change relevant to the Cheatham rule; language in opinions of this Court after Cheatham is consistent with the Cheatham statement; and in any event, as we have indicated, we can see nothing in these additional words which would negate the full-payment requirement.
If this were all the material relevant to a construction of § 1346 (a)(1), determination of the issue at bar would be inordinately difficult. Favoring petitioner would be the theory that, in the early nineteenth century, a suit for recovery of part payment of an assessment could be maintained against the Collector, together with the absence of any conclusive evidence that Congress has ever intended to inaugurate a new rule; favoring respondent would be the Cheatham statement and the language of the 1921 statute. There are, however, additional factors which are dispositive.
We are not here concerned with a single sentence in an isolated statute, but rather with a jurisdictional provision which is a keystone in a carefully articulated and quite complicated structure of tax laws. From these related statutes, all of which were passed after 1921, it is apparent that Congress has several times acted upon the assumption that § 1346 (a)(1) requires full payment before suit. Of course, if the clear purpose of Congress at any time had been to permit suit to recover a part payment, this subsequent legislation would have to be disregarded. But, as we have stated, the evidence pertaining to this intent is extremely weak, and we are convinced that it is entirely too insubstantial to justify destroying the existing harmony of the tax statutes. The laws which we consider especially pertinent are the statute establishing the Board of Tax Appeals (now the Tax Court), the Declaratory Judgment Act, and § 7422 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The Board of Tax Appeals.
The Board of Tax Appeals was established by Congress in 1924 to permit taxpayers to secure a determination of tax liability before payment of the deficiency. The Government argues that the Congress which passed this 1924 legislation thought full payment of the tax assessed was a condition for bringing suit in a District Court; that Congress believed this sometimes caused hardship; and that Congress set up the Board to alleviate that hardship. Petitioner denies this, and contends that Congress’ sole purpose was to enable taxpayers to prevent the Government from collecting taxes by exercise of its power of distraint.
We believe that the legislative history surrounding both the creation of the Board and the subsequent revisions of the basic statute supports the Government. The House Committee Report, for example, explained the purpose of the bill as follows:
“The committee recommends the establishment of a Board of Tax Appeals to which a taxpayer may appeal prior to the payment of an additional assessment of income, excess-profits, war-profits, or estate taxes. Although a taxpayer may, after payment of his tax, bring suit for the recovery thereof and thus secure a judicial determination on the questions involved, he can not, in view of section 3224 of the Revised Statutes, which prohibits suits to enjoin the collection of taxes, secure such a determination prior to the payment of the tax. The right of appeal after payment of the tax is an incomplete remedy, and does little to remove the hardship occasioned by an incorrect assessment. The payment of a large additional tax on income received several years previous and which may have, since its receipt, been either wiped out by subsequent losses, invested in nonliquid assets, or spent, sometimes forces taxpayers into bankruptcy, and often causes great financial hardship and sacrifice. These results are not remedied by permitting the taxpayer to sue for the recovery of the tax after this payment. He is entitled to an appeal and to a determination of his liability for the tax prior to its payment.” (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, throughout the congressional debates are to be found frequent expressions of the principle that payment of the full tax was a precondition to suit: “pay his tax... then... file a claim for refund”; “pay the tax and then sue”; “a review in the courts after payment of the tax”; “he may still seek court review, but he must first pay the tax assessed”; “in order to go to court he must pay his assessment”; “he must pay it [his assessment] before he can have a trial in court”; “pay the taxes adjudicated against him, and then commence a suit in a court”; “pay the tax... [t]hen... sue to get it back”; “paying his tax and bringing his suit”; “first pay his tax and then sue to get it back”; “take his case to the district court — conditioned, of course, upon his paying the assessment.”
Petitioner’s argument falls under the weight of this evidence. It is true, of course, that the Board of Tax Appeals procedure has the effect of staying collection, and it may well be that Congress so provided in order to alleviate hardships caused by the long-standing bar against suits to enjoin the collection of taxes. But it is a considerable leap to the further conclusion that amelioration of the hardship of prelitigation payment as a jurisdictional requirement was not another important motivation for Congress' action. To reconcile the legislative history with this conclusion seems to require the presumption that all the Congressmen who spoke of payment of the assessment before suit as a hardship understood — without saying — that suit could be brought for whatever part of the assessment had been paid, but believed that, as a practical matter, hardship would nonetheless arise because the Government would require payment of the balance of the tax by exercising its power of distraint. But if this was in fact the view of these legislators, it is indeed extraordinary that they did not say so. Moreover, if Congress’ only concern was to prevent dis-traint, it is somewhat difficult to understand why Congress did not simply authorize injunction suits. It is interesting to note in this connection that bills to permit the same type of prepayment litigation in the District Courts as is possible in the Tax Court have been introduced several times, but none has ever been adopted.
In sum, even assuming that one purpose of Congress in establishing the Board was to permit taxpayers to avoid distraint, it seems evident that another purpose was to furnish a forum where full payment of the assessment would not be a condition precedent to suit. The result is a system in which there is one tribunal for prepayment litigation and another for post-payment litigation, with no room contemplated for a hybrid of the type proposed by petitioner.
The Declaratory Judgment Act.
The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was amended by § 405 of the Revenue Act of 1935 expressly to except disputes “with respect to Federal taxes.” The Senate Report explained the purpose of the amendment as follows :
“Your committee has added an amendment making it clear that the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act of June 14, 1934, has no application to Federal taxes. The application of the Declaratory Judgments Act to taxes would constitute a radical departure from the long-continued policy of Congress (as expressed in Rev. Stat. 3224 and other provisions) with respect to the determination, assessment, and collection of Federal taxes. Your committee believes that the orderly and prompt determination and collection of Federal taxes should not be interfered with by a procedure designed to facilitate the settlement of private controversies, and that existing procedure both in the Board of Tax Appeals and the courts affords ample remedies for the correction of tax errors.” (Emphasis added.)
It is clear enough that one “radical departure” which was averted by the amendment was the potential circumvention of the “pay first and litigate later” rule by way of suits for declaratory judgments in tax cases. Petitioner would have us give this Court’s imprimatur to precisely the same type of “radical departure,” since a suit for recovery of but a part of an assessment would determine the legality of the balance by operation of the principle of collateral estoppel. With respect to this unpaid portion, the taxpayer would be securing what is in effect — even though not technically — a declaratory judgment. The frustration of congressional intent which petitioner asks us to endorse could hardly be more glaring, for he has conceded that his argument leads logically to the conclusion that payment of even $1 on a large assessment entitles the taxpayer to sue — a concession amply warranted by the obvious impracticality of any judicially created jurisdictional standard midway between full payment and any payment.
Section 7422 (e) of the 1954 Code.
One distinct possibility which would emerge from a decision in favor of petitioner would be that a taxpayer might be able to split his cause of action, bringing suit for refund of part of the tax in a Federal District Court and litigating in the Tax Court with respect to the remainder. In such a situation the first decision would, of course, control. Thus if for any reason a litigant would prefer a District Court adjudication, he might sue for a small portion of the tax in that tribunal while at the same time protecting the balance from distraint by invoking the protection of the Tax Court procedure. On the other hand, different questions would arise if this device were not employed. For example, would the Government be required to file a compulsory counterclaim for the unpaid balance in District Court under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? If so, which party would have the burden of proof?
Section 7422 (e) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code makes it apparent that Congress has assumed these problems are nonexistent except in the rare case where the taxpayer brings suit in a District Court and the Commissioner then notifies him of an additional deficiency. Under § 7422 (e) such a claimant is given the option of pursuing his suit in the District Court or in the Tax Court, but he cannot litigate in both. Moreover, if he decides to remain in the District Court, the Government may — but seemingly is not required to — bring a counterclaim; and if it does, the taxpayer has the burden of proof. If we were to overturn the assumption upon which Congress has acted, we would generate upon a broad scale the very problems Congress believed it had solved.
These, then, are the basic reasons for our decision, and our views would be unaffected by the constancy or inconstancy of administrative practice. However, because the petition for rehearing in this case focused almost exclusively upon a single clause in the prior opinion — “there does not appear to be a single case before 1940 in which a taxpayer attempted a suit for refund of income taxes without paying the full amount the Government alleged to be due,” 357 U. S., at 69 — we feel obliged to comment upon the material introduced upon reargument. The reargument has, if anything, strengthened, rather than weakened, the substance of this statement, which was directed to the question whether there has been a consistent understanding of the “pay first and litigate later” principle by the interested government agencies and by the bar.
So far as appears, Suhr v. United States, 18 F. 2d 81, decided by the Third Circuit in 1927, is the earliest case in which a taxpayer in a refund action sought to contest an assessment without having paid the full amount then due. In holding that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the action, the Court of Appeals said:
“None of the various tax acts provide for recourse to the courts by a taxpayer until he has failed to get relief from the proper administrative body or has paid all the taxes assessed against him. The payment of a part does not confer jurisdiction upon the courts.... There is no provision for refund to the taxpayer of any excess payment of any installment or part of his tax, if the whole tax for the year has not been paid.” Id., at 83.
Although the statement by the court might have been dictum, it was in accord with substantially contemporaneous statements by Secretary of the Treasury A. W. Mellon, by Under Secretary of the Treasury Garrard B. Winston, by the first Chairman of the Board of Tax Appeals, Charles D. Hamel, and by legal commentators.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that this view of the jurisdiction of the courts was shared by the bar at least until 1940, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Government’s position in Coates v. United States, 111 F. 2d 609. Out of the many thousands of refund cases litigated in the pre-1940 period — the Government reports that there have been approximately 40,000 such suits in the past 40 years — exhaustive research has uncovered only nine suits in which the issue was present, in six of which the Government contested jurisdiction on part-payment grounds. The Government’s failure to raise the issue in the other three is obviously entirely without significance. Considerations of litigation strategy may have been thought to militate against resting upon such a defense in those cases. Moreover, where only nine lawsuits involving a particular issue arise over a period of many decades, the policy of the Executive Department on that issue can hardly be expected to become familiar to every government attorney. But most important, the number of cases before 1940 in which the issue was present is simply so inconsequential that it reinforces the conclusion of the prior opinion with respect to the uniformity of the pre-1940 belief that full payment had to precede suit.
A word should also be said about the argument that requiring taxpayers to pay the full assessments before bringing suits will subject some of them to great hardship. This contention seems to ignore entirely the right of the taxpayer to appeal the deficiency to the Tax Court without paying a cent. If he permits his time for filing such an appeal to expire, he can hardly complain that he has been unjustly treated, for he is in precisely the same position as any other person who is barred by a statute of limitations. On the other hand, the Government has a substantial interest in protecting the public purse, an interest which would be substantially impaired if a taxpayer could sue in a District Court without paying his tax in full. It is instructive to note that, as of June 30, 1959, tax cases pending in the Tax Court involved $920,046,748, and refund suits in other courts involved $446,673,640. It is quite true that the filing of an appeal to the Tax Court normally precludes the Government from requiring payment of the tax, but a decision in petitioner’s favor could be expected to throw a great portion of the Tax Court litigation into the District Courts. Of course, the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint — if he does not split his cause of action — but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. A full-payment requirement will promote the smooth functioning of this system; a part-payment rule would work at cross-purposes with it.
In sum, if we were to accept petitioner’s argument, we would sacrifice the harmony of our carefully structured twentieth century system of tax litigation, and all that would be achieved would be a supposed harmony of § 1346 (a)(1) with what might have been the nineteenth century law had the issue ever been' raised. Reargument has but fortified our view that § 1346 (a)(1), correctly construed, requires full payment of the assessment before an income tax refund suit can be maintained in a Federal District Court.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
I should like to append a word to my Brother Whit-taker's opinion, with which I entirely agree.
While Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 489, is no longer law, the opinion of the much lamented Mr. Justice Jackson, based as it was on his great experience in tax litigation, has not lost its force insofar as it laid bare the complexities and perplexities for judicial construction of tax legislation. For one not a specialist in this field to examine every tax question that comes before the Court independently would involve in most cases an inquiry into the course of tax legislation and litigation far beyond the facts of. the immediate case. Such an inquiry entails weeks of study and reflection. Therefore, in construing a tax law it has been my rule to follow almost blindly accepted understanding of the meaning of tax legislation, when that is manifested by long-continued, uniform practice, unless a statute leaves no admissible opening for administrative construction.
Therefore, when advised in connection with the disposition of this case after its first argument that “there does not appear to be a single case before 1940 in which a taxpayer attempted a suit for refund of income taxes without paying the full amount the Government alleged to be due,” (357 U. S. 63, at 69), I deemed such a long-continued, unbroken practical construction of the statute controlling as to the meaning of the Revenue Act of 1921, now 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1). Once the basis which for me governed the disposition of the case was no longer available, I was thrown back to an independent inquiry of the course of tax legislation and litigation for more than a hundred years, for all of that was relevant to a true understanding of the problem presented by this case. This involved many weeks of study during what is called the summer vacation. Such a study led to the conclusion set forth in detail in the opinion of my Brother Whittaker.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in Flora conflicted with Bushmiaer v. United States, 230 F. 2d 146 (C. A. 8th Cir.). Cf. Coates v. United States, 111 F. 2d 609 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning, 123 F. 2d 776 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Suhr v. United States, 18 F. 2d 81 (C. A. 3d Cir.), semble.
As will appear later, prior to 1940 the general view was that full payment was a jurisdictional prerequisite. But a substantial difference of opinion arose after 1940, when the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Coates v. United States, 111 F. 2d 609, against the Government. See Riordan, Must You Pay Full Tax Assessment Before Suing in the District Court? 8 J. Tax. 179; Beaman, When Not to Go to the Tax Court: Advantages and Procedures in Going to the District Court, 7 J. Tax. 356; Rudick and Wender, Federal Income Taxation, 32 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 751, 777-778; Note, 44 Calif. L. Rev. 956; Note, 2 How. L. J. 290.
See I. R. C. (1954), §§ 1 (a), 1 (b) (1), 68A Stat. 5, 6. The same general pattern has existed for many years. See, e. g., §§ 116, 117, of the Act of June 30, 1864, c. 173, 13 Stat. 281-282.
Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, §275 (a), 43 Stat. 298; Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, §250 (e), 40 Stat. 1084; Act of June 6, 1872, c. 315, §21, 17 Stat. 246; Act of June 30, 1864, e. 173, §119, 13 Stat. 283. See also Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391, 405.
Lower courts have given this construction to the same three phrases in certain claim-for-refund and limitations provisions in prior tax statutes. United States v. Magoon, 77 F. 2d 804; Union Trust Co. v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 259, 261 (“The natural definition of 'tax' comprehends one 'assessment' or one tax in the entire amount of liability”), aff'd, 70 F. 2d 629, 630 (“We agree with the District Court that ‘tax,’ 'penalty,' and ‘sum’ refer to distinct categories of illegal collections and ‘tax’ includes the entire tax liability as assessed by the Commissioner”); United States v. Clarke, 69 F. 2d 748; Hills v. United States, 50 F. 2d 302, 55 F. 2d 1001 (Ct. Cl.); cf. Blair v. Birkenstock, 271 U. S. 348.
In the prior opinion we stated that, were it not for certain countervailing considerations, the statutory language “might... be termed a clear authorization” to sue for the refund of part payment of an assessment. 357 U. S., at 65. It is quite obvious that we did not regard the language as clear enough to preclude deciding the case on other grounds. Moreover, it could at that time be assumed that the terms of the statute favored the taxpayer, because eight members of the Court considered the extrinsic evidence alone sufficient to decide the case against him. Although we are still of that opinion, we now state our views with regard to the bare words of the statute because the argument that these words are decisively against the Government has been urged so strenuously.
42 Stat. 311.
24 Stat. 505, as amended, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346, 1491. See United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co., 237 U. S. 28.
Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Co., 257 U. S. 1.
See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 486, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. 57; remarks of Senator Jones, 61 Cong. Rec. 7506-7507. Another amendment was added in 1925 giving the right to bring refund suits against the United States where the Collector was out of office. 43 Stat. 972. And in 1954, both the $10,000 limitation and the limitation with respect to the Collector being dead or out of office were eliminated. 68 Stat. 589.
The text of R. S. § 3226 is set forth in note 16, infra, together with a more detailed account of the origin and
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in Louisiana Public Service Comm’n v. FCC, ante, p. 355.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor 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:
|
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the jury trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, of Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §9712 (1982) (the Act).
I
The Act was adopted in 1982. It provides that anyone convicted of certain enumerated felonies is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment if the sentencing judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person “visibly possessed a firearm” during the commission of the offense. At the sentencing hearing, the judge is directed to consider the evidence introduced at trial and any additional evidence offered by either the defendant or the Commonwealth. § 9712(b). The Act operates to divest the judge of discretion to impose any sentence of less than five years for the underlying felony; it does not authorize a sentence in excess of that otherwise allowed for that offense.
Each petitioner was convicted of, among other things, one of § 9712’s enumerated felonies. Petitioner McMillan, who shot his victim in the right buttock after an argument over a debt, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault. Petitioner Peterson shot and killed her husband and, following a bench trial, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Petitioner Dennison shot and seriously wounded an acquaintance and was convicted of aggravated assault after a bench trial. Petitioner Smalls robbed a seafood store at gunpoint; following a bench trial he was convicted of robbery. In each case the Commonwealth gave notice that at sentencing it would seek to proceed under the Act. No § 9712 hearing was held, however, because each of the sentencing judges before whom petitioners appeared found the Act unconstitutional; each imposed a lesser sentence than that required by the Act.
The Commonwealth appealed all four cases to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. That court consolidated the appeals and unanimously concluded that the Act is consistent with due process. Commonwealth v. Wright, 508 Pa. 25, 494 A. 2d 354 (1985). Petitioners’ principal argument was that visible possession of a firearm is an element of the crimes for which they were being sentenced and thus must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), and Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975). After observing that the legislature had expressly provided that visible possession “shall not be an element of the crime,” §9712(b), and that the reasonable-doubt standard “‘has always been dependent on how a state defines the offense’ ” in question, 508 Pa., at 34, 494 A. 2d, at 359, quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 211, n. 12 (1977), the court rejected the claim that the Act effectively creates a new set of upgraded felonies of which visible possession is an “element.” Section 9712, which comes into play only after the defendant has been convicted of an enumerated felony, neither provides for an increase in the maximum sentence for such felony nor authorizes a separate sentence; it merely requires a minimum sentence of five years, which may be more or less than the minimum sentence that might otherwise have been imposed. And consistent with Winship, Mullaney, and Patterson, the Act “creates no presumption as to any essential fact and places no burden on the defendant”; it “in no way relieve[s] the prosecution of its burden of proving guilt.” 508 Pa., at 35, 494 A. 2d, at 359.
Petitioners also contended that even if visible possession is not an element of the offense, due process requires more than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rejected this claim as well, holding that the preponderance standard satisfies due process under the approach set out in Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979). The Commonwealth’s interest in deterring the illegal use of firearms and in sure punishment for those who commit crimes with guns is as compelling as a convicted defendant’s contervailing liberty interest, which has been substantially diminished by a guilty verdict. Moreover, the risk of error in the context of a § 9712 proceeding is comparatively slight — visible possession is a simple, straightforward issue susceptible of objective proof. On balance, the court concluded, it is reasonable for the defendant and the Commonwealth to share equally in any risk of error. The court vacated petitioners’ sentences and remanded for sentencing pursuant to the Act. One justice concurred and filed a separate opinion.
We granted certiorari, 474 U. S. 815 (1985), and now affirm.
h — I I — I
Petitioners argue that under the Due Process Clause as interpreted in Winship and Mullaney, if a State wants to punish visible possession of a firearm it must undertake the burden of proving that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Winship held that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” 397 U. S., at 364. In Mullaney v. Wilbur, we held that the Due Process Clause “requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of the heat of passion on sudden provocation when the issue is properly presented in a homicide case.” 421 U. S., at 704. But in Patterson we rejected the claim that whenever a State links the “severity of punishment” to “the presence or absence of an identified fact” the State must prove that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. 432 U. S., at 214; see also id., at 207 (State need not “prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact, the existence or nonexistence of which it is willing to recognize as an exculpatory or mitigating circumstance affecting the degree of culpability or the severity of the punishment”). In particular, we upheld against a due process challenge New York’s law placing on defendants charged with murder the burden of proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.
Patterson stressed that in determining what facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt the state legislature’s definition of the elements of the offense is usually dispositive: “[T]he Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the offense of which the defendant is charged.” Id., at 210 (emphasis added). While “there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this regard,” ibid., “[t]he applicability of the reasonable-doubt standard . . . has always been dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case,” id., at 211, n. 12. Patterson rests on a premise that bears repeating here:
“It goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government, Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 134 (1954) (plurality opinion), and that we should not lightly construe the Constitution so as to intrude upon the administration of justice by the individual States. Among other things, it is normally ‘within the power of the State to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out, including the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion,’ and its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless ‘it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’ Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 523 (1958).” Id., at 201-202 (citations omitted).
We believe that the present case is controlled by Patterson, our most recent pronouncement on this subject, rather than by Mullaney. As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania observed, the Pennsylvania Legislature has expressly provided that visible possession of a firearm is not an element of the crimes enumerated in the mandatory sentencing statute, § 9712(b), but instead is a sentencing factor that comes into play only after the defendant has been found guilty of one of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the elements of the enumerated offenses, like the maximum permissible penalties for those offenses, were established long before the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act was passed. While visible possession might well have been included as an element of the enumerated offenses, Pennsylvania chose not to redefine those offenses in order to so include it, and Patterson teaches that we should hesitate to conclude that due process bars the State from pursuing its chosen course in the area of defining crimes and prescribing penalties.
As Patterson recognized, of course, there are constitutional limits to the State’s power in this regard; in certain limited circumstances Winship’s reasonable-doubt requirement applies to facts not formally identified as elements of the offense charged. Petitioners argue that Pennsylvania has gone beyond those limits and that its formal provision that visible possession is not an element of the crime is therefore of no effect. We do not think so. While we have never attempted to define precisely the constitutional limits noted in Patterson, i. e., the extent to which due process forbids the reallocation or reduction of burdens of proof in criminal cases, and do not do so today, we are persuaded by several factors that Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act does not exceed those limits.
We note first that the Act plainly does not transgress the limits expressly set out in Patterson. Responding to the concern that its rule would permit States unbridled power to redefine crimes to the detriment of criminal defendants, the Patterson Court advanced the unremarkable proposition that the Due Process Clause precludes States from discarding the presumption of innocence:
“ ‘[I]t is not within the province of a legislature to declare an individual guilty or presumptively guilty of a crime.’ McFarland v. American Sugar Rfg. Co., 241 U. S. 79, 86 (1916). The legislature cannot ‘validly command that the finding of an indictment, or mere proof of the identity of the accused, should create a presumption of the existence of all the facts essential to guilt.’ Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 469 (1943).” Patterson, 432 U. S., at 210.
Here, of course, the Act creates no presumptions of the sort condemned in McFarland v. American Sugar Rfg. Co., 241 U. S. 79 (1916) (presumption from price sugar refiner paid for sugar that refiner was party to a monopoly), or Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463 (1943) (presumption that convicted felon who possessed a weapon obtained it in interstate commerce). Nor does it relieve the prosecution of its burden of proving guilt; § 9712 only becomes applicable after a defendant has been duly convicted of the crime for which he is to be punished.
The Court in Mullaney observed, with respect to the main criminal statute invalidated in that case, that once the State proved the elements which Maine required it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant faced “a differential in sentencing ranging from a nominal fine to a mandatory life sentence.” 421 U. S., at 700. In the present case the situation is quite different. Of the offenses enumerated in the Act, third-degree murder, robbery as defined in 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701(a)(1) (1982), kidnaping, rape, and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse are first-degree felonies subjecting the defendant to a maximum of 20 years’ .imprisonment. § 1103(1). Voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault as defined in § 2702(a)(1) are felonies of the second degree carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. § 1103(2). Section 9712 neither alters the maximum penalty for the crime committed nor creates a separate offense calling for a separate penalty; it operates solely to limit the sentencing court’s discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it without the special finding of visible possession of a firearm. Section 9712 “ups the ante” for the defendant only by raising to five years the minimum sentence which may be imposed within the statutory plan. The statute gives no impression of having been tailored to permit the visible possession finding to be a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense. Petitioners’ claim that visible possession under the Pennsylvania statute is “really” an element of the offenses for which they are being punished — that Pennsylvania has in effect defined a new set of upgraded felonies — would have at least more superficial appeal if a finding of visible possession exposed them to greater or additional punishment, cf. 18 U. S. C. § 2113(d) (providing separate and greater punishment for bank robberies accomplished through “use of a dangerous weapon or device”), but it does not.
Petitioners contend that this Court’s decision in Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967), requires the invalidation of the Pennsylvania statute challenged here. Again, we think petitioners simply read too much into one of our previous decisions. Under the Colorado scheme at issue in Specht, conviction of a sexual offense otherwise carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years exposed a defendant to an indefinite term to and including life imprisonment if the sentencing judge made a post-trial finding that the defendant posed “a threat of bodily harm to members of the public, or is an habitual offender and mentally ill,” id., at 607. This finding could be made, without notice or any “hearing in the normal sense,” based solely on a presentence psychiatric report. Id., at 608. This Court held that the Colorado scheme failed to satisfy the requirements of due process, and that the defendant had a right to be present with counsel, to be heard, to be confronted with and to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to offer evidence of his own.
Petitioners suggest that had Winshvp already been decided at the time of Specht, the Court would have also required that the burden of proof as to the post-trial findings be beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if we accept petitioners’ hypothesis, we do not think it avails them here. The Court in Specht observed that following trial the Colorado defendant was confronted with “a radically different situation” from the usual sentencing proceeding. The same simply is not true under the Pennsylvania statute. The finding of visible possession of a firearm of course “ups the ante” for a defendant, or it would not be challenged here; but it does so only in the way that we have previously mentioned, by raising the minimum sentence that may be imposed by the trial court.
Finally, we note that the specter raised by petitioners of States restructuring existing crimes in order to “evade” the commands of Winship just does not appear in this case. As noted above, § 9712’s enumerated felonies retain the same elements they had before the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act was passed. The Pennsylvania Legislature did not change the definition of any existing offense. It simply took one factor that has always been considered by sentencing courts to bear on punishment — the instrumentality used in committing a violent felony — and dictated the precise weight to be given that factor if the instrumentality is a firearm. Pennsylvania’s decision to do so has not transformed against its will a sentencing factor into an “element” of some hypothetical “offense.”
Petitioners seek support for their due process claim by observing that many legislatures have made possession of a weapon an element of various aggravated offenses. But the fact that the States have formulated different statutory schemes to punish armed felons is merely a reflection of our federal system, which demands “[tjolerance for a spectrum of state procedures dealing with a common problem of law enforcement,” Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 566 (1967). That Pennsylvania’s particular approach has been adopted in few other States does not render Pennsylvania’s choice unconstitutional. See Patterson, 432 U. S., at 211; cf. Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 464 (1984). Nor does the historical test advanced by the Patterson dissent, on which petitioners apparently also rely, materially advance their cause. While it is surely true that “[f]or hundreds of years some offenses have been considered more serious and the punishment made more severe if the offense was committed with a weapon or while armed,” Brief for Petitioners 17, n. 11, petitioners do not contend that the particular factor made relevant here — visible possession of a firearm — has historically been treated “in the Anglo-American legal tradition” as requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Patterson, 432 U. S., at 226 (Powell, J., dissenting). See also id., at 229, n. 14 (Powell, J., dissenting) (approving new scheme under which State put burden on armed robbery defendant to prove that gun was unloaded or inoperative in order to receive lower sentence).
We have noted a number of differences between this case and Winship, Mullaney, and Specht, and we find these differences controlling here. Our inability to lay down any “bright line” test may leave the constitutionality of statutes more like those in Mullaney and Specht than is the Pennsylvania statute to depend on differences of degree, but the law is full of situations in which differences of degree produce different results. We have no doubt that Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act falls on the permissible side of the constitutional line.
I — I HH I — i
Having concluded that States may treat “visible possession of a firearm” as a sentencing consideration rather than an element of a particular offense, we now turn to petitioners’ subsidiary claim that due process nonetheless requires that visible possession be proved by at least clear and convincing evidence. Like the court below, we have little difficulty concluding that in this case the preponderance standard satisfies due process. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if the Due Process Clause as understood in Patterson plainly sanctioned Pennsylvania’s scheme, while the same Clause explained in some other line of less clearly relevant cases imposed more stringent requirements. There is, after all, only one Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, petitioners do not and could not claim that a sentencing court may never rely on a particular fact in passing sentence without finding that fact by “clear and convincing evidence.” Sentencing courts have traditionally heard evidence and found facts without any prescribed burden of proof at all. See Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241 (1949). Pennsylvania has deemed a particular fact relevant and prescribed a particular burden of proof. We see nothing in Pennsylvania’s scheme that would warrant constitutionalizing burdens of proof at sentencing.
Petitioners apparently concede that Pennsylvania’s scheme would pass constitutional muster if only it did not remove the sentencing court’s discretion, i. e., if the legislature had simply directed the court to consider visible possession in passing sentence. Brief for Petitioners 31-32. We have some difficulty fathoming why the due process calculus would change simply because the legislature has seen fit to provide sentencing courts with additional guidance. Nor is there merit to the claim that a heightened burden of proof is required because visible possession is a fact “concerning the crime committed” rather than the background or character of the defendant. Ibid. Sentencing courts necessarily consider the circumstances of an offense in selecting the appropriate punishment, and we have consistently approved sentencing schemes that mandate consideration of facts related to the crime, e. g., Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976), without suggesting that those facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Courts of Appeals have uniformly rejected due process challenges to the preponderance standard under the federal “dangerous special offender” statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3575, which provides for an enhanced sentence if the court concludes that the defendant is both “dangerous” and a “special offender.” See United States v. Davis, 710 F. 2d 104, 106 (CA3) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1001 (1983).
IV
In light of the foregoing, petitioners’ final claim — that the Act denies them their Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury — merits little discussion. Petitioners again argue that the jury must determine all ultimate facts concerning the offense committed. Having concluded that Pennsylvania may properly treat visible possession as a sentencing consideration and not an element of any offense, we need only note that there is no Sixth Amendment right to jury sentencing, even where the sentence turns on specific findings of fact. See Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S., at 459.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 9712 provides in full:
“(a) Mandatory sentence. — Any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of murder of the third degree, voluntary manslaughter, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, robbery as defined in 18 Pa. C. S. § 3701(a)(l)(i), (ii) or (iii) (relating to robbery), aggravated assault as defined in 18 Pa. C. S. § 2702(a)(1) (relating to aggravated assault) or kidnapping, or who is convicted of attempt to commit any of these crimes, shall, if the person visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense, be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least five years of total confinement notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary.
“(b) Proof at sentencing. —Provisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime and notice thereof to the defendant shall not be required prior to conviction, but reasonable notice of the Commonwealth’s intention to proceed under this section shall be provided after conviction and before sentencing. The applicability of this section shall be determined at sentencing. The court shall consider any evidence presented at trial and shall afford the Commonwealth and the defendant an opportunity to present any necessary additional evidence and shall determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, if this section is applicable.
“(c) Authority of court in sentencing. — There shall be no authority in any court to impose on an offender to which this section is applicable any lesser sentence than provided for in subsection (a) or to place such offender on probation or to suspend sentence. Nothing in this section shall prevent the sentencing court from imposing a sentence greater than that provided in this section. Sentencing guidelines promulgated by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing shall not supersede the mandatory sentences provided in this section.
“(d) Appeal by Commonwealth. — If a sentencing court refuses to apply this section where applicable, the Commonwealth shall have the right to appellate review of the action of the sentencing court. The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court for imposition of a sentence in accordance with this section if it finds that the sentence was imposed in violation of this section.
“(e) Definition of firearm. — As used in this section ‘firearm’ means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or the expansion of gas therein.”
McMillan was sentenced to a term of 3 to 10 years for aggravated assault; he was also convicted of possession of instruments of crime, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2503 (1982), for which he received a concurrent term of 27s to 5 years. Peterson received a sentence of 1 to 6 years on the manslaughter charge, as well as a concurrent term of 6 to 18 months for possession of instruments of crime. Dennison received concurrent sentences of ll’A to 23 months for aggravated assault and possession of instruments of crime. Smalls was sentenced to concurrent 4- to 8-year terms for robbery and criminal conspiracy; he was also convicted of violating the Uniform Firearms Act, §6101 et seq., and reckless endangerment, §2705, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 2'A to 5 years and 1 to 2 years respectively. He received a suspended sentence for possession of instruments of crime.
The elements of the enumerated offenses were established in essentially their present form in 1972. See 1972 Pa. Laws No. 334, which compiled, amended, and codified the Pennsylvania “Crimes Code.” The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act was passed in 1982.
By prescribing a mandatory minimum sentence, the Act incidentally serves to restrict the sentencing court’s discretion in setting a maximum sentence. Pennsylvania law provides that a minimum sentence of confinement “shall not exceed one-half of the maximum sentence imposed.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9756(b) (1982). Thus, the shortest maximum term permissible under the Act is 10 years.
We reject the view that anything in the Due Process Clause bars States from making changes in their criminal law that have the effect of making it easier for the prosecution to obtain convictions. “From the vantage point of the Constitution, a change in law favorable to defendants is not necessarily good, nor is an innovation favorable to the prosecution necessarily bad.” Jeffries & Stephan, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, 88 Yale L. J. 1325, 1361 (1979).
The Commonwealth argues that the statutes on which petitioners rely typically differ from that at issue here. In particular, most of the statutes are directed at all deadly weapons rather than just firearms, and most treat the armed crime as a higher grade of offense than the unarmed crime. Brief for Respondent 11.
At least two States — New Jersey, see N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:43-6c (West 1982); State v. Gantt, 186 N. J. Super. 262, 452 A. 2d 477 (1982), aff’d, 195 N. J. Super. 144, 478 A. 2d 422 (App. Div. 1984), and Kansas, see Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4618 (1981); State v. Mullins, 223 Kan. 798, 577 P. 2d 51 (1978)—have statutory schemes similar to Pennsylvania’s.
Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979), and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745 (1982), which respectively applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard where the State sought involuntary commitment to a mental institution and involuntary termination of parental rights, are not to the contrary. Quite unlike the situation in those cases, criminal sentencing takes place only after a defendant has been adjudged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the reasonable-doubt standard has been applied to obtain a valid conviction, “the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 224 (1976). As noted in text, sentencing courts have always operated without constitutionally imposed burdens of proof; embracing petitioners’ suggestion that we apply the clear-and-convincing standard here would significantly alter criminal sentencing, for we see no way to distinguish the visible possession finding at issue here from a host of other express or implied findings sentencing judges typically make on the way to passing sentence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises three distinct questions concerning the scope of federal jurisdiction. We are called upon to decide whether a federal cause of action lies against a municipality under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for the actions of its officers which violate an individual’s federal civil rights where the municipality is subject to such liability under state law. In addition, we must decide whether, in a federal civil rights suit brought against a municipality’s police officers, a federal court may refuse to exercise pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim against the municipality based on a theory of vicarious liability, and whether a county of the State of California is a citizen of the State for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction.
In February 1970, petitioners Moor and Rundle filed separate actions in the District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover actual and punitive damages for injuries allegedly suffered by them as a result of the wrongful discharge of a shotgun by an Alameda County, California, deputy sheriff engaged in quelling a civil disturbance. In their complaints, petitioners named the deputy sheriff, plus three other deputies, the sheriff, and the County of Alameda as defendants. The complaints alleged both federal and state causes of action.
The federal causes of action against the individual defendants were based on allegations of conspiracy and intent to deprive petitioners of their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly, and to be secure from the deprivation of life and liberty without due process of law. These federal causes of action against the individual defendants were alleged to arise under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and jurisdiction was asserted to exist under 28 U. S. C. § 1343.
As to the County, both the federal and state law claims were predicated on the contention that under the California Tort Claims Act of 1963, Cal. Govt. Code §815.2 (a), the County was vicariously liable for the acts of its deputies and sheriff committed in violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act. The federal causes of action against the County were based on 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and thus jurisdiction was also alleged to exist with respect to these claims under 28 U. S. C. § 1343. Both petitioners argued before the District Court that it had authority to hear their state law claims against the County under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. In addition, petitioner Moor who alleged that he was a citizen of Illinois asserted in his complaint that the District Court also had jurisdiction over his state law claim against the County on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Initially, the defendants answered both complaints denying liability, although the County admitted that it had consented to be sued. Thereafter, the County, arguing lack of jurisdiction, moved to dismiss all of the claims against it in the Rundle suit and to dismiss the federal civil rights claims in the Moor suit. The County relied upon this Court’s decision in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187-191 (1961), as having resolved that a municipality is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and on this basis alone it considered the civil rights claims against it to be barred. Moreover, in Rundió, the County argued that since there was before the District Court no claim against the County as to which there existed an independent basis of federal jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim against it.
The District Court agreed with the County’s arguments and granted the motion to dismiss the Rundle suit. It, however, postponed ruling in the Moor case pending consideration of possible diversity jurisdiction over the state law claim against the County in that case. Subsequently, the County sought to have the state law claim in Moor dismissed on the basis that it was not a citizen of California for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. While this motion was pending, a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the County was filed in the Rundle case. Following argument with respect to the jurisdictional issues, the District Court entered an order in Moor holding that there was no diversity jurisdiction and incorporating by reference an order filed in the Rundle case which again rejected petitioners’ civil rights and pendent jurisdiction arguments. Upon the request of the petitioners, the District Court, finding “no just reason for delay,” entered a final judgment in both suits with respect to the County under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b), thereby allowing immediate appeal of its jurisdictional decisions.
The two cases were then consolidated for purposes of appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court with respect to all three issues raised by the two cases, 458 F. 2d 1217 (1972). In addition to rejecting petitioners’ arguments concerning the existence of pendent jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court of Appeals disagreed in particular with petitioners’ contention that § 1988 alone established a federal cause of action against the County for their injuries on the basis of California law which created vicarious liability against the County for the actions of its officers that violated petitioners’ federal civil rights. Because of the importance of the questions decided by the Court of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 409 U. S. 841 (1972). For reasons stated below, we now affirm that portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision which held that petitioners had failed to establish a cause of action against the County under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and that the trial court properly refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims. We reverse, however, its holding that the County is not a citizen of California for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction.
I
We consider first petitioners’ argument concerning the existence of a federal cause of action against the County under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. Petitioners’ thesis is, in essence, that under California law the County has been made vicariously liable for the conduct of its sheriff and deputy sheriffs which violates the Federal Civil Rights Acts and that, in the context of this case, § 1988 authorizes the adoption of such state law into federal law in order to render the Civil Rights Acts fully effective, thereby creating a federal cause: of action against the County.
Section 1988 reads, in relevant part, as follows:
“The jurisdiction in civil... matters conferred on the. district courts by [the Civil Rights Acts]..., for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies..., the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil... cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause...
The starting point for petitioners’ argument is this Court’s decision in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). There the Court held that 42 U. S. C. § 1983, which was derived from § 1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13, was intended to provide private parties a cause of action for abuses of official authority which resulted in the deprivation of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities. At the same time, however, the Court held that a municipality is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Id., at 187 — 191. Petitioners do not squarely take issue with the holding in Monroe concerning the status under § 1983 of public entities such as the County. Instead, petitioners argue that since the construction placed upon § 1983 in Monroe with respect to municipalities effectively restricts the injured party in a case such as this to recovery from the individual defendants, the section cannot be considered to be fully “adapted” to the protection of federal civil rights or is “deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies” within the meaning of § 1988. In petitioners’ view, the personal liability of the individual defendants under § 1983 is, as a practical matter, inadequate because public officers are frequently judgment-proof. Thus, petitioners contend it is appropriate under § 1988 for this Court to adopt into federal law the California law of vicarious liability for municipalities- — that is, the “common law, as modified... by... statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil... cause is held.” Having thus introduced the State’s law of vicarious liability into federal law through § 1988, they then assert that there is federal jurisdiction to hear their federal claims against the County under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4). Section 1343 (4) grants jurisdiction to. the federal district courts to hear any civil action “commenced by any person... [t]o recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights and § 1988 is, petitioners say, such an “Act of Congress.”
Petitioners in this case are not asking us to create a substantive federal liability without legislative direction. See United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301 (1947); cf. United States v. Gilman, 347 U. S. 507 (1954). It is their view, rather, that in § 1988 Congress has effectively mandated the adoption of California’s law of vicarious liability into federal law. It is, of course, not uncommon for Congress to direct that state law be used to fill the interstices of federal law. But in such circumstances our function is necessarily limited. For although Congress may have assigned to the process of judicial implication the task of selecting in any particular case appropriate rules from state law to supplement established federal law, the application of that process is restricted to those contexts in which Congress has in fact authorized resort to state and common law. Cf. Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1962). Considering § 1988 from this perspective, we are unable to conclude that Congress intended that section, standing alone, to authorize the federal courts to borrow entire causes of action from state law.
First, petitioners’ argument completely overlooks the full language of the statute. Section 1988 does not enjoy the independent stature of an “Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights,” 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4). Rather, as is plain on the face of the statute, the section is intended to complement the various acts which do create federal causes of action for the violation of federal civil rights. Thus, § 1988 specifies that “[t]he jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of this chapter [Civil Rights] and Title 18, for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States.” But inevitably existing federal law will not cover every issue that may arise in the context of a federal civil rights action. Thus, § 1988 proceeds to authorize federal courts, where federal law is unsuited or insufficient “to furnish suitable remedies,” to look to principles of the common law, as altered by state law, so long as such principles are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The role of § 1988 in the scheme of federal civil rights legislation is amply illustrated by our decision in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229 (1969). In Sullivan, the Court was confronted with a question as to the availability of damages in a suit concerning discrimination in the disposition of property brought pursuant to § 1982 which makes no express provision for a damages remedy. The Court concluded that “[t]he existence of a statutory right implies the existence of all necessary and appropriate remedies,” id., at 239, and proceeded to construe § 1988, which provides the governing standard in such a case, to mean “that both federal and state rules on damages may be utilized, whichever better serves the policies expressed in the federal statutes.... The rule of damages, whether drawn from federal or state sources, is a federal rule responsive to the need whenever a federal right is impaired.” Id., at 240. Properly viewed, then, § 1988 instructs federal courts as to what law to apply in causes of actions arising under federal civil rights acts. But we do not believe that the section, without more, was meant to authorize the wholesale importation into federal law of state causes of action — not even one purportedly designed for the protection of federal civil rights.
This view is fully confirmed by the legislative history of the statute: Section 1988 was first enacted as a portion of § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, 14 Stat. 27. Section 1 of that Act is the source of 42 U. S. C. § 1982, the provision under which suit was brought in Sullivan. The initial portion of § 3 of the Act established federal jurisdiction to hear, among other things, civil actions brought to enforce § 1. Section 3 then went on to provide that the jurisdiction thereby established should be exercised in conformity with federal law where suitable and with reference to the common law, as modified by state law, where federal law is deficient. Considered in context, this latter portion of § 3, which has become § 1988 and has been made applicable to the Civil Rights Acts generally, was obviously intended to do nothing more than to explain the source of law to be applied in actions brought to enforce the substantive provisions of the Act, including § 1. To hold otherwise would tear § 1988 loose from its roots in § 3 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. This we will not do.
There is yet another reason why petitioners' reliance upon § 1988 must fail. The statute expressly limits the authority granted federal courts to look to the common law, as modified by state law, to instances in which that law “is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.'' Yet if we were to look to California law imposing vicarious liability upon municipalities, as petitioners would have us do, the result would effectively be to subject the County to federal court suit on a federal civil rights claim. Such a result would seem to be less than consistent with this Court's prior holding in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S., at 187-191, that Congress did not intend to render municipal corporations liable to federal civil rights claims under § 1983. See, e. g., Brown v. Town of Caliente, 392 F. 2d 546 (CA9 1968); Ries v. Lynskey, 452 F. 2d 172, 174-175 (CA7 1971); Brown v. Ames, 346 F. Supp. 1173, 1176 (Minn. 1972); Wilcher v. Gain, 311 F. Supp. 754, 755 (ND Cal. 1970).
Petitioners argue, however, that there is in fact no inconsistency between the interpretation placed upon § 1983 in Monroe and the interpretation of § 1988 for which they now argue here. They suggest that Monroe involved no question of the susceptibility to suit of a municipality which has surrendered its common-law immunity under state law; the interpretation of § 1983 in Monroe was, in their view, premised upon an assumption that the municipality had not been deprived of its immunity. And Congress, petitioners argue, did not intend to exclude from the reach of § 1983 municipalities that have surrendered their immunity from suit under state law. Thus, they conclude that in a case such as this, where the municipality has lost its immunity, there is no inconsistency between § 1983 and the introduction of the state cause of action against the County into federal law under § 1988.
In effect, petitioners are arguing that their particular actions may be properly brought against this County on the basis of § 1983. But whatever the factual premises of Monroe, we find the construction which petitioners seek to impose upon § 1983 concerning the status of municipalities as “persons” to be simply untenable.
In Monroe, the Court, in examining the legislative evolution of the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1871, which is the source of § 1983, pointed out that Senator Sherman introduced an amendment which would have added to the Act a new section providing expressly for municipal liability in civil actions based on the deprivation of civil rights. Although the amendment was passed by the Senate, it was rejected by the House, as was another version included in the first Conference Committee report. The proposal for municipal liability encountered strongly held views in the House on the part of both its supporters and opponents, but the root of the proposal’s difficulties stemmed from serious legislative concern as to Congress’ constitutional power to impose liability on political subdivisions of the States.
As in Monroe, we have no occasion here to “reach the constitutional question whether Congress has the power to make municipalities liable for acts of its officers that violate the civil rights of individuals.” 365 U. S., at 191. For in interpreting the statute it is not our task to consider whether Congress was mistaken in 1871 in its view of the limits of its power over municipalities; rather, we must construe the statute in light of the impressions under which Congress did in fact act, see Ries v. Lynskey., 452 F. 2d, at 175. In this respect, it cannot be doubted that the House arrived at the firm conclusion that Congress lacked the constitutional power to impose liability upon municipalities, and thus, according to Representative Poland, the Senate Conferees were informed by the House Conferees that the “section imposing liability upon towns and counties must go out or we should fail to agree.” To save the Act, the proposal for municipal liability was given up. It may be that even in 1871 municipalities which were subject to suit under state law did not pose in the minds of the legislators the constitutional problems that caused the defeat of the proposal. Yet nevertheless the proposal was rejected in toto, and from this action we cannot infer any congressional intent other than to exclude all municipalities — regardless of whether or not their immunity has been lifted by state law — -from the civil liability created in the Act of April 20, 1871, and § 1983. Thus, § 1983 is unavailable to these petitioners insofar as they seek to sue the County. And § 1988, in light of the express limitation contained within it, cannot be used to accomplish what Congress clearly refused to do in enacting § 1983.
Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the causes of action brought against the County by petitioners under § 1983 and § 1988.
II
Although unable to establish a federal cause of action against the County on the basis of the California law imposing vicarious liability on a municipality for the actions of its officers that violate federal civil rights, petitioners contend that the District Court nevertheless had jurisdiction to hear their state law claims of vicarious liability against the County under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
Petitioners rely principally upon the decision in Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 725 (1966), where the Court eschewed the “unnecessarily grudging” approach of Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238 (1933), to the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Gibbs involved a suit brought under both federal and state law by a contractor to recover damages allegedly suffered as a result of a secondary boycott imposed upon it by a union. There existed independent federal jurisdiction as to the federal claim, but there was no independent basis of jurisdiction to support the state law claim. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that federal courts could exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim.
In deciding the question of pendent jurisdiction, the Gibbs Court indicated that there were two distinct issues to be considered. First, there is the issue of judicial power to hear the pendent claim. In this respect the Court indicated that the requisite “power” exists
“whenever there is a claim 'arising under [the] Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...,’ U. S. Const., Art. III, § 2, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional 'case.’ The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.... The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole.” Id., at 725 (footnotes omitted).
Yet even if there exists power to hear the pendent claim, “[i]t has consistently been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right. Its justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants; if these are not present a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims, even though bound to apply state law to them....” Id., at 726. By way of explanation of the considerations which should inform a district court’s discretion, the Court in Gibbs suggested, inter alia, that “[njeedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law,” ibid., and that “reasons independent of jurisdictional considerations, such as the likelihood of jury confusion in treating divergent legal theories of relief, {may] justify separating state and federal claims for trial,” id., at 727. In Gibbs, the Court found that the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims was proper both as a matter of power and discretion.
In these cases, there is no question that petitioners’ complaints stated substantial federal causes of action against the individual defendants under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). Nor is there any dispute that the federal claims against the individual defendants and the state claims against the individual defendants may be said to involve “a common nucleus of operative fact.” But, beyond this, there is a significant difference between Gibbs and these cases. For the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over the claims against the County would require us to bring an entirely new party — a new defendant — into each litigation. Gibbs, of course, involved no such problem of a “pendent party,” that is, of the addition of a party which is implicated in the litigation only with respect to the pendent state law claim and not also with respect to any claim as to which there is an independent basis of federal jurisdiction. Faced with this distinction, the courts below concluded that the exercise of pendent jurisdiction in the context of these cases was inappropriate as a matter of both judicial power and discretion.
As to the question of judicial power, the District Court and Court of Appeals considered themselves bound by the Ninth Circuit’s previous decision in Hymer v. Chai, 407 F. 2d 136 (1969), wherein the court refused to permit the joinder of a pendent plaintiff. Petitioners vigorously attack the decision in Hymer as at odds with the clear trend of lower federal court authority since this Court’s decision in Gibbs. It is true that numerous decisions throughout the courts of appeals since Gibbs have recognized the existence of judicial power to hear pendent claims involving pendent parties where “the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional ‘case’ ” as defined in Gibbs. Hymer stands virtually alone against this post-Gibbs trend in the courts of appeals, and significantly Hymer was largely based on the Court of Appeals’ earlier decision in Kataoka v. May Department Stores Co., 115 F. 2d 521 (CA9 1940), a decision which predated Gibbs and the expansion of the concept of pendent jurisdiction beyond the narrow limits set by Hurn v. Oursler, supra. Moreover, the exercise of federal jurisdiction over claims against parties as to whom there exists no independent basis for federal jurisdiction finds substantial analogues in the joinder of new parties under the well-established doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction in the context of compulsory counterclaims under Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 13 (a) and 13 (h), and in the context of third-party claims under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 14 (a). At the same time, the County counsels that the Court should not be quick to sweep state law claims against an entirely new party within the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts which are courts of limited jurisdiction — a jurisdiction subject, within the limits of the Constitution, to the will of Congress, not the courts. Whether there exists judicial power to hear the state law claims against the County is, in short, a subtle and complex question with far-reaching implications. But we do not consider it appropriate to resolve this difficult issue in the present case, for we have concluded that even assuming, arguendo, the existence of power to hear the claim, the District Court, in exercise of its legitimate discretion, properly declined to join the claims against the County in these suits.
The District Court indicated, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that exercise of jurisdiction over the state law claims was inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, the District Court pointed out that it “would be called upon to resolve difficult questions of California law upon which state court decisions are not legion.” In addition, the court felt that “with the introduction of a claim against the County under the California Tort Claims Act, with the special defenses available to the County, the case” which will be tried to a jury, “could become unduly complicated.” As is evident from this Court’s decision in Gibbs, 383 U. S., at 726-727, the unsettled nature of state law and the likelihood of jury confusion were entirely appropriate factors for the District Court to consider. And those factors had to be weighed by the District Court against the economy which might be achieved by trying the petitioners’ claims against both the police and the County in single proceedings. In light of the broad discretion which district courts must be given in evaluating such matters, we cannot say that the District Judge in these cases struck the balance improperly. We therefore hold that the District Court did not err, as a matter of discretion, in refusing to exercise pendent jurisdiction over petitioners’ claims against the County.
Ill
There remains, however, the question whether the District Court had jurisdiction over petitioner Moor’s state law claim against the County on the basis of diversity of citizenship, 28 U. S. C. § 1332 (a). Petitioner Moor, a citizen of Illinois, contends that the County is a citizen of California for the purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction. The District Court concluded otherwise, however. For while acknowledging that there exists a substantial body of contrary authority, it considered itself “bound to recognize and adhere to the Ninth Circuit decisions which hold that California counties and other subdivisions of the State are not ‘citizens’ for diversity purposes,” see Miller v. County of Los Angeles, 341 F. 2d 964 (CA9 1965); Lowe v. Manhattan Beach City School Dist., 222 F. 2d 258 (CA9 1955). Not surprisingly, the Court of Appeals also adhered to its prior precedents.
There is no question that a State is not a “citizen” for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction. That proposition has been established at least since this Court’s decision in Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 487 (1894). See also Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 63 (1904). At the same time, however, this Court has recognized that a political subdivision of a State, unless it is simply “the arm or alter ego of the State,” is a citizen of the State for diversity purposes. See, e. g., Bullard v. City of Cisco, 290 U. S. 179 (1933); Loeb v. Columbia Township Trustees, 179 U. S. 472, 485-486 (1900); Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529, 533-534 (1893); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529 (1890); Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118 (1869). The original source of this latter principle was the rule that corporations are citizens of the State in which they are formed, and are subject as such to the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. See, e. g., Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558-559 (1844); Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 106 (1898). Thus, in the seminal case of Cowles v. Mercer County, supra, the Court held without hesitation that an Illinois county, which under Illinois law was a “body politic and corporate” and had been authorized to sue and be sued, was subject to federal diversity jurisdiction as a citizen of the State of Illinois. The principle first announced in Cowles has become so firmly rooted in federal law that we were able to say only last Term that “[i]t is well settled that for purposes of diversity of citizenship, political subdivisions are citizens of their respective States....” Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91, 97 (1972).
The County in this case contends, however, that unlike the counties of most States, it is not a municipal corporation or an otherwise independent political subdivision, but that it is, under California law, nothing more than an agent or a mere arm of the State itself. In particular, the County cites to us Art. 11, § 1 (a), of the California Constitution which provides that “[t]he State is divided into counties which are legal subdivisions of the State.” The County thus apparently believes its status, for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction, to be governed by Postal Telegraph Cable rather than by Cowles and its progeny. Despite the County's contentions, a detailed examination of the relevant provisions of California law — beyond simply the generalization contained in Art. 11, § 1, of the state constitution— convinces us that the County cannot be deemed a mere agent of the State of California.
Most notably, under California law a county is given “corporate powers” and is designated a “body corporate and politic.” In this capacity, a county may sue and be sued, and, significantly for purposes of suit, it is deemed to be a “local public entity” in contrast to the State and state agencies. In addition, the county, and from all that appears the county alone, is liable for all judgments against it and is authorized to levy taxes to pay such judgments. A California county may also sell, hold, or otherwise deal in property, and it may contract for the construction and repairs of structures. The counties also are authorized to provide a variety of public services such as water service, flood control, rubbish disposal, and harbor and airport facilities. Financially, the counties are empowered to issue general obligation bonds payable from county taxes. Such bonds create no obligation on the part of the State, except that the State is authorized to intervene and to impose county taxes to protect the bondholders if the county fails to fulfill its obligations voluntarily. In sum, these provisions strike us as persuasive indicia of the independent status occupied by California counties relative to the State of California.
But even if our own examination were not sufficient for present purposes, we have the clearest indication possible from California’s Supreme Court of the status of California’s counties. In People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal. 3d 480, 487 P. 2d 1193 (1971), the Attorney General of the State sought a writ of mandate against two California counties to compel them to pay out certain allotted monies. Under state law, such a writ may be issued only to any “inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085 (emphasis added). In holding that the writ could be issued against the counties, the California Supreme Court said:
“While it has been said that counties are not municipal corporations but are political subdivisions of the state for purposes of government..., counties have also been declared public corporations or quasi-corporations.... In view of Government Code section 23003, which provides that a county is ‘a body corporate and [politic],’ and section 23004, subdivision (a) of the same code, which states that counties may sue and be sued, we think that a county is sufficiently corporate in character to justify the issuance of a writ of mandate to it.” 5 Cal. 3d, at 491 n. 12, 487 P. 2d, at 1199 n. 12 (emphasis added).
See also Pitchess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App. 3d 653, 656, 83 Cal. Rptr. 41, 43 (1969).
We do not lightly reject the Court of Appeals’ previous conclusion that California counties are merely part of the State itself and as such are not citizens of the State for diversity purposes. But in light of both the highest state court’s recent determination of the corporate character of counties and our own examination of relevant California law, we must conclude that this County has a sufficiently independent corporate character to dictate that it be treated as a citizen of California under our decision in Cowles v. Mercer County, supra.
Thus, we hold that petitioner Moor’s state law claim against the County is within the diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this respect and remand this case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Named as plaintiffs in the Rundle case in addition to petitioner William D. Rundle, Jr., were his guardian ad litem, William D. Rundle, and Sarah Rundle. William D. Rundle and Sarah Rundle are also petitioners here, but for ease of discussion we will refer simply to petitioner Rundle.
Neither complaint specifically states any claim for equitable relief. Furthermore, the complaints contain no allegations of an ongoing course of conduct, irreparable injury, inadequacy of legal remedy, or other similar allegations generally found in complaints seeking equitable relief. Throughout the course of this litigation the petitioners have given no indication that they seek equitable, as well as legal, relief. Before this Court the petitioners state nothing more than that “[p]laintiffs in both eases seek damages from the defendants....” Brief for Petitioners 4. Therefore, the question on which our Brother Douglas hinges his dissent — namely, whether a municipality may be sued for equitable relief under § 1983 — simply is not presented here.
Although the County vigorously disputes the petitioners’ construction of § 815.2 (a) of the California Tort Claims Act, we do not pass upon the parties’ conflicting constructions since the question was not decided by either of the courts below.
In their complaints, 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:
|
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 Court is advised that the petitioner died at New Bern, N. C., on November 14, 1975. The petition for certiorari is therefore dismissed. To the extent that Durham v. United States, 401 U. S. 481 (1971), may be inconsistent with this ruling, Durham is overruled.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice White dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In December 1945, 112 of the 117 employees of an oil company, including petitioners, went out on strike. About five o’clock one afternoon, petitioners, with several other strikers, assembled near the plant’s entrance. Although a picket line was nearby, these men were not a part of it, and there is no suggestion that their acts were attributable either to the regular pickets or to the union representing them. As the five working employees left the plant for the day, the petitioner Jones called out to one named Williams to “wait a minute, he wanted to talk to him.” When Williams replied that “he didn’t have time, he was on his way home and he would see him another day,” petitioner Jones gave a signal and said, “Come on, boys.” Petitioner Cole, who was carrying a stick, told one of the other departing employees “to go ahead on, that they wasn’t after me.” Another striker named Campbell then attacked Williams and was killed in the ensuing struggle. It was further testified that these petitioners and others had that morning discussed talking to the men who were working “and they agreed that if they didn’t talk right, they were going to whip them.” While some of this was contradicted, such is the version which the jury could have found from the evidence.
The present case has had a curiously involved history. Convicted in 1946 of a statutory offense for their participation in the foregoing, petitioners secured a reversal in the Supreme Court of Arkansas for errors in the trial. 210 Ark. 433, 196 S. W. 2d 582. Following the retrial, petitioners’ second conviction was affirmed, 211 Ark. 836, 202 S. W. 2d 770; and we granted certiorari and reversed on the ground that the affirmance below had been based upon a section of the statute other than that for violation of which these petitioners had been tried and convicted. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196. On remand, the State Supreme Court has reconsidered the appeal and has again affirmed in an opinion sustaining the convictions under the section of the statute on which the prosecution was based. 214 Ark. 387, 216 S. W. 2d 402. Doubts as to whether the mandate in our earlier decision had been obeyed led us to grant certiorari. 337 U. S. 929.
It appears on the surface, at least, that the Supreme Court of Arkansas has attempted to comply with our mandate and has now placed its affirmance upon the same section of the statute as that upon which the trial court submitted the case to the jury. The objection to this affirmance is, however, much more subtle and far-reaching than that involved in our previous decision. There it was clear that the Arkansas Supreme Court’s affirmance was based upon an entirely different statutory offense from that charged and under which the case was submitted to the jury. It is now claimed that, although they both dealt with the same section of the Act involved, the trial court and the appellate court adopted contrasting interpretations of that section, and that the result was a repetition of the earlier error.
In addition to this contention, that the previous error has been repeated, it is also claimed that the statute now involved violates the Federal Constitution in that it abridges freedom of speech and assembly, and that the charge and statute are too vague and indefinite to conform to due process. All three claims involve serious charges of error, and if any one can be supported, petitioners are entitled to prevail.
Section 2 of Act 193, Acts of Arkansas 1943, provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person acting in concert with one or more other persons, to assemble at or near any place where a ‘labor dispute’ exists and by force or violence prevent or attempt to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful vocation, or for any person acting either by himself, or as a member of any group or organization or acting in concert with one or more other persons, to promote, encourage or aid any such unlawful assemblage. . . .” (Italics supplied.)
In the opinion under review, the Supreme Court of Arkansas has indicated that as to one charged with a violation of the italicized portion, the statute requires that the accused aid the assemblage with the intention that force and violence would be used to prevent a person from working. Petitioners’ quarrel, however, is not with this construction. Instead, petitioners contend that in the trial court, as the statute was construed and as the case was submitted to the jury, their convictions rested upon the theory that no more was required than mere presence in a group where unplanned and unconcerted violence was precipitated by another. The requirements of knowledge and intent, they claim, were “read into” the statute for the first time by the appellate court on review, and were absent in the trial court.
It thus becomes apparent that underlying each of the three contentions advanced on behalf of these petitioners is the basic premise that their case was submitted to the jury on the theory that nothing more was needed to convict them than mere presence at an assemblage where violence occurred without their participation, concert, or previous knowledge. This is the foundation, not only of the claim that the trial court and the appellate court adopted contrasting interpretations of the Act they are said to have violated, but also of the claim that application of that Act offends the fundamental rights of speech and assembly protected from state deprivation by the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly the alleged difference between the trial court and the appellate court in rendering the Act is the basis of the argument that it is constitutionally invalid for vagueness, it being contended here that in this very case the Act has been demonstrated to be susceptible of at least two different interpretations in the Arkansas courts.
Did the trial court authorize the jury to convict for mere presence in an assemblage where unplanned and unintended violence occurred? This is the basis of the plea for reversal and we turn to the record to ascertain whether or not it is justified.
The information on which the petitioners were tried set forth that Campbell in concert with others had assembled at the plant where a labor dispute existed and by force and violence prevented Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation. It then charged that “The said Roy Cole [and] Louis Jones . . . did unlawfully and feloniously, acting in concert with each other, promote, encourage and aid such unlawful assemblage, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.”
As we have noted in Cole v. Arkansas, supra, 198, the language employed in the information is substantially identical with that of § 2 of the Arkansas Act.
In explaining the Act, which was read to the jury, the trial court said that it included two offenses, “. . . First, the concert of action between two or more persons resulting in the prevention of a person by means of force and violence from engaging in a lawful vocation. And, second, in promoting, encouraging or aiding of such unlawful assemblage by concert of action among the defendants as is charged in the information here. The latter offense is the one on trial in this case.”
In his second instruction, the trial court charged that “. . . if you further believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, which [while] acting in concert with each other, promoted, encouraged and aided such unlawful assemblage, you will convict the defendants as charged in the indictment.”
Needless to say, the defendants presented no request for a charge that would construe the statute as unfavorable to themselves as they now contend it was construed. To the contrary, an opposite construction was embodied in the defendants’ requests to charge, all of which, with minor variations, were granted save one which duplicated a charge earlier made by the court. The ninth instruction requested by the defendants and granted by the court, said: “The court instructs you that mere fact, if you find it to be a fact that the defendants, or either of them, were present at the time of an altercation between Campbell and Williams, such fact alone would not justify you in finding the defendants or either of them guilty.”
But it is contended that some portions of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas apparently “read into” the statute the requirement that the accused “promoted, encouraged and aided the assemblage — which was unlawful because of its purpose and its accomplished results,” and that it sustained the convictions upon a conclusion from the evidence that “the defendants participated, aided, encouraged and abetted in an agreement with others to the effect that the workers . . . would be whipped if they did not agree to quit work.” Petitioners argue that this requirement of purpose and knowledge was supplied as an additional element by the appellate court, and that in so doing that court departed even further from the construction of the trial court. But the question was before the jury in almost the very language petitioners object to as originating in the State Supreme Court. “You are instructed,” said the trial court in giving a charge requested by these petitioners, “that before the defendants, or either of them can be convicted in this case, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they promoted, encouraged, and aided in an unlawful assemblage at the plant of the Southern Cotton Oil Company, for the purpose of preventing Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation.”
We do not find any such disparity between the instructions and the opinion of the Supreme Court as is suggested. At most, the appellate court spelled out what is implicit in the instructions of the trial court, and both were agreed that the statute authorized no conviction for a mere presence in an assemblage at which unplanned and unconcerted violence was precipitated by another.
What we have already said disposes of the contention that this Act as applied to petitioners abridges freedom of assembly. For this argument, too, rests on the assumption that this Act penalizes for mere presence in a gathering where violence occurs. As we have pointed out, the statutory text does not so read, the charge of the trial court expressly negatived this construction at the defendants’ own request, and they themselves have complained of the appellate court that it went even further in this direction.
Accordingly, we are not called upon to decide whether a state has power to incriminate by his mere presence an innocent member of a group when some individual without his encouragement or concert commits an act of violence. It will be time enough to review such a question as that when it is asked by one who occupies such a status. Evidently these petitioners, in the minds of the jury, at least, did not. For, as we have seen, the case was submitted under a statutory construction and charge which forbade conviction without belief that the petitioners aided the assemblage “for the purpose of preventing Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation.”
As defined by the Arkansas Supreme Court, an unlawful assembly, the aiding of which is prohibited, is “. . . one where persons acting in concert have assembled in an attempt to prevent by force or violence some other person from engaging in a lawful occupation.”
Certainly the Act before us does not penalize the promotion, encouragement, or furtherance of peaceful assembly at or near any place where a labor dispute exists, nor does it infringe the right of expression of views in any labor dispute.
Quite another question is involved when one is convicted of promoting, encouraging and aiding an assemblage the purpose of which is to wreak violence. Such an assemblage has been denominated unlawful by the Arkansas legislature, and it is no abridgment of free speech or assembly for the criminal sanctions of the state to fasten themselves upon one who has actively and consciously assisted therein.
Similarly we find no merit in petitioners’ contention that the Arkansas statute is unconstitutionally vague, so that its application in this case violated due process of law. Here again the premise upon which the argument is presented to us is that the two Arkansas courts differed in construing the statute, and we are asked to conclude from this fact that the test of definiteness which criminal statutes must meet under the due process clause, International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 223, has not been met. Since we cannot assume that the two courts were at odds in their interpretation of the statute, we find it unnecessary to explore the question as to whether such discrepancy, if it existed, would constitute a basis for concluding that the constitutional standards have not been achieved. We think that § 2, Act 193, Acts of Arkansas 1943, fairly apprises men of ordinary intelligence that for two or more to assemble and by force or violence prevent or attempt to prevent another from engaging in any lawful vocation constitutes an unlawful assemblage, and that the promotion, encouragement or aiding thereof is unlawful.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Act 193, Acts of Arkansas 1943, provides in pertinent part:
“Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person by the use of force or violence, or threat of the use of force or violence, to prevent or attempt to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful vocation within this State. . . .
“Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any person acting in concert with one or more other persons, to assemble at or near any place where a ‘labor dispute’ exists and by force or violence prevent or attempt to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful vocation, or for any person acting either by himself, or as a member of any group or organization or acting in concert with one or more other persons, to promote, encourage or aid any such unlawful assemblage. . . .”
The Supreme Court of Arkansas had affirmed the petitioners’ convictions on the basis of § 1 of the above statute, although, as we observed, both the information drawn against the petitioners and the charge to the jury referred in unmistakable terms to a violation, not of § 1, but of § 2. Accordingly we reversed, holding it a violation of due process for the appellate court to appraise and affirm petitioners’ convictions on considerations other than those governing the case as it was tried and as the issues were determined in the trial court.
The entire information was as follows: “Comes Sam Robinson, Prosecuting Attorney within and for Pulaski County, Arkansas, and in the name, by the authority, and on behalf of the State of Arkansas information gives accusing Roy Cole, Louis Jones and Jessie Bean of the crime of felony, committed as follows to-wit: On the 26th day of December, A. D. 1945, in Pulaski County, Arkansas, Walter Ted Campbell, acting in concert with other persons, assembled at the Southern Cotton Oil Company’s plant in Pulaski County, Arkansas, where a labor dispute existed, and by force and violence prevented Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation. The said Roy Cole, Louis Jones and Jessie Bean, in the County and State aforesaid, on the 26th day of December, 1945, did unlawfully and feloniously, acting in concert with each other, promote, encourage and aid such unlawful assemblage, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.”
One witness, whom the jury was entitled to believe, testified as follows:
“Q. You say you were down at the tent that morning?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. When these defendants here, Louis Jones and the others, were in a discussion and were talking about talking to the men that were working?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And they agreed that if they didn’t talk right, they were going to whip them ?
“A. Yes, sir.”
Facts demonstrating the consummation of this plan were given to the Jury by the testimony of another witness. As the men not on strike were leaving the plant, petitioner Jones, according to the witness, called upon Williams “. . .to wait a minute, he wanted to talk to him, and Otha told him he didn’t have time, he was on his way home and he would see him another day.
“Q. Did he do anything else?
“A. He gave a signal and said ‘Come on, boys.’ . . .
“Q. What happened after Louis Jones gave the signal and said ‘Come on, boys’ ?
“A. They flew up like blackbirds and came fighting.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This capital case concerns defense counsel’s strategic decision to concede, at the guilt phase of the trial, the defendant’s commission of murder, and to concentrate the defense on establishing, at the penalty phase, cause for sparing the defendant’s life. Any concession of that order, the Florida Supreme Court held, made without the defendant’s express consent — however gruesome the crime and despite the strength of the evidence of guilt — automatically ranks as prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel necessitating a new trial. We reverse the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment.
Defense counsel undoubtedly has a duty to discuss potential strategies with the defendant. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 688 (1984). But when a defendant, informed by counsel, neither consents nor objects to the course counsel describes as the most promising means to avert a sentence of death, counsel is not automatically barred from pursuing that course. The reasonableness of counsel’s performance, after consultation with the defendant yields no response, must be judged in accord with the inquiry generally applicable to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims: Did counsel’s representation “f[a]ll below an objective standard of reasonableness”? Id., at 688, 694. The Florida Supreme Court erred in applying, instead, a presumption of deficient performance, as well as a presumption of prejudice; that latter presumption, we have instructed, is reserved for cases in which counsel fails meaningfully to oppose the prosecution’s case. United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 659 (1984). A presumption of prejudice is not in order based solely on a defendant’s failure to provide express consent to a tenable strategy counsel has adequately disclosed to and discussed with the defendant.
I
On Monday, August . 13,1984, near a dirt road in the environs of Tallahassee, Florida, a passing motorist discovered Jeanne Bickner’s charred body. Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336, 1337 (Fla. 1990) (Nixon I); 13 Record 2464-2466. Bickner had been tied to a tree and set on fire while still alive. Id., at 2475, 2483-2484. Her left leg and arm, and most of her hair and skin, had been burned away. Id., at 2475-2476. The next day, police found Bickner’s car, abandoned on a Tallahassee street corner, on fire. Id., at 2520. Police arrested 23-year-old Joe Elton Nixon later that morning, after Nixon’s brother informed the sheriff’s office that Nixon had confessed to the murder. Id., at 2559.
Questioned by the police, Nixon described in graphic detail how he had kidnaped Bickner, then killed her. He recounted that he had approached Bickner, a stranger, in a mall, and asked her to help him jump-start his car. 5 id., at 919-921. Bickner offered Nixon a ride home in her 1973 MG sports car. Id., at 922. Once on the road, Nixon directed Bickner to drive to a remote place; en route, he overpowered her and stopped the car. Id., at 924, 926-927. Nixon next put Bickner in the MG’s trunk, drove into a wooded area, removed Bickner from the car, and tied her to a tree with jumper cables. Id., at 930-931. Bickner pleaded with Nixon to release her, offering him money in exchange. Id., at 928. Concerned that Bickner might identify him, Nixón decided to kill her. Id., at 929. He set fire to Bickner’s personal belongings and ignited her with burning objects. Id., at 934-935. Nixon drove away in the MG, and later told his brother and girlfriend what he had done. Id., at 938, 961. He burned the MG on Tuesday, August 14, after reading in the newspaper that Bickner’s body had been discovered. Id., at 963, 982.
The State gathered overwhelming evidence establishing that Nixon had committed the murder in the manner he described. A witness saw Nixon approach Bickner in the mall’s parking lot on August 12, and observed Bickner taking jumper cables out of the trunk of her car and giving them to Nixon. 13 id., at 2447-2448, 2450. Several witnesses told police they saw Nixon driving around in the MG in the hours and days following Bickner’s death. See id., at 2456, 2487-2488, 2498, 2509. Nixon’s palm print was found on the trunk of the car. Id., at 2548-2549. Nixon’s girlfriend, Wanda Robinson, and his brother, John Nixon, both stated that Nixon told them he had killed someone and showed them two rings later identified as Bickner’s. 5 id., at 971, 987; 13 id., at 2565. According to Nixon’s brother, Nixon pawned the rings, 5 id., at 986, and attempted to sell the car, id., at 973. At a local pawnshop, police recovered the rings and a receipt for them bearing Nixon’s driver’s license number; the pawnshop owner identified Nixon as the person who sold the rings to him. 13 id., at 2568-2569.
In late August 1984, Nixon was indicted in Leon County, Florida, for first-degree murder, kidnaping, robbery, and arson. See App. 1, 55. Assistant public defender Michael Corin, assigned to represent Nixon, see id., at 232, filed a plea of not guilty, id., at 468-469, and deposed all of the State’s potential witnesses, id., at 53-58. Corin concluded, given the strength of the evidence, that Nixon’s guilt was not “subject to any reasonable dispute.” Id., at 490. Corin thereupon commenced plea negotiations, hoping to persuade the prosecution to drop the death penalty in exchange for Nixon’s guilty pleas to all charges. Id., at 336-338, 507. Negotiations broke down when the prosecutors indicated their unwillingness to recommend a sentence other than death. See id., at 339, 508.
Faced with the inevitability of going to trial on a capital charge, Corin turned his attention to the penalty phase, believing that the only way to save Nixon’s life would be to present extensive mitigation evidence centering on Nixon’s mental instability. Id., at 261, 473; see also id., at 102. Experienced in capital defense, see id., at 248-250, Corin feared that denying Nixon’s commission of the kidnaping and murder during the guilt phase would compromise Corin’s ability to persuade the jury, during the penalty phase, that Nixon’s conduct was the product of his mental illness. See id., at 473, 490, 505. Corin concluded that the best strategy would be to concede guilt, thereby preserving his credibility in urging leniency during the penalty phase. Id., at 458, 505.
Corin attempted to explain this strategy to Nixon at least three times. Id., at 254-255. Although Corin had represented Nixon previously on unrelated charges and the two had a good relationship in Corin’s estimation, see id., at 466-467, Nixon was generally unresponsive during their discussions, id., at 478-480. He never verbally approved or protested Corin’s proposed strategy. Id., at 234-238, 255, 501. Overall, Nixon gave Corin very little, if any, assistance or direction in preparing the case, id., at 478, and refused to attend pretrial dispositions of various motions, Nixon I, 572 So. 2d, at 1341; App. 478. Corin eventually exercised his professional judgment to pursue the concession strategy. As he explained: “There are many times lawyers make decisions because they have to make them because the client does nothing.” Id., at 486.
When Nixon’s trial began on July 15, 1985, his unresponsiveness deepened into disruptive and violent behavior. On the second day of jury selection, Nixon pulled off his clothing, demanded a black judge and lawyer, refused to be escorted into the courtroom, and threatened to force the guards to shoot him. Nixon I, 572 So. 2d, at 1341; 10 Record 1934-1935. An extended on-the-record colloquy followed Nixon’s bizarre behavior, during which Corin urged the trial judge to explain Nixon’s rights to him and ascertain whether Nixon understood the significance of absenting himself from the trial. Corin also argued that restraining Nixon and compelling him to be present would prejudice him in the eyes of the jury. Id., at 1918-1920. When the judge examined Nixon on the record in a holding cell, Nixon stated he had no interest in the trial and threatened to misbehave if forced to attend. Id., at 1926-1931. The judge ruled that Nixon had intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to be present at trial. Id., at 1938; 11 id., at 2020.
The guilt phase of the trial thus began in Nixon’s absence. In his opening statement, Corin acknowledged Nixon’s guilt and urged the jury to focus on the penalty phase:
“In this case, there won’t be any question, none whatsoever, that my client, Joe Elton Nixon, caused Jeannie Bickner’s death. . . . [T]hat fact will be proved to your satisfaction beyond any doubt.
“This case is about the death of Joe Elton Nixon and whether it should occur within the next few years by electrocution or maybe its natural expiration after a lifetime of confinement.
“Now, in arriving at your verdict, in your penalty recommendation, for we will get that far, you are going to learn many facts . . . about Joe Elton Nixon. Some of those facts are going to be good. That may not seem clear to you at this time. But, and sadly, most of the things you learn of Joe Elton Nixon are not going to be good. But, I’m suggesting to you that when you have seen all the testimony, heard all the testimony and the evidence that has been shown, there are going to be reasons why you should recommend that his life be spared.” App. 71-72.
During its case in chief, the State introduced the tape of Nixon’s confession, expert testimony on the manner in which Bickner died, and witness testimony regarding Nixon’s confessions to his relatives and his possession of Bickner’s car and personal effects. Corin cross-examined these witnesses only when he felt their statements needed clarification, see, e. g., 13 Record 2504, and he did not present a defense case, 20 id., at 3741. Corin did object to the introduction of crime scene photographs as unduly prejudicial, 13 id., at 2470, and actively contested several aspects of the jury instructions during the charge conference, 11 id., at 2050-2058. In his closing argument, Corin again conceded Nixon’s guilt, App. 73, and reminded the jury of the importance of the penalty phase: “I will hope to ... argue to you and give you reasons not that Mr. Nixon’s life be spared one final and terminal confinement forever, but that he not be sentenced to die,” id., at 74. The jury found Nixon guilty on all counts.
At the start of the penalty phase, Corin argued to the jury that “Joe Elton Nixon is not normal organically, intellectually, emotionally or educationally or in any other way.” Id., at 102. Corin presented the testimony of eight witnesses. Relatives and friends described Nixon’s childhood emotional troubles and his erratic behavior in the days preceding the murder. See, e. g., id., at 108-120. A psychiatrist and a psychologist addressed Nixon’s antisocial personality, his history of emotional instability and psychiatric care, his low IQ, and the possibility that at some point he suffered brain damage. Id., at 143-147, 162-166. The State presented little evidence during the penalty phase, simply incorporating its guilt-phase evidence by reference, and introducing testimony, over Corin’s objection, that Nixon had removed Bick-ner’s underwear in order to terrorize her. Id., at 105-106.
In his closing argument, Corin emphasized Nixon’s youth, the psychiatric evidence, and the jury’s discretion to consider any mitigating circumstances, id., at 194-199; Corin urged that, if not sentenced to death, “Joe Elton Nixon would [n]ever be released from confinement,” id., at 207. The death penalty, Corin maintained, was appropriate only for “intact human being[s],” and “Joe Elton Nixon is not one of those. He’s never been one of those. He never will be one of those.” Id., at 209. Corin concluded: “You know, we’re not around here all that long. And it’s rare when we have the opportunity to give or take life. And you have that opportunity to give life. And I’m going to ask you to do that. Thank you.” Ibid. After deliberating for approximately three hours, the jury recommended that Nixon be sentenced to death. See 21 Record 4013.
In accord with the jury’s recommendation, the trial court imposed the death penalty. Nixon I, 572 So. 2d, at 1338. Notably, at the close of the penalty phase, the court commended Corin’s performance during the trial, stating that “the tactic employed by trial counsel . . . was an excellent analysis of [the] reality of his case.” 21 Record 4009. The evidence of guilt “would have persuaded any jury ... beyond all doubt,” and “[f]or trial counsel to have inferred that Mr. Nixon was not guilty . .. would have deprived [counsel] of any credibility during the penalty phase.” Id., at 4010.
On direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Nixon, represented by new counsel, argued that Corin had rendered ineffective assistance by conceding Nixon’s guilt without obtaining Nixon’s express consent. Nixon I, 572 So. 2d, at 1338-1339. Relying on United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984), new counsel urged that Corin’s concession should be presumed prejudicial because it left the prosecution’s case unexposed to “meaningful adversarial testing,” id., at 658-659. The Florida Supreme Court remanded for an eviden-tiary hearing on whether Nixon consented to the strategy, see App. 216-217, but ultimately declined to rule on the matter, finding the evidence of Corin’s interactions with Nixon inconclusive, Nixon I, 572 So. 2d, at 1340.
In a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (1999), Nixon renewed his CVomc-based “presumption of prejudice” ineffective-assistance-of-eounsel claim. After the trial court rejected the claim, State v. Nixon, Case No. 84-2324 (Cir. Ct., Oct. 22, 1997), App. 389-390, the Florida Supreme Court remanded for a further hearing on Nixon’s consent to defense counsel’s strategy. Nixon v. Singletary, 758 So. 2d 618, 625 (2000) (Nixon II). Corin’s concession, according to the Florida Supreme Court, was the “functional equivalent of a guilty plea” in that it allowed the prosecution’s guilt-phase case to proceed essentially without opposition. Id., at 622-624. Under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242-243 (1969), a guilty plea cannot be inferred from silence; it must be based on express affirmations made intelligently and voluntarily. Similarly, the Florida Supreme Court stated, a concession of guilt at trial requires a defendant’s “affirmative, explicit acceptance,” without which counsel’s performance is presumptively inadequate. Nixon II, 758 So. 2d, at 624. The court acknowledged that Nixon was “very disruptive and uncooperative at trial,” and that “counsel’s strategy may have been in Nixon’s best interest.” Id., at 625. Nevertheless, the court firmly declared that “[s]ilent acquiescence is not enough,” id., at 624; counsel who concedes a defendant’s guilt is inevitably ineffective, the court ruled, if the defendant does not expressly approve counsel’s course, id., at 625.
On remand, Corin testified that he explained his. view of the case to Nixon several times, App. 479-480, and that at each consultation, Nixon “did nothing affirmative or negative,” id., at 481-482; see also id., at 486-487. Failing to elicit a definitive response from Nixon, Corin stated, he chose to pursue the concession strategy because, in his professional judgment, it appeared to be “the only way to save [Nixon’s] life.” Id., at 472. Nixon did not testify at the hearing. The trial court found that Nixon’s “natural pattern of communication” with Corin involved passively receiving information, and that Nixon consented to the strategy “through his behavior.” State v. Nixon, Case No. R84-2324AF (Fla. Cir. Ct., Sept. 20, 2001), p. 13; 2 Record 378.
Observing that “no competent, substantial evidence . . . established] that Nixon affirmatively and explicitly agreed to counsel’s strategy,” the Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. Nixon v. State, 857 So. 2d 172, 176 (2003) (Nixon III) (emphasis in original). Three justices disagreed with the majority’s determination that Corin’s concession rendered his representation inadequate. Id., at 183 (Lewis, J., concurring in result); id., at 189 (Wells, J., joined by Shaw, S. J., dissenting).
We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1217 (2004), to resolve an important question of constitutional law, i. e., whether counsel’s failure to obtain the defendant’s express consent to a strategy of conceding guilt in a capital trial automatically renders counsel’s performance deficient, and whether counsel’s effectiveness should be evaluated under Cronic or Strickland. We now reverse the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
II
An attorney undoubtedly has a duty to consult with the client regarding “important decisions,” including questions of overarching defense strategy. Strickland, 466 U. S., at 688. That obligation, however, does not require counsel to obtain the defendant’s consent to “every tactical decision.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 417-418 (1988) (an attorney has authority to manage most aspects of the defense without obtaining his client’s approval). But certain decisions regarding the exercise or waiver of basic trial rights are of such moment that they cannot be made for the defendant by a surrogate. A defendant, this Court affirmed, has “the ultimate authority” to determine “whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his' or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745, 751 (1983); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 93, n. 1 (1977) (Burger, C. J., concurring). Concerning those decisions, an attorney must both consult with the defendant and obtain consent to the recommended course of action.
A guilty plea, we recognized in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 (1969), is an event of signal significance in a criminal proceeding. By entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives constitutional rights that inhere in a criminal trial, including the right to trial by jury, the protection against self-incrimination, and the right to confront one’s accusers. Id., at 243. While a guilty plea may be tactically advantageous for the defendant, id., at 240, the plea is not simply a strategic choice; it is “itself a conviction,” id., at 242, and the high stakes for the defendant require “the utmost solicitude,” id., at 243. Accordingly, counsel lacks authority to consent to a guilty plea on a client’s behalf, Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1, 6-7 (1966); moreover, a defendant’s tacit acquiescence in the decision to plead is insufficient to render the plea valid, Boykin, 395 U. S., at 242.
The Florida Supreme Court, as just observed, see supra, at 185-186, required Nixon’s “affirmative, explicit acceptance” of Corin’s strategy because it deemed Corin’s statements to the jury “the functional equivalent of a guilty plea.” Nixon II, 758 So. 2d, at 624. We disagree with that assessment.
Despite Corin’s concession, Nixon retained the rights accorded a defendant in a criminal trial. Cf. Boykin, 395 U. S., at 242-243, and n. 4 (a guilty plea is “more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts,” it is a “stipulation that no proof by the prosecution need be advanced” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The State was obliged to present during the guilt phase competent, admissible evidence establishing the essential elements of the crimes with which Nixon was charged. That aggressive evidence would thus be separated from the penalty phase, enabling the defense to concentrate that portion of the trial on mitigating factors. See supra, at 181, 183-184. Further, the defense reserved the right to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution and could endeavor, as Corin did, to exclude prejudicial evidence. See supra, at 183. In addition, in the event of errors in the trial or jury instructions, a concession of guilt would not hinder the defendant’s right to appeal.
Nixon nevertheless urges, relying on Brookhart v. Janis, that this Court has already extended the requirement of “affirmative, explicit acceptance” to proceedings “surrender-ting] the right to contest the prosecution’s factual case on the issue of guilt or innocence.” Brief for Respondent 32. Defense counsel in Brookhart had agreed to a “prima facie” bench trial at which the State would be relieved of its obligation to put on “complete proof” of guilt or persuade a jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 384 U. S., at 5-6. In contrast to Brookhart, there was in Nixon’s case no “truncated” proceeding, id., at 6, shorn of the need to persuade the trier “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and of the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. While the “prima facie” trial in Brookhart was fairly characterized as “the equivalent of a guilty plea,” id., at 7, the full presentation to the jury in Nixon’s case does not resemble that severely abbreviated proceeding. Brookhart, in short, does not carry the weight Nixon would place on it.
Corin was obliged to, and in fact several times did, explain his proposed trial strategy to Nixon. See supra, at 181, 186. Given Nixon’s constant resistance to answering inquiries put to him by counsel and court, see Nixon III, 857 So. 2d, at 187-188 (Wells, J., dissenting), Corin was not additionally required to gain express consent before conceding Nixon’s guilt. The two evidentiary hearings conducted by the Florida trial court demonstrate beyond doubt that Corin fulfilled his duty of consultation by informing Nixon of counsel’s proposed strategy and its potential benefits. Nixon’s characteristic silence each time information was conveyed to him, in sum, did not suffice to render unreasonable Gorin’s decision to concede guilt and to home in, instead, on the life or death penalty issue.
The Florida Supreme Court’s erroneous equation of Cor-in’s concession strategy to a guilty plea led it to apply the wrong standard in determining whether counsel’s performance ranked as ineffective assistance. The court first presumed deficient performance, then applied the presumption of prejudice that United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648 (1984), reserved for situations in which counsel has entirely failed to function as the client’s advocate. The Florida court therefore did not hold Nixon to the standard prescribed in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), which would have required Nixon to show that counsel’s concession strategy was unreasonable. As Florida Supreme Court Justice Lewis observed, that court’s majority misunderstood Cronic and failed to attend to the realities of defending against a capital charge. Nixon III, 857 So. 2d, at 180-183 (opinion concurring in result).
Cronic recognized a narrow exception to Strickland’s holding that a defendant who asserts ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate not only that his attorney’s performance was deficient, but also that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Cronic instructed that a presumption of prejudice would be in order in “circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.” 466 U. S., at 658. The Court elaborated: “[I]f counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, then there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable.” Id., at 659; see Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 696-697 (2002) (for Cronic’s presumed prejudice standard to apply, counsel’s “failure must be complete”). We illustrated just how infrequently the “surrounding circumstances [will] justify a presumption of ineffectiveness” in Cronic itself. In that case, we reversed a Court of Appeals ruling that ranked as prejudicially inadequate the performance of an inexperienced, underprepared attorney in a complex mail fraud trial. 466 U. S., at 662, 666.
On the record thus far developed, Gorin’s concession of Nixon’s guilt does not rank as a “fail[ure] to function in any meaningful sense as the Government’s adversary." Id., at 666. Although such a concession in a run-of-the-mine trial might present a closer question, the gravity of the potential sentence in a capital trial and the proceeding’s two-phase structure vitally affect counsel’s strategic calculus. Attorneys representing capital defendants face daunting challenges in developing trial strategies, not least because the defendant’s guilt is often clear. Prosecutors are more likely to seek the death penalty, and to refuse to accept a plea to a life sentence, when the evidence is overwhelming and the crime heinous. See Goodpaster, The Trial for Life: Effective Assistance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, 58 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 299, 329 (1983). In such cases, “avoiding execution [may be] the best and only realistic result possible.” ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases §10.9.1, Commentary (rev. ed. 2003), reprinted in 31 Hofstra L. Rev. 913, 1040 (2003).
Counsel therefore may reasonably decide to focus on the trial’s penalty phase, at which time counsel’s mission is to persuade the trier that his client’s life should be spared. Unable to negotiate a guilty plea in exchange for a life sentence, defense counsel must strive at the guilt phase to avoid a counterproductive course. See Lyon, Defending the Death Penalty Case: What Makes Death Different? 42 Mercer L. Rev. 695, 708 (1991) (“It is not good to put on a ‘he didn’t do it’ defense and a ‘he is sorry he did it’ mitigation. This just does not work. The jury will give the death penalty to the client and, in essence, the attorney.”); Sundby, The Capital Jury and Absolution: The Intersection of Trial Strategy, Remorse, and the Death Penalty, 83 Cornell L. Rev. 1557, 1589-1591 (1998) (interviews of jurors in capital trials indicate that juries approach the sentencing phase “cynically” where counsel’s sentencing-phase presentation is logically inconsistent with the guilt-phase defense); id., at 1597 (in capital cases, a “run-of-the-mill strategy of challenging the prosecution’s case for failing to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” can have dire implications for the sentencing phase). In this light, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for attempting to impress the jury with his candor and his unwillingness to engage in “a useless charade.” See Cronic, 466 U. S., at 656-657, n. 19. Renowned advocate Clarence Darrow, we note, famously 'employed a similar strategy as counsel for the youthful, cold-blooded killers Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. Imploring the judge to spare the boys’ lives, Darrow declared: “I do not know how much salvage there is in these two boys.... I will be honest with this court as I have tried to be from the beginning. I know that these boys are not fit to be at large.” Attorney for the Damned: Clarence Darrow in the Courtroom 84 (A. Weinberg ed. 1989); see Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41 (Darrow’s clients “did not expressly consent to what he did. But he saved their lives.”); cf. Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U. S. 1, 9-10 (2003) (per curiam).
To summarize, in a capital case, counsel must consider in conjunction both the guilt and penalty phases in determining how best to proceed. When counsel informs the defendant of the strategy counsel believes to be in the defendant’s best interest and the defendant is unresponsive, counsel’s strategic choice is not impeded by any blanket rule demanding the defendant’s explicit consent. Instead, if counsel’s strategy, given the evidence bearing on the defendant’s guilt, satisfies the Strickland standard, that is the end of the matter; no tenable claim of ineffective assistance would remain.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed, 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.
Although Nixon initially stated that he kidnaped Bickner on August 11, the kidnaping and murder in fact occurred on Sunday, August 12, 1984. 20 Record 3768-3770.
Every court to consider this case, including the judge who presided over Nixon’s trial, agreed with Corin’s assessment of the evidence. See, e. g., Nixon v. Singletary, 758 So. 2d 618, 625 (Fla. 2000) (per curiam) (evidence of guilt was “overwhelming”); State v. Nixon, Case No. 84-2324 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Oct. 22, 1997), App. 385; 21 Record 4009-4010.
Except for a brief period during the second day of the trial, Nixon remained absent throughout the proceedings. See Nixon I, 572 So. 2d 1336, 1341-1342 (Fla. 1990); Brief for Petitioner 6, n. 8.
Nixon contended in the alternative that Corin’s decision to concede guilt was unreasonable and prejudicial under the generally applicable standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). App. 385, 389; see supra, at 178. Nixon also raised several other challenges to his conviction and sentence. See App. 378-384, 390-392.
In his brief before this Court, Nixon describes inconsistencies in the State’s evidence at the guilt phase of the trial. See Brief for Respondent 13-22. Corin’s failure to explore these inconsistencies, measured against the Strickland standard, 466 U. S., at 690, Nixon maintains, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida Supreme Court did not address the alleged inconsistencies and we decline to consider the matter in the first instance.
As Corin determined here, pleading guilty without a guarantee that the prosecution will recommend a life sentence holds little if any benefit for the defendant. See ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases § 10.9.2, Commentary (rev. ed. 2003), reprinted in 31 Hofstra L. Rev. 913, 1045 (2003) (“If no written guarantee can be obtained that death will not be imposed following a plea of guilty, counsel should be extremely reluctant to participate in a waiver of the client’s trial rights.”). Pleading guilty not only relinquishes trial rights, it increases the likelihood that the State will introduce aggressive evidence of guilt during the sentencing phase, so that the gruesome details of the crime are fresh in the jurors’ minds as they deliberate on the sentence. See Goodpaster, 58 N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 331; supra, at 184, 188.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Some four years ago, Mr. and Mrs. Winkelman, parents of five children, became involved in lengthy administrative and legal proceedings. They had sought review related to concerns they had over whether their youngest child, 6-year-old Jacob, would progress well at Pleasant Valley Elementary School, which is part of the Parma City School District in Parma, Ohio.
Jacob has autism spectrum disorder and is covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). His parents worked with the school district to develop an individualized education program (IEP), as required by the Act. All concede that Jacob’s parents had the statutory right to contribute to this process and, when agreement could not be reached, to participate in administrative proceedings including what the Act refers to as an “impartial due process hearing.” § 1415(f)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).
The disagreement at the center of the current dispute concerns the procedures to be followed when parents and their child, dissatisfied with the outcome of the due process hearing, seek further review in a United States District Court. The question is whether parents, either on their own behalf or as representatives of the child, may proceed in court unrepresented by counsel though they are not trained or licensed as attorneys. Resolution of this issue requires us to examine and explain the provisions of IDEA to determine if it accords to parents rights of their own that can be vindicated in court proceedings, or alternatively, whether the Act allows them, in their status as parents, to represent their child in court proceedings.
I
Respondent Parma City School District, a participant in IDEA’S educational spending program, accepts federal funds for assistance in the education of children with disabilities. As a condition of receiving funds, it must comply with IDEA’S mandates. IDEA requires that the school district provide Jacob with a “free appropriate public education,” which must operate in accordance with the IEP that Jacob’s parents, along with school officials and other individuals, develop as members of Jacob’s “IEP Team.” Brief for Petitioners 3 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The school district proposed an IEP for the 2003-2004 school year that would have placed Jacob at a public elementary school. Regarding this IEP as deficient under IDEA, Jacob’s nonlawyer parents availed themselves of the administrative review provided by IDEA. They filed a complaint alleging respondent had failed to provide Jacob with a free appropriate public education; they appealed the hearing officer’s rejection of the claims in this complaint to a state-level review officer; and after losing that appeal they filed, on their own behalf and on behalf of Jacob, a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In reliance upon 20 U. S. C. § 1415(i)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) they challenged the administrative decision, alleging, among other matters: that Jacob had not been provided with a free appropriate public education; that his IEP was inadequate; and that the school district had failed to follow procedures mandated by IDEA. Pending the resolution of these challenges, the Winkelmans had enrolled Jacob in a private school at their own expense. They had also obtained counsel to assist them with certain aspects of the proceedings, although they filed their federal complaint, and later their appeal, without the aid of an attorney. The Winkelmans’ complaint sought reversal of the administrative decision, reimbursement for private-school expenditures and attorney’s fees already incurred, and, it appears, declaratory relief.
The District Court granted respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding it had provided Jacob with a free appropriate public education. Petitioners, proceeding without counsel, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Relying on its recent decision in Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School Dist., 409 F. 3d 753 (2005), the Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the Winkelmans’ appeal unless they obtained counsel to represent Jacob. See Order in No. 05-3886 (Nov. 4,2005), App. A to Pet. for Cert. la. In Cavanaugh the Court of Appeals had rejected the proposition that IDEA allows nonlawyer parents raising IDEA claims to proceed pro se in federal court. The court ruled that the right to a free appropriate public education “belongs to the child alone,” 409 F. 3d, at 757, not to both the parents and the child. It followed, the court held, that “any right on which the [parents] could proceed on their own behalf would be derivative” of the child’s right, ibid., so that parents bringing IDEA claims were not appearing on their own behalf, ibid. See also 28 U. S. C. § 1654 (allowing parties to prosecute their own claims pro se). As for the parents’ alternative argument, the court held, nonlawyer parents cannot litigate IDEA claims on behalf of their child because IDEA does not abrogate the common-law rule prohibiting nonlawyer parents from representing minor children. 409 F. 3d, at 756. As the court in Cavanaugh acknowledged, its decision brought the Sixth Circuit in direct conflict with the First Circuit, which had concluded, under a theory of “statutory joint rights,” that the Act accords to parents the right to assert IDEA claims on their own behalf. See Maroni v. Pemi-Baker Regional School Dist., 346 F. 3d 247, 249, 250 (CA1 2003).
Petitioners sought review in this Court. In light of the disagreement among the Courts of Appeals as to whether a nonlawyer parent of a child with a disability may prosecute IDEA actions pro se in federal court, we granted certiorari. 549 U. S. 990 (2006). Compare Cavanaugh, supra, with Maroni, supra; see also Mosely v. Board of Ed. of Chicago, 434 F. 3d 527 (CA7 2006); Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Ed., 161 F. 3d 225 (CA3 1998); Wenger v. Canastota Central School Dist., 146 F. 3d 123 (CA2 1998) (per curiam); Devine v. Indian River Cty. School Bd., 121 F. 3d 576 (CA11 1997).
II
Our resolution of this case turns upon the significance of IDEA’S interlocking statutory provisions. Petitioners’ primary theory is that the Act makes parents real parties in interest to IDEA actions, not “mer[e] guardians of their children’s rights.” Brief for Petitioners 16. If correct, this allows Mr. and Mrs. Winkelman back into court, for there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel... ”). Petitioners cannot cite a specific provision in IDEA mandating in direct and explicit terms that parents have the status of real parties in interest. They instead base their argument on a comprehensive reading of IDEA. Taken as a whole, they contend, the Act leads to the necessary conclusion that parents have independent, enforceable rights. Brief for Petitioners 14 (citing Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 543 U. S. 50, 60 (2004)). Respondent, accusing petitioners of “knit[ting] together various provisions pulled from the crevices of the statute” to support these claims, Brief for Respondent 19, reads the text of IDEA to mean that any redressable rights under the Act belong only to children, id., at 19-40.
We agree that the text of IDEA resolves the question presented. We recognize, in addition, that a proper interpretation of the Act requires a consideration of the entire statutory scheme. See Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. 481, 486 (2006). Turning to the current version of IDEA, which the parties agree governs this case, we begin with an overview of the relevant statutory provisions.
A
The goals of IDEA include “ensurjjng] that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education” and “ensur[ing] that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.” 20 U. S. C. §§ 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). To this end, the Act includes provisions governing four areas of particular relevance to the Winkelmans’ claim: procedures to be followed when developing a child’s IEP; criteria governing the sufficiency of an education provided to a child; mechanisms for review that must be made available when there are objections to the IEP or to other aspects of IDEA proceedings; and the requirement in certain circumstances that States reimburse parents for various expenses. See generally §§ 1412(a)(10), 1414, 1415. Although our discussion of these four areas does not identify all the illustrative provisions, we do take particular note of certain terms that mandate or otherwise describe parental involvement.
IDEA requires school districts to develop an IEP for each child with a disability, see §§ 1412(a)(4), 1414(d), with parents playing “a significant role” in this process, Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U. S. 49, 53 (2005). Parents serve as members of the team that develops the IEP. § 1414(d)(1)(B). The “concerns” parents have “for enhancing the education of their child” must be considered by the team. § 1414(d)(3)(A)(ii). IDEA accords parents additional protections that apply throughout the IEP process. See, e. g., § 1414(d)(4)(A) (requiring the IEP Team to revise the IEP when appropriate to address certain information provided by the parents); § 1414(e) (requiring States to “ensure that the parents of [a child with a disability] are members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their child”). The statute also sets up general procedural safeguards that protect the informed involvement of parents in the development of an education for their child. See, e. g., § 1415(a) (requiring States to “establish and maintain procedures ... to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education”); § 1415(b)(1) (mandating that States provide an opportunity for parents to examine all relevant records). See generally §§1414, 1415. A central purpose of the parental protections is to facilitate the provision of a “‘free appropriate public education,’” §1401(9), which must be made available to the child “in conformity with the [IEP],” §1401(9)(D).
The Act defines a “free appropriate public education” pursuant to an IEP to be an educational instruction “specially designed ... to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,” § 1401(29), coupled with any additional “ ‘related services’ ” that are “required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from [that instruction],” § 1401(26)(A). See also § 1401(9). The education must, among other things, be provided “under public supervision and direction,” “meet the standards of the State educational agency,” and “include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved.” Ibid. The instruction must, in addition, be provided at “no cost to parents.” § 1401(29). See generally Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176 (1982) (discussing the meaning of “free appropriate public education” as used in the statutory precursor to IDEA).
When a party objects to the adequacy of the education provided, the construction of the IEP, or some related matter, IDEA provides procedural recourse: It requires that a State provide “[a]n opportunity for any party to present a complaint . . . with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” § 1415(b)(6). By presenting a complaint a party is able to pursue a process of review that, as relevant, begins with a preliminary meeting “where the parents of the child discuss their complaint” and the local educational agency “is provided the opportunity to [reach a resolution].” § 1415(f)(l)(B)(i)(IV). If the agency “has not resolved the complaint to the satisfaction of the parents within 30 days,” § 1415(f)(l)(B)(ii), the parents may request an “impartial due process hearing,” § 1415(f)(1)(A), which must be conducted either by the local educational agency or by the state educational agency, ibid., and where a hearing officer will resolve issues raised in the complaint, § 1415(f)(3).
IDEA sets standards the States must follow in conducting these hearings. Among other things, it indicates that the hearing officer’s decision “shall be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the child received a free appropriate public education,” § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i), and that, “[i]n matters alleging a procedural violation,” the officer may find a child “did not receive a free appropriate public education,” § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii), only if the violation
“(I) impeded the child’s right to a free appropriate public education;
“(II) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parents’ child; or
“(III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” Ibid.
If the local educational agency, rather than the state educational agency, conducts this hearing, then “any party aggrieved by the findings and decision rendered in such a hearing may appeal such findings and decision to the State educational agency.” § 1415(g)(1). Once the state educational agency has reached its decision, an aggrieved party may commence suit in federal court: “Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made [by the hearing officer] shall have the right co bring a civil action with respect to the complaint.” § 1415(i)(2)(A); see also § 1415(i)(l).
IDEA, finally, provides for at least two means of cost recovery that inform our analysis. First, in certain circumstances it allows a court or hearing officer to require a state agency “to reimburse the parents [of a child with a disability] for the cost of [private-school] enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child.” § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). Second, it sets forth rules governing when and to what extent a court may award attorney’s fees. See § 1415(i)(3)(B). Included in this section is a provision allowing an award “to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability.” § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I).
B
Petitioners construe these various provisions to accord parents independent, enforceable rights under IDEA. We agree. The parents enjoy enforceable rights at the administrative stage, and it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to bar them from continuing to assert these rights in federal court.
The statute sets forth procedures for resolving disputes in a manner that, in the Act’s express terms, contemplates parents will be the parties bringing the administrative complaints. In addition to the provisions we have cited, we refer also to § 1415(b)(8) (requiring a state educational agency to “develop a model form to assist parents in filing a complaint”); § 1415(c)(2) (addressing the response an agency must provide to a “parent’s due process complaint notice”); and § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) (referring to “the parent’s complaint”). A wide range of review is available: Administrative complaints may be brought with respect to “any matter relating to . . . the provision of a free appropriate public education.” § 1415(b)(6)(A). Claims raised in these complaints are then resolved at impartial due process hearings, where, again, the statute makes clear that parents will be participating as parties. See generally supra, at 525-526. See also § 1415(f)(3)(C) (indicating “[a] parent or agency shall request an impartial due process hearing” within a certain period of time); § 1415(e)(2)(A)(ii) (referring to “a parent’s right to a due process hearing”). The statute then grants “[a]ny party aggrieved by the findings and decision made [by the hearing officer] . . . the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint.” § 1415(i)(2)(A).
Nothing in these interlocking provisions excludes a parent who has exercised his or her own rights from statutory protection the moment the administrative proceedings end. Put another way, the Act does not sub silentio or by implication bar parents from seeking to vindicate the rights accorded to them once the time comes to file a civil action. Through its provisions for expansive review and extensive parental involvement, the statute leads to just the opposite result.
Respondent, resisting this line of analysis, asks us to read these provisions as contemplating parental involvement only to the extent parents represent their child’s interests. In respondent’s view IDEA accords parents nothing more than “collateral tools related to the child’s underlying substantive rights — not freestanding or independently enforceable rights.” Brief for Respondent 25.
This interpretation, though, is foreclosed by provisions of the statute. IDEA defines one of its purposes as seeking “to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.” § 1400(d)(1)(B). The word “rights” in the quoted language refers to the rights of parents as well as the rights of the child; otherwise the grammatical structure would make no sense.
Further provisions confirm this view. IDEA mandates that educational agencies establish procedures “to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education.” § 1415(a). It presumes parents have rights of their own when it defines how States might provide for the transfer of the “rights accorded to parents” by IDEA, § 1415(m)(l)(B), and it prohibits the raising of certain challenges “[njotwithstanding any other individual right of action that a parent or student may maintain under [the relevant provisions of IDEA],” §§ 1401(10)(E), 1412(a)(14)(E). To adopt respondent’s reading of the statute would require an interpretation of these statutory provisions (and others) far too strained to be correct.
Defending its countertextual reading of the statute, respondent cites a decision by a Court of Appeals concluding that the Act’s “references to parents are best understood as accommodations to the fact of the child’s incapacity.” Doe v. Board of Ed. of Baltimore Cty., 165 F. 3d 260, 263 (CA4 1998); see also Brief for Respondent 30. This, according to respondent, requires us to interpret all references to parents’ rights as referring in implicit terms to the child’s rights— which, under this view, are the only enforceable rights accorded by IDEA. Even if we were inclined to ignore the plain text of the statute in considering this theory, we disagree that the sole purpose driving IDEA’S involvement of parents is to facilitate vindication of a child’s rights. It is not a novel proposition to say that parents have a recognized legal interest in the education and upbringing of their child. See, e. g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925) (acknowledging “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399-401 (1923). There is no necessary bar or obstacle in the law, then, to finding an intention by Congress to grant parents a stake in the entitlements created by IDEA. Without question a parent of a child with a disability has a particular and personal interest in. fulfilling “our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.” § 1400(c)(1).
We therefore find no reason to read into the plain language of the statute an implicit rejection of the notion that Congress would accord parents independent, enforceable rights concerning the education of their children. We instead interpret the statute’s references to parents’ rights to mean what they say: that IDEA includes provisions conveying rights to parents as well as to children.
A variation on respondent’s argument has persuaded some Courts of Appeals. The argument is that while a parent can be a “party aggrieved” for aspects of the hearing officer’s findings and decision, he or she cannot be a “party aggrieved” with respect to all IDEA-based challenges. Under this view the causes of action available to a parent might relate, for example, to various procedural mandates, see, e. g., Collinsgru, 161 F. 3d, at 233, and reimbursement demands, see, e. g., § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). The argument supporting this conclusion proceeds as follows: Because a “party aggrieved” is, by definition, entitled to a remedy, and parents are, under IDEA, only entitled to certain procedures and reimbursements as remedies, a parent cannot be a “party aggrieved” with regard to any claim not implicating these limited matters.
This argument is contradicted by the statutory provisions we have recited. True, there are provisions in IDEA stating parents are entitled to certain procedural protections and reimbursements; but the statute prevents us from placing too much weight on the implications to be drawn when other entitlements are accorded in less clear language. We find little support for the inference that parents are excluded by implication whenever a child is mentioned, and vice versa. Compare, e. g., § 1411(e)(3)(E) (barring States from using certain funds for costs associated with actions “brought on behalf of a child” but failing to acknowledge that actions might also be brought on behalf of a parent) with § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) (allowing recovery of attorney’s fees to a “prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability” but failing to acknowledge that a child might also be a prevailing party). Without more, then, the language in IDEA confirming that parents enjoy particular procedural and reimbursement-related rights does not resolve whether they are also entitled to enforce IDEA’S other mandates, including the one most fundamental to the Act: the provision of a free appropriate public education to a child with a disability.
We consider the statutory structure. The IEP proceedings entitle parents to participate not only in the implementation of IDEA’S procedures but also in the substantive formulation of their child’s educational program. Among other things, IDEA requires the IEP Team, which includes the parents as members, to take into account any “concerns” parents have “for enhancing the education of their child” when it formulates the IEP. § 1414(d)(3)(A)(ii). The IEP, in turn, sets the boundaries of the central entitlement provided by IDEA: It defines a “ ‘free appropriate public education’ ” for that parent’s child. § 1401(9).
The statute also empowers parents to bring challenges based on a broad range of issues. The parent may seek a hearing on “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” § 1415(b)(6)(A). To resolve these challenges a hearing officer must make a decision based on whether the child “received a free appropriate public education.” § 1415(f)(3)(E). When this hearing has been conducted by a local educational agency rather than a state educational agency, “any party aggrieved by the findings and decision rendered in such a hearing may appeal such findings and decision” to the state educational agency. § 1415(g)(1). Judicial review follows, authorized by a broadly worded provision phrased in the same terms used to describe the prior stage of review: “Any party aggrieved” may bring “a civil action.” § 1415(i)(2)(A).
These provisions confirm that IDEA, through its text and structure, creates in parents an independent stake not only in the procedures and costs implicated by this process but also in the substantive decisions to be made. We therefore conclude that IDEA does not differentiate, through isolated references to various procedures and remedies, between the rights accorded to children and the rights accorded to parents. As a consequence, a parent may be a “party aggrieved” for purposes of §1415(i)(2) with regard to “any matter” implicating these rights. See § 1415(b)(6)(A). The status of parents as parties is not limited to matters that relate to procedure and cost recovery. To find otherwise would be inconsistent with the collaborative framework and expansive system of review established by the Act. Cf. Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U. S. 66, 73 (1999) (looking to IDEA’S “overall statutory scheme” to interpret its provisions).
Our conclusion is confirmed by noting the incongruous results that would follow were we to accept the proposition that parents’ IDEA rights are limited to certain nonsubstantive matters. The statute’s procedural and reimbursement-related rights are intertwined with the substantive adequacy of the education provided to a child, see, e. g., § 1415(f)(3)(E), see also § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii), and it is difficult to disentangle the provisions in order to conclude that some rights adhere to both parent and child while others do not. Were we nevertheless to recognize a distinction of this sort it would impose upon parties a confusing and onerous legal regime, one worsened by the absence of any express guidance in IDEA concerning how a court might in practice differentiate between these matters. It is, in addition, out of accord with the statute’s design to interpret the Act to require that parents prove the substantive inadequacy of their child’s education as a predicate for obtaining, for example, reimbursement under § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii), yet to prevent them from obtaining a judgment mandating that the school district provide their child with an educational program demonstrated to be an appropriate one. The adequacy of the educational program is, after all, the central issue in the litigation. The provisions of IDEA do not set forth these distinctions, and we decline to infer them.
The bifurcated regime suggested by the courts that have employed it, moreover, leaves some parents without a remedy. The statute requires, in express terms, that States provide a child with a free appropriate public education “at public expense,” §1401(9)(A), including specially designed instruction “at no cost to parents,” § 1401(29). Parents may seek to enforce this mandate through the federal courts, we conclude, because among the rights they enjoy is the right to a free appropriate public education for their child. Under the countervailing view, which would make a parent’s ability to enforce IDEA dependant on certain procedural and reimbursement-related rights, a parent whose disabled child has not received a free appropriate public education would have recourse in the federal courts only under two circumstances: when the parent happens to have some claim related to the procedures employed; and when he or she is able to incur, and has in fact incurred, expenses creating a right to reimbursement. Otherwise the adequacy of the child’s education would not be regarded as relevant to any cause of action the parent might bring; and, as a result, only the child could vindicate the right accorded by IDEA to a free appropriate public education.
The potential for injustice in this result is apparent. What is more, we find nothing in the statute to indicate that when Congress required States to provide adequate instruction to a child “at no cost to parents,” it intended that only some parents would be able to enforce that mandate. The statute instead takes pains to “ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.” § 1400(d)(1)(B). See, e. g., § 1415(e)(2) (requiring that States implement procedures to ensure parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education); § 1415(e)(2)(A)(ii) (requiring that mediation procedures not be “used to deny or delay a parent’s right to a due process hearing ... or to deny any other rights afforded under this subchapter”); cf. § 1400(c)(3) (noting IDEA’S success in “ensuring children with disabilities and the families of such children access to a free appropriate public education”).
We conclude IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights. These rights, which are not limited to certain procedural and reimbursement-related matters, encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for the parents’ child.
C
Respondent contends, though, that even under the reasoning we have now explained petitioners cannot prevail without overcoming a further difficulty. Citing our opinion in Arlington Central School Dish Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U. S. 291 (2006), respondent argues that statutes passed pursuant to the Spending Clause, such as IDEA, must provide “‘clear notice’” before they can burden a State with some new condition, obligation, or liability. Brief for Respondent 41. Respondent contends that because IDEA is, at best, ambiguous as to whether it accords parents independent rights, it has failed to provide clear notice of this condition to the States. See id., at 40-49.
Respondent’s reliance on Arlington is misplaced. In Arlington we addressed whether IDEA required States to reimburse experts’ fees to prevailing parties in IDEA actions. “[W]hen Congress attaches conditions to a State’s acceptance of federal funds,” we explained, “the conditions must be set out ‘unambiguously. ’ ” 548 U. S., at 296 (quoting Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981)). The question to be answered in Arlington, therefore, was whether IDEA “furnishes clear notice regarding the liability at issue.” 548 U. S., at 296. We found it did not.
The instant case presents a different issue, one that does not invoke the same rule. Our determination that IDEA grants to parents independent, enforceable rights does not impose any substantive condition or obligation on States they would not otherwise be required by law to observe. The basic measure of monetary recovery, moreover, is not expanded by recognizing that some rights repose in both the parent and the child. Were we considering a statute other than the one before us, the Spending Clause argument might have more force: A determination by the Court that some distinct class of people has independent, enforceable rights might result in a change to the States’ statutory obligations. But that is not the case here.
Respondent argues our ruling will, as a practical matter, increase costs borne by the States as they are forced to defend against suits unconstrained by attorneys trained in the law and the rules of ethics. Effects such as these do not suffice to invoke the concerns under the Spending Clause. Furthermore, IDEA does afford relief for the States in certain cases. The Act empowers courts to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing educational agency whenever a parent has presented a “complaint or subsequent cause of action ... for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III). This provision allows some relief when a party has proceeded in violation of these standards.
Ill
The Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the Winkelmans’ appeal for lack of counsel. Parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf. The decision by Congress to grant parents these rights was consistent with the purpose of IDEA and fully in accord with our social and legal traditions. It is beyond dispute that the relationship between a parent and child is sufficient to support a legally cognizable interest in the education of one’s child; and, what is more, Congress has found that “the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . .. strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home.” § 1400(c)(5).
In light of our holding we need not reach petitioners’ alternative argument, which concerns whether IDEA entitles parents to litigate their child’s claims pro se.
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.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burton
delivered the opinion
This case presents two questions as to the liability of a stevedoring contractor to reimburse a shipowner for damages paid by the latter to one of the contractor’s longshoremen on account of injuries received by him in the course of his employment on shipboard. 1. The first question is whether the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act precludes a shipowner from asserting such a liability. 2. The second is whether the liability exists where a contractor, without entering into an express agreement of indemnity, contracts to perform a shipowner’s stevedoring operations and the longshoreman’s injuries are caused by the contractor’s unsafe stowage of the ship’s cargo. For the reasons hereafter stated, we answer the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative.
In 1949, respondent, Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, a Delaware corporation, operated the SS. Canton Victory in the American coastwise trade under a bareboat charter. As evidenced by letters, but without a formal stevedoring contract or an express indemnity agreement, respondent secured, for that year, the agreement of petitioner, Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc., an Alabama corporation, to perform all stevedoring operations required by respondent in its coastwise service. Pursuant to that contract, petitioner loaded the Canton Victory at Georgetown, South Carolina, with mixed cargo. This included pulpboard, such as is used in making corrugated paper and paper bags, shipped in rolls 4 feet wide and 3 to 5 feet long. Petitioner stowed some of these rolls side-by-side on the floor of Hatch No. 3 and “nested” others above them by placing the upper rolls in the troughs between the lower ones. To immobilize the rolls, it was necessary to secure or “chock” the bottom tier with wedges or with miscellaneous pieces of wood known as “dunnage.” There is little evidence as to what took place when the rolls were stowed at Georgetown but it was the uniform practice of petitioner’s longshoremen to stow such cargo under the immediate direction of their hatch foremen, while respondent’s cargo officers supervised the loading of the entire ship and had authority to reject unsafe stowage.
A few days later, on July 20, 1949, in navigable water at a pier in Brooklyn, New York, petitioner engaged in unloading these rolls. While one of petitioner’s Brooklyn longshoremen, Frank Palazzolo, was working in Hatch No. 3, one roll, weighing about 3,200 pounds, broke loose from the others, struck him violently and severely injured his left leg. There is no evidence that he was negligent. On the other hand, it appears that the rolls in Hatch No. 3 had been insufficiently secured when stowed by petitioner in Georgetown. This is established by the absence of proper wedges and dunnage holding the rolls in place at the time of the accident.
Petitioner’s insurance carrier under the Longshoremen’s Act paid Palazzolo $2,940 compensation and furnished him medical services costing $9,857.36, all without any formal award by the Deputy Commissioner. As permitted by § 33 of that Act, Palazzolo sued the respondent-shipowner in the Supreme Court of New York. He claimed that the unsafe stowage of the cargo, which caused his injuries, established either the unseaworthiness of the ship, or the shipowner’s negligence in failing to furnish him with a safe place to work, or both. The shipowner removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and filed a third-party complaint against petitioner. By stipulation, Palazzolo’s case against the shipowner was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in his favor for $75,000. The District Court entered judgment on the jury verdict. From the above sum, petitioner’s insurance carrier was to be reimbursed for the $12,797.36 it had advanced because of Palazzolo’s injuries.
Also by stipulation, the shipowner’s third-party complaint was submitted on the same record to the judge who had presided over Palazzolo’s case. He dismissed the complaint. Ill F. Supp. 505. The Court of Appeals affirmed Palazzolo’s judgment but reversed the dismissal of the third-party complaint and directed that judgment be entered for the shipowner. 211 F. 2d 277. Petitioner, the stevedoring contractor, contends that the order reversing the dismissal of the impleader suit is erroneous. Because of the wide application of the case and the conflicting views that have been expressed on the issues, we granted certiorari. 348 U. S. 813. The United States filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of the shipowner and took part in the oral argument. 348 U. S. 948. The judgment was affirmed by an equally divided Court, 349 U. S. 901, but the case was restored to the docket for reargument before a full Court, 349 U. S. 926.
1. The first question is whether the Longshoremen’s Compensation Act precludes the assertion by a shipowner of a stevedoring contractor’s liability to it, where the contractor is also the employer of the injured longshoreman.
Neither court below discussed this question, although petitioner presented it to them. Petitioner’s argument is based upon the following provision in the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act:
“Sec. 5. The liability of an employer prescribed in section 4 [for compensation] shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death, except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this Act, an injured employee, or his legal representative in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this Act, or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) 44 Stat. 1426, 33 U. S. C. § 905.
The obvious purpose of this provision is to make the statutory liability of an employer to contribute to its employee’s compensation the exclusive liability of such employer to its employee, or to anyone claiming under or through such employee, on account of his injury or death arising out of that employment. In return, the employee, and those claiming under or through him, are given a substantial quid pro quo in the form of an assured compensation, regardless of fault, as a substitute for their excluded claims. On the other hand, the Act prescribes no quid pro quo for a shipowner that is compelled to pay a judgment obtained against it for the full amount of a longshoreman’s damages.
Section 5 of the Act expressly excludes the liability of the employer “to the employee,” or others, entitled to recover “on account of such [employee’s] injury or death.” Therefore, in the instant case, it excludes the liability of the stevedoring contractor to its longshoreman, and to his kin, for damages on account of the longshoreman’s injuries. At the same time, however, § 5 expressly preserves to each employee a right to recover damages against third persons. It thus preserves the right, which Palazzolo has exercised, to recover damages from the shipowner in the present case. The Act nowhere expressly excludes or limits a shipowner’s right, as a third person, to insure itself against such a liability either by a bond of indemnity, or the contractor’s own agreement to save the shipowner harmless. Petitioner’s agreement in the instant case amounts to the latter for, as will be shown, it is a contractual undertaking to stow the cargo “with reasonable safety” and thus to save the shipowner harmless from petitioner’s failure to do so.
In the face of a formal bond of indemnity this statute clearly does not cut off a shipowner’s right to recover from a bonding company the reimbursement that the indemnitor, for good consideration, has expressly contracted to pay. Such a liability springs from an independent contractual right. It is not an action by or on behalf of the employee and it is not one to recover damages “on account of” an employee’s “injury or death.” It is a simple action to recover, under a voluntary and self-sufficient contract, a sum measured by foreseeable damages occasioned to the shipowner by the injury or death of a longshoreman on its ship.
A like result occurs where a shipowner sues, for breach of warranty, a supplier of defective ship’s gear that has caused injury or death to a longshoreman using it in the course of his employment on shipboard. And a like liability for breach of contract accrues to a shipowner against a stevedoring contractor in any instance when the latter’s improper stowage of cargo causes an injury on shipboard to-some one other than one of its employees. The coincidence that the loading contractor here happens to be the employer of the injured longshoreman makes no difference in principle. While the Compensation Act protects a stevedoring contractor from actions brought against it by its employee on account of the contractor’s tortious conduct causing injury to the employee, the contractor has no logical ground for relief from the full consequences of its independent contractual obligation, voluntarily assumed to the shipowner, to load the cargo properly. See American Stevedores v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446; Crawford v. Pope & Talbot, 206 F. 2d 784, 792-793; Brown v. American-Hawaiian S. S. Co., 211 F. 2d 16; Rich v. United States, 177 F. 2d 688; United States v. Arrow Stevedoring Co., 175 F. 2d 329.
The shipowner’s action here is not founded upon a tort or upon any duty which the stevedoring contractor owes to its employee. The third-party complaint is grounded upon the contractor’s breach of its purely consensual obligation owing to the shipowner to stow the cargo in a reasonably safe manner. Accordingly, the shipowner’s action for indemnity on that basis is not barred by the Compensation Act.
2. The other question is whether, in the absence of an express agreement of indemnity, a stevedoring contractor is obligated to reimburse a shipowner for damages caused it by the contractor’s improper stowage of cargo.
The answer to this is found in the precise ground of the shipowner’s action. By hypothesis, its action is not based on a bond of indemnity such as it may purchase by way of insurance, or may require of its stevedoring contractor, and which expressly undertakes to save the shipowner harmless. If the shipowner did hold such an express agreement of indemnity here, it is not disputed that it would be enforceable against the indemnitor. On the other hand, the shipowner’s action for indemnity here is not based merely on the ground that the shipowner and contractor each is responsible in some related degree for the tortious stowage of cargo that caused injury to Palazzolo. Such an action, brought without reliance upon contractual undertakings, would present the bald question whether the stevedoring contractor or the shipowner, because of their respective responsibilities for the unsafe stowage, should bear the ultimate burden of the injured longshoreman’s judgment. That question has been widely discussed elsewhere in terms of the relative responsibility of the parties for the tort, and those discussions have dealt with concepts of primary and secondary or active and passive tortious conduct. Because respondent in the instant case relies entirely upon petitioner’s contractual obligation, we do not meet the question of a noncontractual right of indemnity or of the relation of the Compensation Act to such a right.
The shipowner’s claim here also is not a claim for contribution from a joint tortfeasor. Consequently, the considerations which led to the decision in Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U. S. 282, are not applicable. See American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 182 F. 2d 322.
The shipowner here holds petitioner’s uncontroverted agreement to perform all of the shipowner’s stevedoring operations at the time and place where the cargo in question was loaded. That agreement necessarily includes petitioner’s obligation not only to stow the pulp rolls, but to stow them properly and safely. Competency and safety of stowage are inescapable elements of the service undertaken. This obligation is not a quasi-contractual obligation implied in law or arising out of a noncon-tractual relationship. It is of the essence of petitioner’s stevedoring contract. It is petitioner’s warranty of workmanlike service that is comparable to a manufacturer’s warranty of the soundness of its manufactured product. The shipowner’s action is not changed from one for a breach of contract to one for a tort simply because recovery may turn upon the standard of the performance of petitioner’s stevedoring service.
The Court of Appeals has stated that the liability of petitioner in this case is for the performance of its obligation to stow the rolls on board ship “in a reasonably safe manner.” 211 F. 2d, at 279. That court also has affirmed the decision of the District Court which was based upon the verdict of the jury that petitioner’s improper stowage of the rolls produced either the unseaworthiness of the ship, or the hazardous working condition which is the basis for the shipowner’s liability to Palazzolo.
Petitioner suggests that, because the shipowner had an obligation to supervise the stowage and had a right to reject unsafe stowage of the cargo and did not do so, it now should be barred from recovery from the stevedor-ing contractor of any damage caused by that contractor’s uncorrected failure to stow the rolls “in a reasonably safe manner.” Accepting the facts and obligations as above stated, the shipowner’s present claim against the contractor should not thereby be defeated. Whatever may have been the respective obligations of the stevedoring contractor and of the shipowner to the injured longshoreman for proper stowage of the cargo, it is clear that, as between themselves, the contractor, as the war-rantor of its own services, cannot use the shipowner’s failure to discover and correct the contractor’s own breach of warranty as a defense. Respondent’s failure to discover and correct petitioner’s own breach of contract cannot here excuse that breach.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is
Affirmed.
44 Stat. 1424 et seq., as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq.
“Sec. 33. (a) If on account of a disability or death for which compensation is payable under this Act the person entitled to such compensation determines that some person other than the employer is liable in damages, he may elect, by giving notice to the deputy commissioner in such manner as the Secretary [of Labor] may provide, to receive such compensation or to recover damages against such third person.
“(b) Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person.
“(i) Where the employer is insured and the insurance carrier has assumed the payment of the compensation, the insurance carrier shall be subrogated to all the rights of the employer under this section.” 44 Stat. 1440, as amended, 33 XJ. S. C. § 933 (a) (b) and (i).
For procedure to secure an award of compensation, see § 19, 44 Stat. 1435-1436, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 919.
A longshoreman, after accepting compensation payments from his employer without an award, may sue a third-party tortfeasor for his injuries. American Stevedores v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446, 454-456. If the facts permit, he may recover from the shipowner for unseaworthiness, or for negligence, or both. Pope & Talbot v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406.
In the instant case, the stevedoring contractor, however, has received a contractual quid pro quo from the shipowner for assuming responsibility for the proper performance of all of the latter’s steve-doring requirements, including the discharge of foreseeable damages resulting to the shipowner from the contractor’s improper performance of those requirements. See Restatement, Contracts, §§ 334, 330; Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. Gutradt Co., 10 F. 2d 769; Mowbray v. Merryweather, [1895] 2 Q. B. 640 (C. A.).
See § 33 (a) in note 2, swpra.
There is nothing in the legislative history of the Compensation Act calling for a contrary interpretation. Our interpretation of that Act is supported also by that of the New York Workmen’s Compensation Act upon which it is modeled. The latter Act provides that the— “liability of an employer [for compensation] prescribed by the last preceding section shall be exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever, to such employee, his personal representatives, husband, parents, dependents or next of kin, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages, at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death . . . .” McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 11.
See Westchester Lighting Co. v. Westchester County Corp., 278 N. Y. 175, 15 N. E. 2d 567. Other state courts have reached comparable results as to exclusive liability clauses in their respective Compensation Acts. 2 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§76.00-76.44 (a).
We do not reach the issue of the exclusionary effect of the Compensation Act upon a right of action of a shipowner under comparable circumstances without reliance upon an indemnity or service agreement of a stevedoring contractor. See Brown v. American-Hawaiian S. S. Co., 211 F. 2d 16,18; States S. S. Co. v. Rothschild International Stevedoring Co., 205 F. 2d 253; Slattery v. Marra Bros., 186 F. 2d 134 (N. J. statute); United States v. Rothschild International Stevedoring Co., 183 F. 2d 181; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 182 F. 2d 322; American District Telegraph Co. v. Kittleson, 179 F. 2d 946; McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Beige, 304 N. Y. 314, 107 N. E. 2d 463. And see generally, Weinstock, The Employer’s Duty to Indemnify Shipowners for Damages Recovered by Harbor Workers, 103 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 321 (1954).
See Brown v. American-Hawaiian S. S. Co., supra; Crawford v. Pope & Talbot, supra; McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Beige, supra; Weinstock, The Employer’s Duty to Indemnify Shipowners for Damages Recovered by Harbor Workers, supra.
See Union Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 196 U. S. 217; Brown v. American-Hawaiian S. S. Co., supra; Crawford v. Pope & Talbot, supra, at 792-793; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Matthews, supra, at 323-325; Rich v. United States, supra; Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. Gutradt Co., supra; Mowbray v. Merryweather, supra; Dunn v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 175 N. Y. 214, 67 N. E. 439.
See Berti v. Compagnie de Navigation Cyprien Fabre, 213 F. 2d 397; Hastorf Contracting Co. v. Ocean Transportation Corp., 4 F. 2d 583, aff’d, 4 F. 2d 584; Mowbray v. Merryweather, supra; Boston Woven Hose Co. v. Kendall, 178 Mass. 232, 59 N. E. 657.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to interpret the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U. S. C. App. § 1300 et seq., as it relates to a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration in a foreign country. The question is whether a foreign arbitration clause in a bill of lading is invalid under COGSA because it lessens liability in the sense that COGSA prohibits. Our holding that COGSA does not forbid selection of the foreign forum makes it unnecessary to resolve the further question whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V), would override COGSA were it interpreted otherwise. In our view, the relevant provisions of COGSA and the FAA are in accord, not in conflict.
I
The contract at issue in this case is a standard form bill of lading to evidence the purchase of a shipload of Moroccan oranges and lemons. The purchaser was Bacchus Associates (Bacchus), a New York partnership that distributes fruit at wholesale throughout the Northeastern United States. Bacchus dealt with Galaxie Negoce, S. A. (Galaxie), a Moroccan fruit supplier. Bacchus contracted with Galaxie to purchase the shipload of fruit and chartered a ship to transport it from Morocco to Massachusetts. The ship was the M/V Sky Reefer, a refrigerated cargo ship owned by M. H. Marítima, S. A., a Panamanian company, and time-chartered to Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha, Ltd., a Japanese company. Stevedores hired by Galaxie loaded and stowed the cargo. As is customary in these types of transactions, when it received the cargo from Galaxie, Nichiro as carrier issued a form bill of lading to Galaxie as shipper and consignee. Once the ship set sail from Morocco, Galaxie tendered the bill of lading to Bacchus according to the terms of a letter of credit posted in Galaxie’s favor.
Among the rights and responsibilities set out in the bill of lading were arbitration and choice-of-law clauses. Clause 3, entitled “Governing Law and Arbitration,” provided:
“(1) The contract evidenced by or contained in this Bill of Lading shall be governed by the Japanese law.
“(2) Any dispute arising from this Bill of Lading shall be referred to arbitration in Tokyo by the Tokyo Maritime Arbitration Commission (TOMAC) of The Japan Shipping Exchange, Inc., in accordance with the rules of TOMAC' and any amendment thereto, and the award given by the arbitrators shall be final and binding on both parties.” App. 49.
When the vessel’s hatches were opened for discharge in Massachusetts, Bacchus discovered that thousands of boxes of oranges had shifted in the cargo holds, resulting in over $1 million damage. Bacchus received $733,442.90 compensation from petitioner Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros (Vimar Seguros), Bacchus’ marine cargo insurer that became subro-gated pro tanto to Bacchus’ rights. Petitioner and Bacchus then brought suit against Marítima in personam and M/V Sky Reefer in rem in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the bill of lading. These defendants, respondents here, moved to stay the action and compel arbitration in Tokyo under clause 3 of the bill of lading and §3 of the FAA, which requires courts to stay proceedings and enforce arbitration agreements covered by the Act. Petitioner and Bacchus opposed the motion, arguing the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the FAA both because it was a contract of adhesion and because it violated COGSA § 3(8). The premise of the latter argument was that the in-. convenience and costs of proceeding in Japan would “lesse[n] .. . liability” as those terms are used in COGSA.
The District Court rejected the adhesion argument, observing that Congress defined the arbitration agreements enforceable under the FAA to include maritime bills of lading, 9 U. S. C. § 1, and that petitioner was a sophisticated party familiar with the negotiation of maritime shipping transactions. It also rejected the argument that requiring the parties to submit to arbitration would lessen respondents’ liability under COGSA §3(8). The court granted the motion to stay judicial proceedings and to compel arbitration; it retained jurisdiction pending arbitration; and at petitioner’s request, it certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) its ruling to compel arbitration, stating that the controlling question of law was “whether [COGSA § 3(8)] nullifies an arbitration clause contained in a bill of lading governed by COGSA.” Pet. for Cert. 30a.
The First Circuit affirmed the order to arbitrate. 29 F. 3d 727 (1994). Although it expressed grave doubt whether a foreign arbitration clause lessened liability under COGSA §3(8), id., at 730, the Court of Appeals assumed the clause was invalid under COGSA and resolved the conflict between the statutes in favor of the FAA, which it considered to be the later enacted and more specific statute, id., at 731-733. We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 1013 (1995), to resolve a Circuit split on the enforceability of foreign arbitration clauses in maritime bills of lading. Compare the case below (enforcing foreign arbitration clause assuming arguendo it violated COGSA), with State Establishment for Agricultural Product Trading v. M/V Wesermunde, 838 F. 2d 1576 (CA11) (declining to enforce foreign arbitration clause because that would violate COGSA), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 916 (1988). We now affirm.
II
The parties devote much of their argument to the question whether COGSA or the FAA has priority. “[W]hen two statutes are capable of co-existence,” however, “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); Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 491 U. S. 490, 510 (1989). There is no conflict unless COGSA by its own terms nullifies a foreign arbitration clause, and we choose to address that issue rather than assume nullification arguendo, as the Court of Appeals did. We consider the two arguments made by petitioner. The first is that a foreign arbitration clause lessens COGSA liability by increasing the transaction costs of obtaining relief. The second is that there is a risk foreign arbitrators will not apply COGSA.
A
The leading case for invalidation of a foreign forum selection clause is the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Indussa Corp. v. S. S. Ranborg, 377 F. 2d 200 (1967) (en banc). The court there found that COGSA invalidated a clause designating a foreign judicial forum because it “puts ‘a high hurdle’ in the way of enforcing liability, and thus is an effective means for carriers to secure settlements lower than if cargo [owners] could sue in a convenient forum.” Id., at 203 (citation omitted). The court observed “there could be no assurance that [the foreign court] would apply [COGSA] in the same way as would an American tribunal subject to the uniform control of the Supreme Court.” Id., at 203-204. Following Indussa, the Courts of Appeals without exception have invalidated foreign forum selection clauses under §3(8). See Union Ins. Soc. of Canton, Ltd. v. S. S. Elikon, 642 F. 2d 721, 723-725 (CA4 1981); Conklin & Garrett, Ltd v. M/V Finnrose, 826 F. 2d 1441, 1442-1444 (CA5 1987); see also G. Gilmore & C. Black, Law of Admiralty 145-146, n. 23 (2d ed. 1975) (approving Indussa rule). As foreign arbitration clauses are but a subset of foreign forum selection clauses in general, Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U. S. 506, 519 (1974), the Indussa holding has been extended to foreign arbitration clauses as well. See State Establishment for Agricultural Product Trading, supra, at 1580-1581; cf. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, supra, at 730, (assuming, arguendo, Indussa applies). The logic of that extension would be quite defensible, but we cannot endorse the reasoning or the conclusion of the Indussa rule itself.
The determinative provision in COGSA, examined with care, does not support the arguments advanced first in In-dussa and now by petitioner. Section 3(8) of COGSA provides as follows:
“Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with the goods, arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this section, or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this chapter, shall be null and void and of no effect.” 46 U. S. C. App. § 1303(8).
The liability that may not be lessened is “liability for loss or damage . . . arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this section.” The statute thus addresses the lessening of the specific liability imposed by the Act, without addressing the separate question of the means and costs of enforcing that liability. The difference is that between explicit statutory guarantees and the procedure for enforcing them, between applicable liability principles and the forum in which they are to be vindicated.
The liability imposed on carriers under COGSA §3 is defined by explicit standards of conduct, and it is designed to correct specific abuses by carriers. In the 19th century it was a prevalent practice for common carriers to insert clauses in bills of lading exempting themselves from liability for damage or loss, limiting the period in which plaintiffs had to present their notice of claim or bring suit, and capping any damages awards per package. See 2A M. Sturley, Benedict on Admiralty §11, pp. 2-2 to 2-3 (1995); 2 T. Schoen-baum, Admiralty and Maritime Law §10-13 (2d ed. 1994); Yancey, The Carriage of Goods: Hague, COGSA, Visby, and Hamburg, 57 Tulane L. Rev. 1238, 1239-1240 (1983). Thus, §3, entitled “Responsibilities and liabilities of carrier and ship,” requires that the carrier “exercise due diligence to ... [m]ake the ship seaworthy” and “[p]roperly man, equip, and supply the ship” before and at the beginning of the voyage, § 3(1), “properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried,” § 3(2), and issue a bill of lading with specified contents, § 3(3). 46 U. S. C. App. §§ 1303(1), (2), and (3). Section 3(6) allows the cargo owner to provide notice of loss or damage within three days and to bring suit within one year. These are the substantive obligations and particular procedures that §3(8) prohibits a carrier from altering to its advantage in a bill of lading. Nothing in this section, however, suggests that the statute prevents the parties from agreeing to enforce these obligations in a particular forum. By its terms, it establishes certain duties and obligations, separate and apart from the mechanisms for their enforcement.
Petitioner’s contrary reading of §3(8) is undermined by the Court’s construction of a similar statutory provision in Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U. S. 585 (1991). There a number of Washington residents argued that a Florida forum selection clause contained in a cruise ticket should not be enforced because the expense and inconvenience of litigation in Florida would “caus[e] plaintiffs unreasonable hardship in asserting their rights,” id., at 596, and therefore “ ‘lessen, weaken, or avoid the right of any claimant to a trial by court of competent jurisdiction on the question of liability for . . . loss or injury, or the measure of damages therefor’ ” in violation of the Limitation of Vessel Owner’s Liability Act, id., at 595-596 (quoting 46 U. S. C. App. § 183c). We observed that the clause “does not purport to limit petitioner’s liability for negligence,” 499 U. S., at 596-597, and enforced the agreement over the dissent’s argument, based in part on the Indussa line of cases, that the cost and inconvenience of traveling thousands of miles “lessens or weakens [plaintiffs’] ability to recover,” 499 U. S., at 603 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
If the question whether a provision lessens liability were answered by reference to the costs and inconvenience to the cargo owner, there would be no principled basis for distinguishing national from foreign arbitration clauses. Even if it were reasonable to read § 3(8) to make a distinction based on travel time, airfare, and hotels bills, these factors are not susceptible of a simple and enforceable distinction between domestic and foreign forums. Requiring a Seattle cargo owner to arbitrate in New York likely imposes more costs and burdens than a foreign arbitration clause requiring it to arbitrate in Vancouver. It would be unwieldy and unsupported by the terms or policy of the statute to require courts to proceed case by case to tally the costs and burdens to particular plaintiffs in light of their means, the size of their claims, and the relative burden on the carrier.
Our reading of “lessening such liability” to exclude increases in the transaction costs of litigation also finds support in the goals of the Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading, 51 Stat. 233 (1924) (Hague Rules), on which COGSA is modeled. Sixty-six countries, including the United States and Japan, are now parties to the Convention, see Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, Treaties in Force: A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1,1994, p. 367 (June 1994), and it appears that none has interpreted its enactment of §3(8) of the Hague Rules to prohibit foreign forum selection clauses, see Sturley, International Uniform Laws in National Courts: The Influence of Domestic Law in Conflicts of Interpretation, 27 Va. J. Int’l L. 729, 776-796 (1987). The English courts long ago rejected the reasoning later adopted by the Indussa court. See Maharani Woollen Mills Co. v. Anchor Line, [1927] 29 Lloyd’s List L. Rep. 169 (C. A.) (Scrutton, L. J.) (“[T]he liability of the carrier appears to me to remain exactly the same under the clause. The only difference is a question of procedure — where shall the law be enforced?— and I do not read any clause as to procedure as lessening liability”). And other countries that do not recognize foreign forum selection clauses rely on specific provisions to that effect in their domestic versions of the Hague Rules, see, e. g., Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924, § 9(2) (Australia); Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, No. 1 of 1986, § 3 (South Africa). In light of the fact that COGSA is the culmination of a multilateral effort “to establish uniform ocean bills of lading to govern the rights and liabilities of carriers and shippers inter se in international trade,” Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp., 359 U. S. 297, 301 (1959), we decline to interpret our version of the Hague Rules in a manner contrary to every other nation to have addressed this issue. See Sturley, supra, at 736 (conflicts in the interpretation of the Hague Rules not only destroy esthetic symmetry in the international legal order but impose real costs on the commercial system the Rules govern).
It would also be out of keeping with the objects of the Convention for the courts of this country to interpret COGSA to disparage the authority or competence of international forums for dispute resolution. Petitioner’s skepticism over the ability of foreign arbitrators to apply COGSA or the Hague Rules, and its reliance on this aspect of Indussa Corp. v. S. S. Ranborg, 377 F. 2d 200 (CA2 1967), must give way to contemporary principles of international comity and commercial practice. As the Court observed in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1 (1972), when it enforced a foreign forum selection clause, the historical judicial resist-anee to foreign forum selection clauses “has little place in an era when . . . businesses once essentially local now operate in world markets.” Id., at 12. “The expansion of American business and industry will hardly be encouraged,” we explained, “if, notwithstanding solemn contracts, we insist on a parochial concept that all disputes must be resolved under our laws and in our courts.” Id., at 9. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 638 (1985) (if international arbitral institutions “are to take a central place in the international legal order, national courts will need to ‘shake off the old judicial hostility to arbitration,’ and also their customary and understandable unwillingness to cede jurisdiction of a claim arising under domestic law to a foreign or transnational tribunal”) (citation omitted); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U. S., at 516 (“A parochial refusal by the courts of one country to enforce an international arbitration agreement” would frustrate “the orderliness and predictability essential to any international business transaction”); see also Allison, Arbitration of Private Antitrust Claims in International Trade: A Study in the Subordination of National Interests to the Demands of a World Market, 18 N. Y. U. J. Int’l Law & Pol. 361, 439 (1986).
That the forum here is arbitration only heightens the irony of petitioner’s argument, for the FAA is also based in part on an international convention, 9 U. S. C. §201 et seq. (codifying the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, [1970] 21 U. S. T. 2517, T. I. A. S. No. 6997), intended “to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries,” Scherk, supra, at 520, n. 15. The FAA requires enforcement of arbitration agreements in contracts that involve interstate commerce, see Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265 (1995), and in maritime transactions, including bills of lading, see 9 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, 201, 202, where there is no independent basis in law or equity for revocation, cf. Carnival Cruise Lines, 499 U. S., at 595 (“[Fjorum-selection clauses contained in form passage contracts are subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness”). If the United States is to be able to gain the benefits of international accords and have a role as a trusted partner in multilateral endeavors, its courts should be most cautious before interpreting its domestic legislation in such manner as to violate international agreements. That concern counsels against construing COGSA to nullify foreign arbitration clauses because of inconvenience to the plaintiff or insular distrust of the ability of foreign arbitrators to apply the law.
B
Petitioner’s second argument against enforcement of the Japanese arbitration clause is that there is no guarantee foreign arbitrators will apply COGSA. This objection raises a concern of substance. The central guarantee of § 3(8) is that the terms of a bill of lading may not relieve the carrier of the obligations or diminish the legal duties specified by the Act. The relevant question, therefore, is whether the substantive law to be applied will reduce the carrier’s obligations to the cargo owner below what COGSA guarantees. See Mitsubishi Motors, supra, at 637, n. 19.
Petitioner argues that the arbitrators will follow the Japanese Hague Rules, which, petitioner contends, lessen respondents’ liability in, at least one significant respect. The Japanese version of the Hague Rules, it is said, provides the carrier with a defense based on the acts or omissions of the stevedores hired by the shipper, Galaxie, see App. 112, Article 3(1) (carrier liable “when he or the persons employed by him” fail to take due care), while COGSA, according to petitioner, makes nondelegable the carrier’s obligation to “properly and carefully . . . stow ... the goods carried,” COGSA § 3(2), 46 U. S. C. App. § 1303(2); see Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. M/V Arktis Sky, 978 F. 2d 47, 50 (CA2 1992). But see COGSA §4(2)(i), 46 U. S. C. App. § 1304(2)(i) (“Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from ... [a]ct or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative”); COGSA §3(8), 46 U.S.C. App. §1303(8) (agreement may not relieve or lessen liability “otherwise than as provided in this chapter”); Hegarty, A COGSA Carrier’s Duty to Load and Stow Cargo is Nondelegable, or Is It?: Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. M/V Arktis Sky, 18 Tulane Mar. L. J. 125 (1993).
Whatever the merits of petitioner’s comparative reading of COGSA and its Japanese counterpart, its claim is premature. At this interlocutory stage it is not established what law the arbitrators will apply to petitioner’s claims or that petitioner will receive diminished protection as a result. The arbitrators may conclude that COGSA applies of its own force or that Japanese law does not apply so that, under another clause of the bill of lading, COGSA controls. Respondents seek only to enforce the arbitration agreement. The District Court has retained jurisdiction over the case and “will have the opportunity at the award-enforcement stage to ensure that the legitimate interest in the enforcement of the . . . laws has been addressed.” Mitsubishi Motors, supra, at 638; cf. 1 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §482(2)(d) (1986) (“A court in the United States need not recognize a judgment of the court of a foreign state if... the judgment itself, is repugnant to the public policy of the United States”). Were there no subsequent opportunity for review and were we persuaded that “the ehoice-of-forum and choice-of-law clauses operated in tandem as a prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies ... , we would have little hesitation in condemning the agreement as against public policy.” Mitsubishi Motors, supra, at 637, n. 19. Cf. Knott v. Botany Mills, 179 U. S. 69 (1900) (nullifying choice-of-law provision under the Harter Act, the statutory precursor to COGSA, where British law would give effect to provision in bill of lading that purported to exempt carrier from liability for damage to goods caused by carrier’s negligence in loading and stowage of cargo); The Hollandia, [1983] A. C. 565, 574-575 (H. L. 1982) (noting choice-of-forum clause “does not ex facie offend against article III, paragraph 8,” but holding clause unenforceable where “the foreign court chosen as the exclusive forum would apply a domestic substantive law which would result in limiting the carrier’s liability to a sum lower than that to which he would be entitled if [English COGSA] applied”). Under the circumstances of this case, however, the First Circuit was correct to reserve judgment on the choice-of-law question, 29 F. 3d, at 729, n. 3, as it must be decided in the first instance by the arbitrator, cf. Mitsubishi Motors, 473 U. S., at 637, n. 19. As the District Court has retained jurisdiction, mere speculation that the foreign arbitrators might apply Japanese law which, depending on the proper construction of COGSA, might reduce respondents’ legal obligations, does not in and of itself lessen liability under COGSA § 3(8).
Because we hold that foreign arbitration clauses in bills of lading are not invalid under COGSA in all circumstances, both the FAA and COGSA may be given full effect. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this 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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The North Carolina Charitable Solicitations Act governs the solicitation of charitable contributions by professional fundraisers. As relevant here, it defines the prima facie “reasonable fee” that a professional fundraiser may charge as a percentage of the gross revenues solicited; requires professional fundraisers to disclose to potential donors the gross percentage of revenues retained in prior charitable solicitations; and requires professional fundraisers to obtain a license before engaging in solicitation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that these aspects of the Act unconstitutionally infringed upon freedom of speech. We affirm.
I
Responding to a study showing that in the previous five years the State’s largest professional fundraisers had retained as fees and costs well over 50% of the gross revenues collected in charitable solicitation drives, North Carolina amended its Charitable Solicitations Act in 1985. As amended, the Act prohibits professional fundraisers from retaining an “unreasonable” or “excessive” fee, a term defined by a three-tiered schedule. A fee up to 20% of the gross receipts collected is deemed reasonable. If the fee retained is between 20% and 35%, the Act deems it unreasonable upon a showing- that the solicitation at issue did not involve the “dissemination of information, discussion, or advocacy relating to public issues as directed by the [charitable organization] which is to benefit from the solicitation.” Finally, a fee exceeding 35% is presumed unreasonable, but the fundraiser may rebut the presumption by showing that the amount of the fee was necessary either (1) because the solicitation involved the dissemination of information or advocacy on public issues directed by the charity, or (2) because otherwise the charity’s ability to raise money or communicate would be significantly diminished. As the State describes the Act, even where a prima facie showing of unreasonableness has been rebutted, the factfinder must still make an ultimate determination, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether the fee was reasonable — a showing that the solicitation involved the advocacy or dissemination of information does not alone establish that the total fee was reasonable. See Brief for Appellants 10-11; Reply Brief for Appellants 2-3.
The Act also provides that, prior to any appeal for funds, a professional fundraiser must disclose to potential donors: (1) his or her name; (2) the name of the professional solicitor or professional fundraising counsel by whom he or she is employed and the name and address of his or her employer; and (3) the average percentage of gross receipts actually turned over to charities by the fundraiser for all charitable' solicitations conducted in North Carolina within the previous 12 months. Only the third disclosure requirement is challenged here:
Finally, professional fundraisers may not solicit without an approved license. In contrast, volunteer fundraisers may solicit immediately upon submitting a license application. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 131C-4 (1986). A licensing provision had been in effect prior to the 1985 amendments, but the prior law allowed both professional and volunteer fundraisers to solicit as soon as a license application was submitted.
A coalition of professional fundraisers, charitable organizations, and potential charitable donors brought suit against various government officials charged with the enforcement of the Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as North Carolina or the State), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled on summary judgment that the foregoing aspects of the Act on their face unconstitutionally infringed upon freedom of speech (it also found the Act constitutional in other respects not before us now), and enjoined enforcement of the unconstitutional provisions. 635 F. Supp. 256 (1986). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in a per curiam opinion. 817 F. 2d 102 (judgment order), and we noted probable jurisdiction, 484 U. S. 911 (1987).
II
We turn first to the “reasonable fee” provision. In deciding this issue, we do not write on a blank slate; the Court has heretofore twice considered laws regulating the financial aspects of charitable solicitations. We first examined such a law in Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620 (1980). There we invalidated a local ordinance requiring charitable solicitors to use, for charitable purposes (defined to exclude funds used toward administrative expenses and the costs of conducting the solicitation), 75% of the funds solicited. We began our analysis by categorizing the type of speech at issue. The village argued that charitable solicitation is akin to a business proposition, and therefore constitutes merely commercial speech. We rejected that approach and squarely held, on the basis of considerable precedent, that charitable solicitations “involve a variety of speech interests... that are within the protection of the First Amendment,” and therefore have not been dealt with as “purely commercial speech.” Id., at 632. Applying standard First Amendment analysis, we determined that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to achieve, the village’s principal asserted interest: the prevention of fraud. We concluded that some charities, especially those formed primarily to advocate, collect, or disseminate information, would of necessity need to expend more than 259c of the funds collected on administration or fundraising expenses. Id., at 635-637. Yet such an eventuality would not render a solicitation by these charities fraudulent. In short, the prevention of fraud was only “peripherally promoted by the 75-percent requirement and could be sufficiently served by measures less destructive of First Amendment interests.” Id., at 636-637. We also observed that the village was free to enforce its already existing fraud laws and to require charities to file financial disclosure reports. Id., at 637-638, and nn. 11-12.
We revisited the charitable solicitation field four years later in Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947 (1984), a case closer to the present one in that the statute directly regulated contracts between charities and professional fundraisers. Specifically, the statute in question forbade such contracts if. after allowing for a deduction of many of the costs associated with the solicitation, the fundraiser retained more than 259 of the money collected. Although the Secretary was empowered to waive this limitation where it would effectively prevent the charitable organization from raising contributions, we held the law unconstitutional under the force of Schaumburg. We rejected the State’s argument that restraints on the relationship between the charity- and the fundraiser were mere “economic regulations” free of First Amendment implication. Rather, we viewed the law as “a direct restriction on the amount of money a charity can spend on fundraising activity,” and therefore “a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity.” 467 U. S., at 967, and n. 16. Consequently, we subjected the State’s statute to exacting First Amendment scrutiny. Again, the State asserted the prevention of fraud as its principal interest, and again we held that the use of a percentage-based test was not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. In fact, we found that if the,statute actually prevented fraud in some cases it would be “little more than fortuitous.” An “equally likely” result would be that the law would “restrict First Amendment activity that results in high costs but is itself a part of the charity’s goal or that is simply attributable to the fact that the charity’s cause proves to be unpopular.” Id., at 966-967.
As in Schaumburg and Mini non, we are unpersuaded by the State’s argument here that its three-tiered, percentage-based definition of “unreasonable” passes constitutional muster. ■ Our prior cases teach that the solicitation of charitable contributions is protected speech, and that using percentages to decide the legality of the fundraiser’s fee is not narrowly tailored to the State’s interest in preventing fraud. That much established, unless the State can meaningfully distinguish its statute from those discussed in our precedents, its statute must fall. The State offers two distinctions. First, it asserts a motivating, interest not expressed in Schaumburg or Munson: ensuring that the maximum amount of funds reach the charity or, somewhat relatedly, to guarantee that the fee charged charities is not “unreasonable.” Second, the State contends that the Act’s flexibility more narrowly tailors it to the State’s asserted interests than the laws considered in our prior cases. We find both arguments unavailing.
The State’s additional interest in regulating the fairness of the fee may rest on either of two premises (or both): (1) that charitable organizations are economically unable to negotiate fair or reasonable contracts without governmental assistance; or (2) that charities are incapable of deciding for themselves the most effective way to exercise their First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the State claims the power to establish-a single transcendent criterion by which it can bind the charities’ speaking decisions. We reject both premises.
The first premise, notwithstanding the State’s almost talis-manic reliance on the mere assertion of it, amounts to little more than a variation of the argument rejected in Schaum-burg and Munson that this provision is simply an economic regulation with no First Amendment implication, and therefore must be tested only for rationality. We again reject that argument; this regulation burdens speech, and must be considered accordingly. There is no reason to believe that charities have been thwarted in their attempts to speak or that they consider the contracts in which they enter to be anything less than equitable. Even if such a showing could be made, the State’s solution stands in sharp conflict with the First Amendment’s command that government regulation of speech must be measured in mínimums, not máximums.
The State’s remaining justification —the paternalistic premise that charities’ speech must be regulated for their own benefit — is equally unsound. The First Amendment mandates that we presume that speakers, not the government, know best both what they want to say and how to say it. See Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U. S. 208, 224 (1987) (criticizing State’s asserted interest in protecting “the Republican party from undertaking a course of conduct destructive of its own interests,” and reiterating that government ‘“may not interfere [with expressions of First Amendment freedoms] on the ground that [it] view[s] a particular expression as unwise or irrational’”) (quoting Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U. S. 107, 124 (1981)); cf. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 791-792, and n. 31 (1978) (criticizing State’s paternalistic interest in protecting the political process by restricting speech by corporations); Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 97 (1977) (criticizing, in the commercial speech context, the State’s paternalistic interest in maintaining the quality of neighborhoods by restricting speech to l'esidents). “The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 545 (1945) (Jackson, J., concurring). To this end, the government, even with the purest of motives, may not substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of speakers and listeners; free and robust debate cannot thrive if directed by the government. We perceive no reason to engraft an exception to this settled rule for charities.
The foregoing discussion demonstrates that the State’s additional interest cannot justify the regulation. But, alternatively, there are several legitimate reasons why a charity might reject the State’s overarching measure of a fundraising drive’s legitimacy — the percentage of gross receipts remitted to the charity. For example, a charity might choose a particular type of fundraising drive, or a particular solicitor, expecting to receive a large sum as measured by total dollars rather than the percentage of dollars remitted. Or, a solicitation may be designed to sacrifice short-term gains in order to achieve long-term, collateral, or noncash benefits. To illustrate, a charity may choose to -engage in the advocacy or dissemination of information during a solicitation, or may seek the introduction of the charity’s officers to the philanthropic community during a special event (e. g., an awards dinner). Consequently, even if the State had a valid interest in protecting charities from their own naiveté or economic weakness, the Act would not be narrowly tailored to achieve it.
The second distinguishing feature the State offers is the flexibility it has built into its Act.' The State describes the second of its three-tiered definition of “unreasonable” and “excessive” as imposing no presumption one way or the other as to the reasonableness of the fee, although unreasonableness may be demonstrated by a showing that the solicitation does not involve the advocacy or dissemination of information on the charity’s behalf and at the charity’s direction. The State points out that even the third tier’s presumption of unreasonableness may -be rebutted.
It is important to clarify, though, what we mean by “reasonableness” at'this juncture. As we have just demonstrated, supra, at 790-791 and this page, the State’s generalized interest in unilaterally imposing its notions of fairness on the fundraising contract is both constitutionally invalid and insufficiently related to a percentage-based test. Consequently, what remains is- the more particularized interest in guaranteeing that the fundraiser’s fee be “reasonable” in the sense that it not be fraudulent. The interest in protecting charities (and the public) from fraud is, of course,' a sufficiently substantial interest to justify a narrowly tailored regulation. The question, then, is whether the added flexibility of this regulation is sufficient to tailor the law to this remaining interest. We conclude that it is not.
Despite our clear holding in Munson that there is no nexus between the percentage of funds retained by the fundraiser and the likelihood that the solicitation is fraudulent, the State defines, prima facie, an “unreasonable” and “excessive” fee according to the percentage of total revenues collected. Indeed, the State’s test is even more attenuated than the one held'invalid in Munson, which at least excluded costs and expenses of solicitation from the fee definition. 467 U. S., at 950, n. 2. Permitting rebuttal cannot supply the missing nexus between the percentages and the State’s interest.
But this statute suffers from a more fundamental flaw. Even if we agreed that some form of a percentage-based measure could be used, in part, to test for fraud, we could not agree 'to a measure that requires the speaker to prove “reasonableness” case by case based upon what is at best a loose inference that the fee might be too high. Under the Act, once a prima facie showing of unreasonableness is made, the fundraiser must rebut the showing. Proof that the solicitation involved the advocacy or dissemination of information is not alone sufficient; it is merely a factor that is added to the calculus submitted to the factfinder, who may still decide that the costs incurred or the fundraiser’s profit were excessive; Similarly, the Act is impermissibly insensitive to the realities faced by small or unpopular charities, which must often pay more than 35% of the gross receipts collected to the fundraiser due to the difficulty of attracting donors. See Munson, 467 U. S., at 967. Again, the burden is placed on the fundraiser in such cases to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.
According to the State, we need not worry over this burden, as standards for determining “[r]easonable fundraising fees will be judicially defined over the years.” Reply Brief for Appellants 6. Speakers, however, cannot be made to wait for “years” before being able to speak with a measure of security. In the interim, fundraisers will be faced with the knowledge that every campaign incurring fees in excess of 35%, and many campaigns with fees between 20% and 35%, will subject them to potential litigation over the “reasonableness” of the fee. And, of course, in every such case the fundraiser must bear the costs of litigation and the risk of a mistaken adverse finding by the factfinder, even if the fundraiser and the.charity believe that the fee was in fact fair. This scheme must necessarily chill speech in direct contravention of the First Amendment’s dictates. See Munson, supra, at 969; Near York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 279 (1964).
This chill and uncertainty might well drive professional fundraisers out of North Carolina, or at least encourage them to cease engaging in certain types of fundraising (such as solicitations combined with the advocacy and dissemination of information) or representing certain charities (primarily small or unpopular ones), all of which will ultimately “re-duele] the quantity of expression.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19, 39 (1976). Whether one views this as a restriction of the charities’ ability to speak, Munson, supra, at 967, and n. 16, or a restriction of the professional fundraisers’ ability to speak, Munson, supra, at 955, n. 6, the restriction is undoubtedly one on speech, and cannot be countenanced here.
In striking down this portion of the Act, we do not suggest that States must sit idly by and allow their citizens to be defrauded. North Carolina has an antifraud law, and we presume that law enforcement officers are ready and able to enforce it. Further North Carolina may constitutionally require fundraisers to disclose certain financial information to the State, as it has since 1981. Munson, supra, at 967, n. 16. If this is not the most efficient means of preventing fraud, we reaffirm simply and emphatically that the First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency. Schaumburg, 444 U. S., at 639; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 164 (1939).
Ill
We turn next to the requirement that professional fundraisers disclose to potential donors, before an appeal for •funds, the percentage of charitable contributions collected during'the previous 12 months that were actually turned over to charity. Mandating speech that a speaker would, not otherwise make necessarily alters the. content of the speech. We therefore consider the Act as a content-based regulation, of speech. See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256 (1974) (statute compelling newspaper to print an editorial reply “exacts a penalty on the basis of the content: of a newspaper”).
The State argues that even if charitable solicitations generally are fully protected, this portion of the Act regulates only commercial speech because it relates only to the professional fundraiser’s profit from the solicited contribution. Therefore, the State asks us to apply our more deferential commercial speech principles here. See generally Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 (1976).
It is not clear that a professional’s speech is necessarily commercial whenever it relates to that person's financial motivation for speaking. Cf. Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809, 826 (1975) (state labels cannot be dispositive of degree of First Amendment protection). But even assuming, without deciding, that such speech in the abstract is indeed mérely “commercial,” we do not believe that the speech retains its commercial character when it is inextricably intertwined with otherwise fully protected speech. Our lodestars in deciding what level of scrutiny to apply to a compelled statement must be the nature of the speech taken as a whole and the effect of the compelled statement thereon. This is the teaching of Schaumburg and Munson, in which we refused to separate the component parts of charitable solicitations from the fully protected whole. Regulation of a solicitation “must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech..., and for the' reality that without solicitation the flow of such information and advocacy would likely cease.” Schaumburg, supra, at 632, quoted in Munson, 467 U. S., at 959-960. See also Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 422, n. 5 (1988); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S., at 540-541. Thus, where, as here, the component parts of-a single speech are inextricably intertwined, we cannot parcel out the speech, applying one test to one phrase and another test to another phrase. Such an endeavor would be both artificial and impractical. Therefore, we apply our test for fully protected expression.
North Carolina asserts that, even so, the First Amendment interest in compelled speech is different than the interest in compelled silence; the State accordingly asks that we apply a deferential test to this part of the Act. There is -certainly some difference between compelled speech and compelled silence. but in the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of speech,” a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what not to say.
The constitutional equivalence of compelled speech and compelled silence in the context of fully protected expression was established in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, supra. There, the Court considered a Florida statute requiring newspapers to give equal reply space to those they editorially criticize. We unanimously held the law unconstitutional as content regulation of the press, expressly noting the identity between the Florida law and a direct prohibition of speech. “The Florida statute operates as a command in the same sense as a statute.or regulation forbidding appellant to publish a specified matter. Governmental restraint on publishing need not fall into familiar or traditional patterns to be subject to constitutional limitations on governmental-powers.” Id., at 256. That rule did not rely on the fact that Florida restrained the press, and has been applied to cases involving expression generally. For example, in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977), we held that a person could not be compelled to display the slogan “Live Free or Di.e.” In reaching our conclusion, we relied on the principle that “[t]he right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind,”’ as illustrated in Tornillo, 430 U. S., at 714 (quoting West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 637 (1943)). See also Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, 475 U. S. 1, 9-11 (1986) (plurality opinion of Powell,, J.) (characterizing Tornillo in terms of freedom of speech); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 559 (1985); Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209, 234-235 (1977); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, supra.
These cases cannot be distinguished simply because they involved compelled statements of opinion while here we deal with compelled statements of “fact”: either form of compulsion burdens protected speech. Thus, we would not immunize a law requiring a speaker favoring a particular government project to state at the outset of every address the average cost overruns in similar projects, or a law requiring a speaker favoring an incumbent candidate to state during every solicitation that candidate’s recent travel budget. Although the.foregoing factual information might be relevant to the listener, and, in the latter case, could encourage or discourage the listener from making a political donation, a law compelling its disclosure would clearly and substantially burden the protected speech.
We believe, therefore, that North Carolina’s content-based regulation is subject to exacting First Amendment scrutiny. The State asserts as its interest the importance of informing donors how the money they contribute is spent in order to dispel the alleged misperception that the money they give to professional fundraisers goes in greater-than-actual proportion to benefit charity. To achieve this goal, the State has adopted a prophylactic rule of compelled speech, applicable to all professional solicitations. We conclude that this interest is not as weighty as the State asserts, and that the means chosen to accomplish it are unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored.
Although we do not wish to denigrate the State’s interest in full disclosure, the danger the State posits is not as great as might initially appear. First, the State presumes that the charity derives.no benefit from funds collected but not turned over to it. Yet this is not necessarily so. For example, as we have already discussed in greater detail, where the solicitation is combined with the advocacy and dissemination of information, the charity reaps a substantial benefit from the act of solicitation itself. See Munson, supra, at 963; Schaumburg, 444 U. S., at 635. Thus, a significant portion of the fundraiser’s “fee” may well go toward achieving the charity’s objectives even though it is not remitted to the charity in cash. Second, an unchallenged portion of the disclosure law requires professional fundraisers to disclose their professional status to potential donors, thereby giving notice that-at least a portion of the money contributed will be retained. Donors are also undoubtedly aware that solicitations incur costs, to which part of their donation might apply. And, of course, a donor is free to inquire how much of the contribution will be turned over to the charity. Under another North Carolina statute, also unchallenged, fundraisers must disclose this information upon request. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 131C-16 (1986). Even were that not so, if the solicitor refuses to give the requested information, the potential donor may (and probably would) refuse to donate.
Moreover, the compelled disclosure will almost certainly hamper the legitimate efforts of professional fundraisers to raise money for the charities they represent. First, this provision necessarily discriminates against small or unpopular charities, which must usually rely on professional fundraisers. Campaigns with high costs and expenses carried out by professional fundraisers must make unfavorable disclosures, with the predictable result that such solicitations will prove unsuccessful. Yet the identical solicitation with its high costs and expenses, if carried out by the employees of a charity or volunteers, results in no compelled disclosure, and therefore greater success. Second, in the context of a verbal solicitation, if the potential donor is unhappy with the disclosed percentage., the fundraiser will not likely be given a chance to explain the figure; the disclosure will be the last words spoken as the donor closes the door or hangs up the phone. Again, the predictable result is that professional fundraisers will be encouraged to quit the 'State or refrain from engaging in solicitations that result in an unfavorable disclosure.
In contrast to the prophylactic, imprecise, and unduly burdensome rule the State has adopted to reduce its alleged donor misperception, more benign and narrowly tailored options are available. For example, as a general rule, the State may itself publish the detailed financial disclosure forms it requires professional fundraisers to file. This procedure would communicate the desired information to the public without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech during the course of a solicitation. Alternatively, the State may vigorously enforce its antifraud laws to prohibit professional fundraisers from obtaining money on false pretenses or by making false statements. These more narrowly tailored rules are in keeping with the First Amendment directive that government not dictate the content of speech absent compelling necessity, and then, only by means precisely tailored. E. g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U. S. 530, 537-538 (1980). “Broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect. Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963) (citations omitted).
IV
Finally, we address the licensing requirement. This provision requires professional fundraisers to await a determination regarding their license application before engaging in solicitation, while volunteer fundraisers, or those employed by the charity, may solicit immediately upon submitting an application.
Given' our previous discussion and precedent, it will not do simply to ignore the First Amendment interest of professional fundraisers in speaking. It is well settled that a speaker’s rights are not lost merely because compensation is received; a speaker is no less a speaker because he or she is paid to speak. E. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 265-266. And the State’s asserted power to license professional fundraisers candes with it (unless properly constrained) the power directly and substantially to affect the speech they utter. Consequently, the statute is subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U. S. 750, 755-756 (1988) (when a State enacts a statute requiring periodic licensing of speakers, at least when the law is directly aimed at speech, it is subject to First Amendment scrutiny to ensure that the licensor’s discretion is suitably confined).
Generally, speakers need not obtain a license to speak. However, that rule is not absolute. For example, States may impose valid time, place, or manner restrictions. See Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941). North Carolina seeks to come within the exception by alleging a heightened interest in regulating those who solicit money. Even assuming that the State’s interest does justify requiring fundraisers to obtain a license before soliciting, such a regulation must provide that the licensor “will, within a specified brief period, either issue a license or go to court.” Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 59 (1965). That requirement is not met here, for the Charitable Solicitations Act (as amended) permits a delay without limit. The statute on its face does not purport to require when a determination must' be made, nor is there an administrative regulation or interpretation doing so. The State argues, though, that its history of issuing licenses quickly constitutes a practice effectively constraining the licensor’s discretion. See Poulos v. New Hampshire., 345 U. S. 395 (1953). We cannot agree. The history to which the State refers relates to the period before the 1985 amendments, at which time professional fundraisers were permitted to solicit as soon as their applications were filed. Then, delay permitted the speaker’s speech; now, delay compels the speaker’s silence. Under these circumstances, the licensing provision cannot stand.
V
We hold that the North Carolina Charitable Solicitations Act is unconstitutional in the three respects before us. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 131C-17.2 (1986) provides:
“(a) No professional fund-raising counsel or professional solicitor who contracts to raise funds for a person established for a charitable purpose may charge such person established for a charitable purpose an excessive and unreasonable fund-raising fee for raising such funds.
“(b) For purposes of this section a fund-raising fee of twenty percent (209f) or less of the gross receipts of all solicitations on behalf of a particular person established for a particular charitable purpose is deemed to be reasonable and nonexcessive.
“(c)- For purposes of this section a fund-raising fee greater than twenty percent (20%) but less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the gross receipts of all solicitations on behalf of a particular person established for a charitable purpose is excessive and unreasonable if the party challenging the fund-raising fee also proves that the solicitation does not involve the dissemination of information, discussion, or advocacy relating to public issues as directed by the person established for a charitable purpose which is to benefit from the solicitation.
“(d.) For purposes of this section only, a fund-raising fee of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the gross receipts of all solicitations on behalf of a particular person established for a charitable purpose may be excessive and unreasonable without further evidence of any fact by the party challenging the fund-raising fee. The professional fund-raising counsel or professional solicitor may successfully defend the fund-raising fee by proving that the level of the fee charged was necessary:
“(1) Because of the dissemination of information, discussion, or advocacy relating to public issues as directed by the person established for a charitable purpose which is to benefit from the solicitation, or
“(2) Because otherwise ability of the person established for a charitable purpose which is to benefit from the solicitations to raise money or communicate its ideas, opinions, and positions to the public would be significantly diminished.
“(e) Where the fund-raising fee charged by a professional fund-raising counsel or a professional solicitor is determined to be excessive and unreasonable, the fact finder making that determination shall then determine a reasonable fee under the circumstances....”
North Carolina Gen. Stat. S 131C-16.1 (1986) states:
“During any solicitation and before requesting or appealing either directly or indirectly for any charitable contribution a professional solicitor shall disclose to the person solicited:
“(1) His name; and,
“(2) The name of the professional solicitor or professional fund-raising counsel by whom he is employed and the address of his employer; and
"(3) The average of the percentage of gross receipts actually paid to the persons established for a charitahle purpose by the professional fund-raising counsel or professional solicitor conducting the solicitation for all charitable sales promotions conducted in this State by that professional fund-raising counsel or professional solicitor for the past 12 months, or for all completed charitable sales promotions where the professional fund-raising counsel or professional solicitor has been soliciting funds for less than 12 months.”
North Carolina Gen. Stat. S 131C-6 (1986) provides:
“Any person who acts as a professional fund-raising counsel or professional solicitor shall apply for and obtain an annual license from the Department [of Human Resources], and shall not aet as a professional fund-raising counsel or professional solicitor until after obtaining such license.”
The dissent suggests that the State's regulation is merely economic, having only an indirect effect on protected speech. However, as we demonstrate, the burden here is hardly incidental to speech. Far from the completely incidental impact of, for example, a minimum wage law, a statute regulating how a speaker may speak directly affects that speech. See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 421-423, and n. 5 (1988). Here, the desired and intended effect of the statute is to encourage some forms of solicitation and discourage others.
North Carolina was apparently surprised to learn of the charities’ opposition to its law, and at oral argument could only surmise that the charities had been misinformed regarding the pro-charity nature of the statute. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20-21. Nonetheless, every charity that has stated a position before us in this case (and there are almost 60 of them other than ap-pellees) supports the judgment below.
Even if percentages are not completely irrelevant to the question of fraud, their relationship to the question is at best tenuous, as Schaumburg and Muimon demonstrate.
The dissent is correct Dial the statute requires that expenses incurred in the dissemination of information be considered legitimate by the fact-finder. But that does not. address the primary defect here: that fraud is presumed by a surrogate and imprecise formula. Nor does it suffice to argue, as does the dissent, that the statute is valid because the fundraiser, not the charity, is the object of the regulation. Fining the fundraiser based upon its speech for the charity has an obvious and direct relation to the charity's speech. See Munson, 467 U. S., at 967. and n. 16. Moreover. the fundraiser has an independent First Amendment interest in the speech, even though
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case first presents the question whether a plaintiff recovering under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51, is entitled to have interest on the verdict for the interval between its return and the entry of judgment, where the Circuit Court of Appeals’ mandate which authorized the judgment contains no direction to add interest and is never amended to do so.
The jury returned a verdict of $42,500. The District Court then granted a motion, as to which decision had been reserved during the trial, to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and the judgment entered was therefore one of dismissal. However, the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, 153 F. 2d 841, and directed that judgment be entered on the verdict for plaintiff. When the District Court entered judgment, it added to the verdict interest from the date thereof to the date of judgment. The mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals had made no provision for interest. No motion to recall and amend the mandate had been made and the term at which it was handed down had expired. Motion to resettle so as to exclude the interest was denied by the District Court. The Circuit Court of Appeals has modified the judgment to exclude the interest in question and to conform to its mandate, 164 F. 2d 21, and the case is here on certiorari, 333 U. S. 836.
In its earliest days this Court consistently held that an inferior court has no power or authority to deviate from the mandate issued by an appellate court. Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch 313; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431; Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275; Ex parte Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488. The rule of these cases has been uniformly followed in later days; see, for example, In re Washington & Georgetown R. Co., 140 U. S. 91; Ex parte Union Steamboat Company, 178 U. S. 317; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 281 U. S. 1. Chief Justice Marshall applied the rule to interdict allowance of interest not provided for in the mandate, Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch 313; Mr. Justice Story explained and affirmed the doctrine, The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431; Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275. We do not see how it can be questioned at this time. It is clear that the interest was in excess of the terms of the mandate and hence was wrongly included in the District Court’s judgment and rightly stricken out by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The latter court’s mandate made no provision for such interest and the trial court had no power to enter judgment for an amount different than directed. If any enlargement of that amount were possible, it could be done only by amendment of the mandate. But no move to do this was made during the term at which it went down. While power to act on its mandate after the term expires survives to protect the integrity of the court’s own processes, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Co., 322 U. S. 238, it has not been held to survive for the convenience of litigants. Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U. S. 70.
The plaintiff has at no time moved to amend the mandate which is the basis of the judgment. That it made no provision for interest was apparent on its face. Plaintiff accepted its advantages and brings her case to this Court, not on the proposition that amendment of the mandate has been improperly refused, but on the ground that the mandate should be disregarded. Such a position cannot be sustained. Hence the question whether interest might, on proper application, have been allowed, is not reached. In re Washington & Georgetown R. Co., 140 U.S.91. ,
Affirmed.
Compare Louisiana & Arkansas R. Co. v. Pratt, 142 F. 2d 847, with Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 164 F. 2d 21.
"We do not consider the question as to whether interest was allowable by law, or rule, or statute, on the original judgment of the special term, or whether it would have been proper for the special term, in rendering the judgment, or otherwise, to have allowed interest upon it, or whether it would have been proper for the general term to do so; but we render our decision solely upon the point that, as neither the special term nor the general term allowed interest on the judgment, and as this court awarded no interest in its judgment of affirmance, all that the general term could do, after the mandate of this court went down, was to enter a judgment carrying out the mandate according to its terms, and simply affirming the prior judgment of the general term, and directing execution of the judgment of the special term . . . with costs, and without interest . . . .” 140 U. S. 91 at 97.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent J. W. Gamble, an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections, was injured on November 9, 1973, while performing a prison work assignment. On February 11, 1974, he instituted this civil rights action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, complaining of the treatment he received after the injury. Named as defendants were the petitioners, W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director of the Department of Corrections, H. H. Husbands, warden of the prison, and Dr. Ralph Gray, medical director of the Department and chief medical officer of the prison hospital. The District Court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the complaint. 516 F. 2d 937 (CA5 1975). We granted certiorari, 424 U. S. 907 (1976).
I
Because the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, we must take as true its handwritten, pro se allegations. Cooper v. Pate, 378 U. S. 546 (1964). According to the complaint, Gamble was injured on November 9, 1973, when a bale of cotton fell on him while he was unloading a truck. He continued to work but after four hours he became stiff and was granted a pass to the unit hospital. At the hospital a medical assistant, “Captain” Blunt, checked him for a hernia and sent him back to his cell. Within two hours the pain became so intense that Gamble returned to the hospital where he was given pain pills by an inmate nurse and then was examined by a doctor. The following day, Gamble saw a Dr. Astone who diagnosed the injury as a lower back strain, prescribed Zactirin (a pain reliever) and Robaxin (a muscle relaxant), and placed respondent on “cell-pass, cell-feed” status for two days, allowing him to remain in his cell at all times except for showers. On November 12, Gamble again saw Dr. Astone who continued the medication and cell-pass, cell-feed for another seven days. He also ordered that respondent be moved from an upper to a lower bunk for one week, but the prison authorities did not comply with that directive. The following week, Gamble returned to Dr. Astone. The doctor continued the muscle relaxant but prescribed a new pain reliever, Febridyne, and placed respondent on cell-pass for seven days, permitting him to remain in his cell except for meals and showers. On November 26, respondent again saw Dr. Astone, who put respondent back on the original pain reliever for five days and continued the cell-pass for another week.
On December 3, despite Gamble's statement that his back hurt as much as it had the first day, Dr. Astone took him off cell-pass, thereby certifying him to be capable of light work. At the same time, Dr. Astone prescribed Febridyne for seven days. Gamble then went to a Major Muddox and told him that he was in too much pain to work. Muddox had respondent moved to “administrative segregation.” On December 5, Gamble wa,s taken before the prison disciplinary committee, apparently because of his refusal to work. When the committee heard his complaint of back pain 'and high blood pressure, it directed that he be seen by another doctor.
On December 6, respondent saw petitioner Gray, who performed a urinalysis, blood test, and blood pressure measurement. Dr. Gray prescribed the drug Ser-Ap-Es for the high blood pressure and more Febridyne for the back pain. The following week respondent again saw Dr. Gray, who continued the Ser-Ap-Es for an additional 30 days. The prescription was not filled for four days, however, because the staff lost it. Respondent went to the unit hospital twice more in December; both times he was seen by Captain Blunt, who prescribed Tiognolos (described as a muscle relaxant). For all of December, respondent remained in administrative segregation.
In early January, Gamble was told on two occasions that he would be sent to the “farm” if he did not return to work. He refused, nonetheless, claiming to be in too much pain. On January 7, 1974, he requested to go on sick call for his back pain and migraine headaches. After an initial refusal, he saw Captain Blunt who prescribed sodium salicylate (a pain reliever) for seven days and Ser-Ap-Es for 30 days. Respondent returned to Captain Blunt on January 17 and January 25, and received renewals of the pain reliever prescription both times. Throughout the month, respondent was kept in administrative segregation.
On January 31, Gamble was brought before the prison disciplinary committee for his refusal to work in early January. He told the committee that he could not work because of his severe back pain and his high blood pressure. Captain Blunt testified that Gamble was in “first class” medical condition. The committee, with no further medical examination or testimony, placed respondent in solitary confinement.
Four days later, on February 4, at 8 a. m., respondent asked to see a doctor for chest pains and “blank outs.” It was not until 7:30 that night that a medical assistant examined him and ordered him hospitalized. The following day a Dr. Heaton performed an electrocardiogram; one day later respondent was placed on Quinidine for treatment of irregular cardiac rhythm and moved to administrative segregation. On February 7, respondent again experienced pain in his chest, left arm, and back and asked to see a doctor. The guards refused. He asked again the next day. The guards again refused. Finally, on February 9, he was allowed to see Dr. Heaton, who ordered the Quinidine continued for three more days. On February 11, he swore out his complaint.
II
The gravamen of respondent’s § 1983 complaint is that petitioners have subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. See Robinson v. Califor nia, 370 U. S. 660 (1962). We therefore base our evaluation of respondent’s complaint on those Amendments and our decisions interpreting them.
The history of the constitutional prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments” has been recounted at length in prior opinions of the Court and need not be repeated here. See, e. g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 169-173 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ. (hereinafter joint opinion)); see also Granucci, Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishment Inflicted: The Original Meaning, 57 Calif. L. Rev. 839 (1969). It suffices to note that the primary concern of the drafters was to proscribe “torture [s] ” and other “bar-bar[ous]” methods of punishment. Id., at 842. Accordingly, this Court first applied the Eighth Amendment by comparing challenged methods of execution to concededly inhuman techniques of punishment. See Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130, 136 (1879) (“[I]t is safe to affirm that punishments of torture . . . and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment . . .”); In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 447 (1890) (“Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death . . .”).
Our more recent cases, however, have held that the Amendment proscribes more than physically barbarous punishments. See, e. g., Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 171 (joint opinion); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1958); Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 373 (1910). The Amendment embodies “broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency . . . ,” Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F. 2d 571, 579 (CA8 1968), against which we must evaluate penal measures. Thus, we have held repugnant to the Eighth Amendment punishments which are incompatible with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop v. Dulles, supra, at 101; see also Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 172-173 (joint opinion); Weems v. United States, supra, at 378, or which “involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 173 (joint opinion); see also Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 463 (1947); Wilkerson v. Utah, supra, at 136.
These elementary principles establish the government’s obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration. An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met. In the worst cases, such a failure may actually produce physical “torture or a lingering death,” In re Kemmler, supra, the evils of most immediate concern to the drafters of the Amendment. In less serious cases, denial of medical care may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose. Cf. Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 182-183 (joint opinion). The infliction of such unnecessary suffering is inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency as manifested in modern legislation codifying the eommonlaw view that “it is but just that the public be required to care for the prisoner, who cannot by reason of the deprivation of his liberty, care for himself.”
We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 173 (joint opinion), proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Regardess of how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury states a cause of action under § 1983.
This conclusion does not mean, however, that every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment. An accident, although it may produce added anguish, is not on that basis alone to be characterized as wanton infliction of unnecessary pain. In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459 (1947), for example, the Court concluded that it was not unconstitutional to force a prisoner to undergo a second effort to electrocute him after a mechanical malfunction had thwarted the first attempt. Writing for the plurality, Mr. Justice Reed reasoned that the second execution would not violate the Eighth Amendment because the first attempt was an “unforeseeable accident.” Id., at 464. Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s concurrence, based solely on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, concluded that since the first attempt had failed because of “an innocent misadventure,” id., at 470, the second would not be “ ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind,’ ” id., at 471, quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 323 (1937).
Similarly, in the medical context, an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute “an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” or to be “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend “evolving standards of decency” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Ill
Against this backdrop, we now consider whether respondent’s complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim. The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears “ 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ” Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
Even applying these liberal standards, however, Gamble’s claims against Dr. Gray, both in his capacity as treating physician and as medical director of the Corrections Department, are not cognizable under § 1983. Gamble was seen by medical personnel on 17 occasions spanning a three-month period: by Dr. Astone five times; by Dr. Gray twice; by Dr. Heaton three times; by an unidentified doctor and inmate nurse on the day of the injury; and by medical assistant Blunt six times. They treated his back injury, high blood pressure, and heart problems. Gamble has disclaimed any objection to the treatment provided for his high blood pressure and his heart problem; his complaint is “based solely on the lack of diagnosis and inadequate treatment of his back injury.” Response to Pet. for Cert. 4; see also Brief for Respondent 19. The doctors diagnosed his injury as a lower back strain and treated it with bed rest, muscle relaxants, and pain relievers. Respondent contends that more should have been done by way of diagnosis and treatment, and suggests a number of options that were not pursued. Id., at 17, 19. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating: “Certainly an X-ray of [Gamble’s] lower back might have been in order and other tests conducted that would have led to appropriate diagnosis and treatment for the daily pain and suffering he was experiencing.” 516 F. 2d, at 941. But the question whether an X-ray — or additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment — is indicated is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment. A medical decision not to order an X-ray, or like measures, does not represent cruel and unusual punishment. At most it is medical malpractice, and as such the proper forum is the state court under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals was in error in holding that the alleged insufficiency of the medical treatment required reversal and remand. That portion of the judgment of the District Court should have been affirmed.
The Court of Appeals focused primarily on the alleged actions of the doctors, and did not separately consider whether the allegations against the Director of the Department of Corrections, Estelle, and the warden of the prison, Husbands, stated a cause of action. Although we reverse the judgment as to the medical director, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals to allow it an opportunity to consider, in conformity with this opinion, whether a cause of action has been stated against the other prison officials.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Blackmun concurs in the judgment of the Court.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities, secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
It appears that the petitioner-defendants were not even aware of the suit until it reached the Court of Appeals. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 13-15. This probably resulted because the District Court dismissed the complaint simultaneously with granting leave to file it in forma pauperis.
His complaint states that the bale weighed “6.00 pound.” The Court of Appeals interpreted this to mean 600 pounds. 516 F. 2d 937, 938 (CA5 1975).
The names and descriptions of the drugs administered to respondent are taken from his complaint. App. A-5 — A-11, and his brief, at 19-20.
There are a number of terms in the complaint whose meaning is unclear and, with no answer from the State, must remain so. For example, “administrative segregation” is never defined. The Court of Appeals deemed it the equivalent of solitary confinement. 516 F. 2d, at 939. We note, however, that Gamble stated he was in “administrative segregation” when he was in the “32A-7 five building” and “32A20 five building,” but when he was in “solitary confinement,” he was in “3102 five building.”
The Eighth Amendment provides:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
At oral argument, counsel for respondent agreed that his only claim was based on the Eighth Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 42-43.
The Amendment also proscribes punishments grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 173 (1976) (joint opinion); Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 367 (1910), and it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished, Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962). Neither of these principles is involved here.
See, e. g., Ala. Code Tit. 45, § 125 (1958); Alaska Stat. § 33.30.050 (1975); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 31-201.01 (Supp. 1975); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 18-7 (1975); Ga. Code Ann. § 77-309 (e) (1973); Idaho Code § 20-209 (Supp. 1976); Ill. Ann. Stat. c. 38, § 103-2 (1970); Ind. Ann. Stat. § 11-1-1.1-30.5 (1973); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-5429 (Supp. 1975); Md. Ann. Code Art. 27 § 698 (1976); Mass. Ann. Laws, c. 127, §90A (1974); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 14.84 (1969); Miss. Code Ann. §47-1-57 (1972); Mo. Ann. Stat. §221.120 (1962); Neb. Rev. Stat. §83-181 (1971); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 619.9 (1974); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 42-2-4 (1972); Tenn. Code Ann. §§41-318, 41-1115, 41-1226 (1975); Utah Code Ann. §§ 64-9-13, 64-9-19, 64-9-20, 64-9-53 (1968); Va. Code Ann.. §§32-81, 32-82 (1973); W. Va. Code Ann. §25-1-16 (Supp. 1976); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-299 (1959).
Many States have also adopted regulations which specify, in varying degrees of detail, the standards of medical care to be provided to prisoners. See Comment, The Rights of Prisoners to Medical Care and the Implications for Drug-Dependent Prisoners and Pretrial Detainees, 42 U. Chi. L. Rev. 705, 708-709 (1975).
Model correctional legislation and proposed minimum standards are all in accord. See American Law Institute, Model Penal Code §§ 303.4, 304.5 (1962); National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Standards on Rights of Offenders, Standard 2.6 (1973); National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Model Act for the Protection of Rights of Prisoners, § 1 (b) (1972); National Sheriffs’ Association, Standards for Inmates’ Legal Rights, Right No. 3 (1974); Fourth United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rules 22-26 (1955). The foregoing may all be found in U. S. Dept, of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Compendium of Model Correctional Legislation and Standards (2d ed. 1975).
Spicer v. Williamson, 191 N. C. 487, 490, 132 S. E. 291, 293 (1926).
See, e. g., Williams v. Vincent, 508 F. 2d 541 (CA2 1974) (doctor’s choosing the “easier and less efficacious treatment” of throwing away the prisoner’s ear and stitching the stump may be attributable to “deliberate indifference . . . rather than an exercise of professional judgment”); Thomas v. Pate, 493 F. 2d 151, 158 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Thomas v. Cannon, 419 U. S. 879 (1974) (injection of penicillin with knowledge that prisoner was allergic, and refusal of doctor to treat allergic reaction) ; Jones v. Lockhart, 484 F. 2d 1192 (CA8 1973) (refusal of paramedic to provide treatment); Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F. 2d 921 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 983 (1971) (prison physician refuses to administer the prescribed pain killer and renders leg surgery unsuccessful by requiring prisoner to stand despite contrary instructions of surgeon).
See, e. g., Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F. 2d 857 (CA6 1976); Thomas v. Pate, supra, at 158-159; Fitzke v. Shappell, 468 F. 2d 1072 (CA6 1972); Hutchens v. Alabama, 466 F. 2d 507 (CA5 1972); Riley v. Rhay, 407 F. 2d 496 (CA9 1969); Edwards v. Duncan, 355 F. 2d 993 (CA4 1966); Hughes v. Noble, 295 F. 2d 495 (CA5 1961).
See, e. g., Wilbron v. Hutto, 509 F. 2d 621, 622 (CA8 1975); Campbell v. Beto, 460 F. 2d 765 (CA5 1972); Martinez v. Mancusi, supra; Tolbert v. Eyman, 434 F. 2d 625 (CA9 1970); Edwards v. Duncan, supra.
He noted, however, that “a series of abortive attempts” or “a single, cruelly willful attempt” would present a different case. 329 U. S., at 471.
The Courts of Appeals are in essential agreement with this standard. All agree that mere allegations of malpractice do not state a claim, and, while their terminology regarding what is sufficient varies, their results are not inconsistent with the standard of deliberate indifference. See Page v. Sharpe, 487 F. 2d 567, 569 (CA1 1973); Williams v. Vincent, supra, at 544 (uses the phrase “deliberate indifference”); Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F. 2d 1, 6 (CA3 1970); Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F. 2d 318 (CA4 1975); Newman v. Alabama, 503 F. 2d 1320, 1330 n. 14 (CA5 1974), cert. denied, 421 U. S. 948 (1975) (“callous indifference”); Westlake v. Lucas, supra, at 860 (“deliberate indifference”); Thomas v. Pate, supra, at 158; Wilbron v. Hutto, supra, at 622 (“deliberate indifference”); Tolbert v. Eyman, supra, at 626; Dewell v. Lawson, 489 F. 2d 877, 881-882 (CA10 1974).
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Art. 6252-19, §3 (Supp. 1976). Petitioners assured tbe Court at argument that this statute can be used by prisoners to assert malpractice claims. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6.
Contrary to Mr. Justice Stevens’ assertion in dissent, this case signals no retreat from Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972). In contrast to the general allegations in Haines, Gamble’s complaint provides a detailed factual accounting of the treatment he received. By his exhaustive description he renders speculation unnecessary. It is apparent from his complaint that he received extensive medical care and that the doctors were not indifferent to his needs.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Acting under the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, the Civil Aeronautics Board (C. A. B.) consolidated some 45 route applications of 25 airlines into one area proceeding, styled the “Southeastern States Case.” After hearings, it made findings of fact as to what new routes should be established and which of the applicants could best serve these routes. It then entered orders authorizing certificates of convenience and necessity for several new routes in the area. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., was authorized to engage in air transportation of persons, property, and mail along certain of these routes. State Airlines, Inc., was denied authority to act as a carrier on any of them. State filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking that court to reverse the orders and remand the case to the Board with directions to grant carrier certificates to State instead of Piedmont. The court reversed insofar as the orders awarded certificates to Piedmont but held that it was without power to direct the Board to certify State. A crucial ground of the court’s reversal was its finding that Piedmont had never filed an application for the particular routes certified, an indispensable prerequisite to certification as the Court of Appeals interpreted the Civil Aeronautics Act. A second ground for reversal was that since Piedmont had filed no application for the particular routes certified, State failed to have sufficient notice that the Board might consider Piedmont as a competing applicant, and thus was deprived of a fair opportunity to discredit Piedmont’s fitness and ability to serve those routes. A third ground was that the Board’s findings that Piedmont was fit and able to serve the routes “were, in the legal sense, arbitrary and capricious and lacked the support of substantial evidence.” Both Piedmont and the Board petitioned for review of the court’s reversal, while State cross-petitioned for review of the court’s refusal to direct certification of State. We granted certiorari because a final determination of the questions involved, particularly those involving interpretation of the Act, is of importance for future guidance of the Board in carrying out its congressionally imposed functions. 338 U. S. 812.
First. We hold that Piedmont’s applications were sufficient to permit certification of Piedmont for the routes awarded. The contrary holding of the Court of Appeals rested primarily on its interpretation of § 401 (d) (1) and (2) of the Civil Aeronautics Act. The particular language most relied on by the court was that which empowers the Board to issue certificates “authorizing the whole or any part of the transportation covered by the application, if it finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able to perform such transportation properly . . . .” (Italics used by the Court of Appeals.) The Court of Appeals read this language as showing a congressional purpose to bar the Board from granting any certificates in which the routes awarded deviate more than slightly from the precise routes defined in the application. We think that such a narrow interpretation is not compelled by the language of § 401 (d) and that the Act as a whole refutes any intent to freeze the Board’s procedures in so rigid a mold.
The language of § 401 (d) (1) and (2) unqualifiedly gives the Board power, after application and appropriate findings, to issue certificates for the whole or any part of transportation covered in an application. This manifests a purpose generally to gear the award of certificates to an application procedure. But Congress made no attempt in (1) and (2) of §401 (d) to define the full reach or contents of an application. These subsections do not even require an applicant to designate the terminal cities or the intermediate points a proposed route would serve. A different provision, § 401 (b), contains the only requirements directly imposed by Congress — that an application must be in writing and verified. With this one exception, § 401 (b) provides that an application “shall be in such form and contain such information ... as the Board shall by regulation require.” And in § 1001 Congress. granted the Board authority to “conduct its proceedings in such manner as will be conducive to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.” Thus, except for the statutory requirement of written and verified applications, Congress plainly intended to leave the Board free to work out application procedures reasonably adapted to fair and orderly administration of its complex responsibilities.
Here the Board decided that the policies of the Act could best be served by a consolidated area proceeding. In doing so it did not exceed its procedural discretion. Only through such joint hearings could the Board expeditiously decide what new routes should be established, if any, and which of the numerous applicants should be selected as appropriate carriers for different routes. And in such a proceeding, as the Board has found, limiting all applications to the precise routes they describe would destroy necessary flexibility. For the Board’s decision as to what new routes are actually available is not reached until long after the applications are filed. Recognizing this, Piedmont, like other airlines, inserted a so-called “catchall clause” in its applications, broadly requesting authority to transport on “the routes detailed herein, or such modification of such routes as the Board may find public convenience and necessity require.” It also included a general prayer “for such other and further relief, general and specific, under Section 401 of the . . . Act ... as the Board may deem appropriate, and to which the applicant may be entitled in any proceeding in which the application may be heard in part or in its entirety.”
We are convinced that the Board, in awarding routes varying from those specifically detailed in Piedmont’s application, has not departed from the congressional policy hinging certification generally on application procedures. While the routes sought by Piedmont did differ markedly from those awarded, they were all in the general area covered by the consolidated hearings. All twenty-five applicants had asked for routes somewhere in the area, and many of these routes overlapped. In such an area proceeding it would exalt imaginary procedural rights above the public interest to hold that the Board is hamstrung by the lack of foresight or skill of a draftsman in describing routes. The flexible requirements set by the Board were reasonable. They accorded with the policies of the Act. The Board in well-considered opinions held that Piedmont’s application met these requirements. That application also met the congressional requirements of writing and verification. So far as § 401 (d) (1) and (2) are concerned, the Board acted within its power in entering the orders.
Second. The Court of Appeals recognized that full hearings were held in the area proceedings after due notice to all interested parties. But that court nevertheless held that State was without adequate notice that the Board might consider Piedmont as an applicant for routes encroaching on those sought by State. This contention largely rests on the statutory interpretation we have rejected. State argues, however, that since it never considered Piedmont as a possible applicant for the routes awarded, it failed to produce available evidence and arguments to convince the Board that Piedmont was not fit and able to serve as a carrier on the routes.
This challenge is substantial. The Board’s major standard is the public interest in having convenient routes served by fit and able carriers. These questions are to be determined in hearings after notice. The prime purpose of allowing interested persons to offer evidence is to give the Board the advantage of all available information as a basis for its selection of the applicant best qualified to serve the public interest. Cf. Federal Communications Comm’n v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U. S. 470, 477. If the Board had neglected this purpose, State could rightly complain.
Here, however, we find that the Board fully appreciated its responsibility in this respect. It seems plain to us from the entire record that State did fully recognize that Piedmont was a potential competitive applicant in the consolidated proceedings. Their applications in large part sought certificates in the same general area. Each argued against the other before the Board.
Moreover, after issuance of the order, the Board granted State a limited rehearing to show, if it could, that the proceeding should be reopened to enable State to offer new evidence against Piedmont’s fitness and ability. In the rehearing argument, State’s main contention was that the Board lacked jurisdiction because of the limited nature of Piedmont’s application, a contention we have already rejected. But State also contended that had it known Piedmont to be an actual competitor, State would have made diligent efforts by cross-examination and otherwise to prevent the Board’s finding that Piedmont’s qualifications were superior to State’s. The record reveals that the Board gave most careful consideration to all the contentions made by State’s counsel. The Board in an opinion discussed each of those contentions. 8 C. A. B. 716. With particular reference to the general contention that in reopened proceedings State could offer evidence to refute the Board’s findings of Piedmont’s superior qualifications, the Board said: “Although in the course of the subsequent argument State asserted that had it been aware of the situation it might have presented additional or different evidence and would have enlarged upon its inquiries into Piedmont’s case, it did not, in the course of the argument or in its petition for reconsideration, specify what the nature of such additional evidence or inquiries would have been.” Id., at 721. It was in this setting that the Board held State’s showing inadequate to justify new hearings concerning the respective qualifications of State and Piedmont. In reaffirming its previous holding of Piedmont’s superior qualifications, the Board said: “The only practical approach that can be taken in cases of this type is to consider the applications, not with a view as to how an individual proposal would benefit the applicant, or whether a particular proposed route is required precisely as set forth in an application, but rather to consider the entire case with the objective of establishing a sound transportation pattern in the area involved.” 8 C. A. B. at 722.
We think the standard adopted by the Board under which the public interest is given a paramount consideration is a correct standard. And since the Board’s conclusion that the proceeding should not be reopened represents its informed judgment after a searching inquiry, we accept its conclusion. Because of the foregoing and other circumstances disclosed by the record we think there is no ground for State’s contention that it failed to have a fair hearing. See Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 1, 3.
Third. During the rehearing argument, counsel for State was asked by a member of the Board whether State took the position that Piedmont was “not capable of running the route that was awarded.” He replied: “We are taking the position that both State and Piedmont are fit and able, it’s a question of which has demonstrated in this record to be more fit, willing and able.” State nevertheless contends here, and the Court of Appeals held, that, there was no sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding of Piedmont’s fitness and ability. This contention, like others, rests almost wholly on the argument that Piedmont had not applied for the particular routes awarded and thus could not have evidenced its ability to handle those routes. The Court of Appeals also emphasized the fact that the routes awarded required Piedmont to transport over mountains, whereas the detailed passenger routes for which it had applied would not have crossed the mountains; it contrasted this with State’s applications, which had specifically shown routes crossing the mountains. Precisely what added skills, if any, are required for flights across mountains is a matter of proof. In the extensive hearings held in this area proceeding, each applicant was required to and did offer evidence concerning fitness and ability. Much of this evidence concerned the financial condition and experience in aviation of both Piedmont and State. The Board’s opinions show the painstaking consideration given this evidence. The Board found both airlines fit and able, but found the evidence of qualifications as between the two weighted on Piedmont’s side. We hold that the conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.
In view of our conclusion we need not consider the allegations of State’s cross-petition in No. 158 and that case is therefore dismissed. In Nos. 157 and 159 the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
52 Stat. 973, 49 U. S. C. § 401 et seq.
The several opinions of the Board are reported. 7 C. A. B. 863 ; 8 C. A. B. 585 and 716.
Authority for judicial review is given by § 1006 of the Act, 52 Stat. 1024, 49 U. S. C. § 646.
84 U. S. App. D. C. 374, 174 F. 2d 510.
The Board’s petition is our Docket No. 157; Piedmont’s is No. 159; State’s cross-petition is No. 158.
There are slight but immaterial variants in the relevant language as it appears in (1) and (2) of § 401 (d). Those sections, as italicized by the Court of Appeals, read:
“(1) The Board shall issue a certificate authorizing the whole or any part of the transportation covered by the application, if it finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able to perform such transportation properly, and to conform to the provisions of this chapter [originally this Act] and the rules, regulations, and requirements of the Board hereunder, and that such transportation is required by the public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied.
“(2) In the case of an application for a certificate to engage in temporary air transportation, the Board may issue a certificate authorizing the whole or any part thereof for such limited periods as may be required by the public convenience and necessity, if it finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such transportation and to conform to the provisions of this chapter and the rules, regulations, and requirements of the Board hereunder.”
“Application for a certificate shall be made in writing to the [Board] and shall be so verified, shall be in such form and contain such information, and shall be accompanied by such proof of service upon such interested persons, as the [Board] shall by regulation require.” Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, § 401 (b).
The Court of Appeals placed in its opinion two maps charting the passenger routes applied for by Piedmont and State and indicating that the routes awarded Piedmont far more nearly approximated those sought by State. The Board and State take the position that these maps do not show all of the points and routes applied for by either airline, and the Court of Appeals said as much with reference to the maps. But the view we take makes it unnecessary to elaborate the different views as to the precise routes for which Piedmont and State applied.
The record does show a statement by State’s counsel, made near the end of the rehearing argument, that “had State known that Piedmont was an applicant for these routes” it could have proven in the original hearings that Piedmont did not have “facilities for all types of overhaul.” It may be that this general suggestion can be considered as a request by State to reopen the proceedings for proof on this particular single point. If so considered, it is sufficient to point out that the Board found that Piedmont had adequate financing to obtain all necessary equipment, which is a major consideration in determining the comparative fitness and ability as between applicants who propose to operate newly established routes. See the case cited in the Board’s opinion, American Export Airlines, Inc., Trans-Atlantic Service, 2 C. A. B. 16, 38 (1940).
In this Court a suggestion is made that two sentences by one member of the Board during the rehearing argument indicate that the Board acted on a wrong standard of public interest: “Yes, but apart from all these legalisms, isn’t the real issue whether or not we made a mistake and picked a carrier who cannot run this route? If we really get down and try to find what is the public interest, isn’t that the real point?” It is said that this statement departs from the standard of “public interest, convenience, or necessity.” But in the statement itself the Board member pointed out that the proper standard was “the public interest.” Moreover, he went on to say that “the important thing is not whether you win or Piedmont wins but whether the people of North Carolina and Kentucky and Virginia and that area in there get the kind of service that they should.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
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:
|
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.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. Ill), States and their political subdivisions may compensate their employees for overtime by granting them compensatory time or “comp time,” which entitles them to take time off work with full pay. §207(o). If the employees do not use their accumulated compensatory time, the employer is obligated to pay cash compensation under certain circumstances. §§ 207(o)(3)-(4). Fearing the fiscal consequences of having to pay for accrued compensatory time, Harris County adopted a policy requiring its employees to schedule time off in order to reduce the amount of accrued compensatory time. Employees of the Harris County Sheriff’s Department sued, claiming that the FLSA prohibits such a policy. The Court of Appeals rejected their claim. Finding that nothing in the FLSA or its implementing regulations prohibits an employer from compelling the use of compensatory time, we affirm.
I
A
The FLSA generally provides that hourly employees who work in excess of 40 hours per week must be compensated
for the excess hours at a rate not less than 114 times their regular hourly wage. § 207(a)(1). Although this requirement did not initially apply to public-sector employers, Congress amended the FLSA to subject States and their political subdivisions to its constraints, at first on a limited basis, see Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966, Pub. L. 89-601, § 102(b), 80 Stat. 831 (extending the FLSA to certain categories of state and local employees), and then more broadly, see Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-259, §§ 6(a)(l)-(2), 88 Stat. 58-59 (extending the FLSA to all state and local employees, save elected officials and their staffs). States and their political subdivisions, however, did not feel the foil force of this latter extension until our decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985), which overruled our holding in National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 (1976), that the FLSA could not constitutionally restrain traditional governmental functions.
In the months following Garcia, Congress acted to mitigate the effects of applying the FLSA to States and their political subdivisions, passing the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1985, Pub. L. 99-150, 99 Stat. 787. See generally Moreau v. Klevenhagen, 508 U. S. 22, 26 (1993). Those amendments permit States and their political subdivisions to compensate employees for overtime by granting them compensatory time at a rate of 114 hours for every hour worked. See 29 U. S. C. § 207(o)(l). To provide this form of compensation, the employer must arrive at an agreement or understanding with employees that compensatory time will be granted instead of cash compensation. §207(o)(2); 29 CFR §553.23 (1999).
The FLSA expressly regulates some aspects of accrual and preservation of compensatory time. For example, the FLSA provides that an employer must honor an employee’s request to use compensatory time within a “reasonable period” of time following the request, so long as the use of the compensatory time would not “unduly disrupt” the employer’s operations. §2Q7(o)(5); 29 CFR §553.25 (1999). The FLSA also caps the number of compensatory time hours that an employee may accrue. After an employee reaches that maximum, the employer must pay cash compensation for additional overtime hours worked. §207(o)(3)(A). In addition, the FLSA permits the employer at any time to cancel or “cash out” accrued compensatory time hours by paying the employee cash compensation for unused compensatory time. § 207(o)(3)(B); 29 CFR § 553.26(a) (1999). And the FLSA entitles the employee to cash payment for any accrued compensatory time remaining upon the termination of employment. § 207(o)(4).
B
Petitioners are 127 deputy sheriffs employed by respondents Harris County, Texas, and its sheriff, Tommy B. Thomas (collectively, Harris County). It is undisputed that each of the petitioners individually agreed to accept compensatory time, in lieu of cash, as compensation for overtime.
As petitioners accumulated compensatory time, Harris County became concerned that it lacked the resources to pay monetary compensation to employees who worked overtime after reaching the statutory cap on compensatory time accrual and to employees who left their jobs with sizable reserves of accrued time. As a result, the county began looking for a way to reduce accumulated compensatory time. It wrote to the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, asking “whether the Sheriff may schedule non-exempt employees to use or take compensatory time.” Brief for Petitioners 18-19. The Acting Administrator of the Division replied:
“[I]t is our position that a public employer may schedule its nonexempt employees to use their accrued FLSA compensatory time as directed if the prior agreement specifically provides such a provision ....
“Absent such an agreement, it is our position that neither the statute nor the regulations permit an employer to require an employee to use accrued compensatory time.” Opinion Letter from Dept, of Labor, Wage and Hour Div. (Sept. 14, 1992), 1992 WL 845100 (Opinion Letter).
After receiving the letter, Harris County implemented a policy under which the employees’ supervisor sets a .maximum number of compensatory hours that may be accumulated. When an employee’s stock of hours approaches that maximum, the employee is advised of the maximum and is asked to take steps to reduce accumulated compensatory time. If the employee does not do so voluntarily, a supervisor may order the employee to use his compensatory time at specified times.
Petitioners sued, claiming that the county’s policy violates the FLSA because §207(o)(5) — which requires that an employer reasonably accommodate employee requests to use compensatory time — provides the exclusive means of utilizing accrued time in the absence of an agreement or understanding permitting some other method. The District Court agreed, granting summary judgment for petitioners and entering a declaratory judgment that the county’s policy violated the FLSA. Moreau v. Harris County, 945 F. Supp. 1067 (SD Tex. 1996). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the FLSA did not speak to the issue and thus did not prohibit the county from implementing its compensatory time policy. Moreau v. Harris County, 158 F. 3d 241 (1998). Judge Dennis concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that the employer could not compel the employee to use compensatory time unless the employee agreed to such an arrangement in advance. Id., at 247-251. We granted certiorari because the Courts of Appeals are divided on the issue. 528 U. S. 926 (1999).
II
Both parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, concede that nothing in the FLSA expressly prohibits a State or subdivision thereof from compelling employees to utilize accrued compensatory time. Petitioners and the United States, however, contend that the FLSA implicitly prohibits such a practice in the absence of an agreement or understanding authorizing compelled use. Title 29 U. S. C. § 207(o)(5) provides:
“An employee ...
“(A) who has accrued compensatory time off... , and “(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time,
“shall be permitted by the employee’s employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the public agency.”
Petitioners and the United States rely upon the canon ex-pressio unius est exclusio alterius, contending that the express grant of control to employees to use compensatory time, subject to the limitation regarding undue disruptions of workplace operations, implies that all other methods of spending compensatory time are precluded.
We find this reading unpersuasive. We accept the proposition that “[w]hen a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode.” Raleigh & Gaston R. Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 269, 270 (1872). But that canon does not resolve this case in petitioners’ favor. The “thing to be done” as defined by §207(o)(5) is not the expenditure of compensatory time, as petitioners would have it. Instead, § 207(o)(5) is more properly read as a minimal guarantee that an employee will be able to make some use of compensatory time when he requests to use it. As such, the proper expressio unius inference is that an employer may not, at least in the absence of an agreement, deny an employee’s request to use compensatory time for a reason other than that provided in § 207(o)(5). The canon’s application simply does not prohibit an employer from telling an employee to take the benefits of compensatory time by scheduling time off work with full pay.
In other words, viewed in the context of the overall statutory scheme, §207(o)(5) is better read not as setting forth the exclusive method by which compensatory time can be used, but as setting up a safeguard to ensure that an employee will receive timely compensation for working overtime. Section 207(o)(5) guarantees that, at the very minimum, an employee will get to use his compensatory time (i. e., take time off work with full pay) unless doing so would disrupt the employer’s operations. And it is precisely this concern over ensuring that employees can timely “liquidate” compensatory time that the Secretary of Labor identified in her own regulations governing §207(o)(5):
“Compensatory time cannot be used as a means to avoid statutory overtime compensation. An employee has the right to use compensatory time earned and must not be coerced to accept more compensatory time than an employer can realistically and in good faith expect to be able to grant within a reasonable period of his or her making a request for use of such time.” 29 CFR § 553.25(b) (1999).
This reading is confirmed by nearby provisions of the FLSA that reflect a similar concern for ensuring that the employee receive some timely benefit for overtime work. For example, §207(o)(3)(A) provides that workers may not accrue more than 240 or 480 hours of compensatory time, depending upon the nature of the job. See also § 207(o)(2)(B) (conditioning the employer’s ability to provide compensatory time upon the employee not accruing compensatory time in excess of the § 207(o)(3)(A) limits). Section 207(o)(3)(A) helps guarantee that employees only accrue amounts of compensatory time that they can reasonably use. After all, an employer does not need §207(o)(3)(A)’s protection; it is free at any time to reduce the number of hours accrued by exchanging them for cash payment, §2G7(o)(3)(B), or by halting the accrual of compensatory time by paying cash compensation for overtime work, 29 CFR § 553.26(a) (1999). Thus, § 207(o)(3)(A), like §207(o)(5), reflects a concern that employees receive some timely benefit in exchange for overtime work. Moreover, on petitioners’ view, the compensatory time exception enacted by Congress in the wake of Garcia would become a nullity when employees who refuse to use compensatory time reach the statutory máximums on accrual. Petitioners’ position would convert §207(o)(3)(A)’s shield into a sword, forcing employers to pay cash compensation instead of providing compensatory time to employees who work overtime.
At bottom, we think the better reading of §207(o)(5) is that it imposes a restriction upon an employer’s efforts to -prohibit the use of compensatory time when employees request to do so; that provision says nothing about restricting an employer’s efforts to require employees to use compensatory time. Because the statute is silent on this issue and because Harris County’s policy is entirely compatible with § 207(o)(5), petitioners cannot, as they are required to do by 29 U. S. C. § 216(b), prove that Harris County has violated §207.
Our interpretation of §207(o)(5) — one that does not prohibit employers from forcing employees to use compensatory time — finds support in two other features of the FLSA. First, employers remain free under the FLSA to decrease the number of hours that employees work. An employer may tell the employee to take off an afternoon, a day, or even an entire week. Cf. Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U. S. 728, 739 (1981) (“[T]he FLSA was designed ... to ensure that each employee covered by the Act. . . would be protected from the evil of overwork . . .” (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)). Second, the FLSA explicitly permits an employer to cash out accumulated compensatory time by paying the employee his regular hourly wage for each hour accrued. §207(o)(3)(B); 29 CFR § 553.27(a) (1999). Thus, under the FLSA an employer is free to require an employee to take time off work, and an employer is also free to use the money it would have paid in wages to cash out accrued compensatory time. The compelled use of compensatory time challenged in this case merely involves doing both of these steps at once. It would make little sense to interpret §207(o)(5) to make the combination of the two steps unlawful when each independently is lawful.
III
In an attempt to avoid the conclusion that the FLSA does not prohibit compelled use of compensatory time, petitioners and the United States contend that we should defer to the Department of Labor’s opinion letter, which takes the position that an employer may compel the use of compensatory time only if the employee has agreed in advance to such a practice. Specifically, they argue that the agency opinion letter is entitled to deference under our decision in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). In Chevron, we held that a court must give effect to an agency’s regulation containing a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Id., at 842-844.
Here, however, we confront an interpretation contained in an opinion letter, not one arrived at after, for example, a formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking. Interpretations such as those in opinion letters — like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law— do not warrant Chevron-style deference. See, e. g., Reno v. Koray, 515 U. S. 50, 61 (1995) (internal agency guideline, which is not “subject to the rigors of the Administrative Procedure] Act, including public notice and comment,” entitled only to “some deference” (internal quotation marks omitted)); EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 256-258 (1991) (interpretative guidelines do not receive Chevron deference); Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 144, 157 (1991) (interpretative rules and enforcement guidelines are “not entitled to the same deference as norms that derive from the exercise of the Secretary’s delegated lawmaking powers”). See generally 1 K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 3.5 (3d ed. 1994). Instead, interpretations contained in formats such as opinion letters are “entitled to respect” under our decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944), but only to the extent that those interpretations have the “power to persuade,” ibid. See Arabian American Oil Co., supra, at 256-258. As explained above, we find unpersuasive the agency’s interpretation of the statute at issue in this case.
Of course, the framework of deference set forth in Chevron does apply to an agency interpretation contained in a regulation. But in this case the Department of Labor’s regulation does not address the issue of compelled compensatory time. The regulation provides only that “[t]he agreement or understanding [between the employer and employee] may include other provisions governing the preservation, use, or cashing out of compensatory time so long as these provisions are consistent with [§207(o)].” 29 CFR § 553.23(a)(2) (1999) (emphasis added). Nothing in the regulation even arguably requires that an employer’s compelled use policy must be included in an agreement. The text of the regulation itself indicates that its command is permissive, not mandatory.
Seeking to overcome the regulation’s obvious meaning, the United States asserts that the agency’s opinion letter interpreting the regulation should be given deference under our decision in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997). In Auer, we held that an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference. Id., at 461. See also Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945). But Auer deference is warranted only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous. The regulation in this case, however, is not ambiguous — it is plainly permissive. To defer to the agency’s position would be to permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation. Because the regulation is not ambiguous on the issue of compelled compensatory time, Auer deference is unwarranted.
* * *
As we have noted, no relevant statutory provision expressly or implicitly prohibits Harris County from pursuing its policy of forcing employees to utilize their compensatory time. In its opinion letter siding with the petitioners, the Department of Labor opined that "it is our position that neither the statute nor the regulations permit an employer to require an employee to use accrued compensatory time.” Opinion Letter (emphasis added). But this view is exactly backwards. Unless the FLSA prohibits respondents from adopting its policy, petitioners cannot show that Harris County has violated the FLSA. And the FLSA contains no such prohibition. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Such an agreement or understanding need not be formally reached and memorialized in writing, but instead can be arrived at informally, such as when an employee works overtime knowing that the employer rewards overtime with compensatory time. See 29 CFR § 553.23(c)(1) (1999).
Compare, e. g., Collins v. Lobdell, 188 F. 3d 1124, 1129-1130 (CA9 1999) (upholding employer’s policy compelling compensatory time use), with Heaton v. Moore, 43 F. 3d 1176, 1180-1181 (CA8 1994) (striking down policy compelling compensatory time use), cert. denied sub nom. Schriro v. Heaton, 515 U. S. 1104 (1995).
We granted certiorari on the question “‘[w]hether a public agency governed by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U. S. C. §207(o), may, absent a preexisting agreement, require its employees to use accrued compensatory time?’ ” 528 U. S. 926, 927 (1999). As such, we decide this case on the assumption that no agreement or understanding exists between the employer and employees on the issue of compelled use of compensatory time.
Justice Stevens asserts that the parties never make this argument. See post, at 593, n. 1 (dissenting opinion). Although the United States and petitioners fail to make their arguments in Latin, we believe a fair reading of the briefs reveals reliance upon the expressio unius canon. See Brief for United States as Amieus Curiae 16 (“Congress . . . identified only one circumstance in which an employer may exercise some measure of control: when an employee requests the use of compensatory time, the employer must allow such use within a reasonable period of time except where the use would ‘unduly disrupt’ the employer’s operations. 29 U. S. C. 207(o)(5). If Congress had intended for employers to exercise unilateral control over the use of compensatory time in other respects as well, it presumably would have so provided”); Reply Brief for Petitioners 4-6 (contending that the FLSA explicitly provides methods for reducing compensatory time and thus other means may not be used).
Justice Stevens does not dispute this argument. In fact, he expressly endorses half of it. See post, at 594, 595 (employer free to cash out compensatory time). Instead, Justice Stevens claims that we “stumblfe]” by failing to identify “the relevant general rule” that employees have “a statutory right to compensation for overtime work payable in cash.” Post, at 592. We fail to do so only because the general rule is not relevant to this case. Both parties to this case agreed that compensatory time would be provided in lieu of cash and thus § 207(a)’s general requirement of cash compensation is supplanted. Petitioners and the United States do assert that the requirement of cash compensation is relevant by analogy. They claim that an employer cannot compel compensatory time use because compensatory time should be treated like employee cash in the bank — that is, under the exclusive control of the employee. But this analogy is wholly inapt under the very terms of the FLSA. The FLSA grants significant control to the employer over accrued compensatory time. For example, the employer is free to buy out compensatory time at any time by providing cash compensation. §207(o)(3)(B); 29 CFR ' § 553.27(a) (1999). Additionally, an employer is free to deny any request to use compensatory time when such use would unduly disrupt the employer’s operations. §207(o)(5)(B); 29 CFR § 553.25(d) (1999). The cash analogy is therefore directly undermined by unambiguous provisions of the statute.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620 (1980), this Court, with one dissenting vote, concluded that a municipal ordinance prohibiting the solicitation of contributions by a charitable organization that did not use at least 75% of its receipts for “charitable purposes” was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The issue in the present case is whether a Maryland statute with a like percentage limitation, but with provisions that render it more “flexible” than the Schaumburg ordinance, can withstand constitutional attack. The Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that, even with this increased flexibility, the percentage restriction on charitable solicitation was an unconstitutional limitation on protected First Amendment solicitation activity. We agree with that conclusion and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc. (Munson), an Indiana corporation, instituted this action in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Md., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of State of Maryland (Secretary). Munson is a professional for-profit fundraiser in the business of promoting fundraising events and giving advice to customers on how those events should be conducted. Its Maryland customers include various chapters of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).
Section 103A et seq., Art. 41, Md. Ann. Code (1982), concern charitable organizations. Section 103D prohibits such an organization, in connection with any fundraising activity, from paying or agreeing to pay as expenses more than 25% of the amount raised. Munson in its complaint alleged that it regularly charges an FOP chapter an amount in excess of 25% of the gross raised for the event it promotes. App. 4. Munson also alleged that the Secretary had informed it that it was subject to § 103D and would be prosecuted if it failed to comply with the provisions of that statute. App. 5.
In its initial complaint, filed March 7, 1978, Munson took the position that its contracts with the FOP should not be subject to § 103A et seq. The Circuit Court dismissed that challenge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded, however, that Munson could attack the statutes as an improper delegation of legislative authority, in violation of the Maryland Constitution. App. 13. Munson then amended its complaint to allege that the statutes effected an unconstitutional infringement on its right to free speech and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Id., at 26.
The Secretary questioned Munson’s standing to assert its claims. He urged that § 103D is directed to acts of charitable organizations and, therefore, that only an organization of that kind can challenge the statute’s constitutionality. The Secretary also urged that Munson’s claims presented no actual controversy, because Munson had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and, consequently, there had been no binding determination that the statute would apply to Munson’s contracts. App. 29.
The Circuit Court did not address the standing argument, but upheld the statute on the merits. App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a. It concluded that because the statute included a provision authorizing a waiver of the percentage limitation “in those instances where the 25% limitation would effectively prevent a charitable organization from raising contributions,” it was sufficiently flexible to accommodate legitimate First Amendment interests. Id., at 46a. The court also rejected Munson’s state-law claim that the statute was an impermissible delegation of legislative authority.
Munson appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The Secretary did not take a cross-appeal. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. 48 Md. App. 273, 426 A. 2d 985 (1981).
Both Munson and the Secretary then petitioned the Court of Appeals of Maryland for writs of certiorari. Munson challenged the validity of the statute and the Secretary challenged Munson’s standing. The court granted both petitions and, by a unanimous vote, reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. 294 Md. 160, 448 A. 2d 935 (1982). It expressed doubt about the Secretary’s ability to challenge Munson’s standing when the Secretary had not taken an appeal from the Circuit Court’s judgment, but, assuming that the issue was properly before the court, nonetheless concluded that Munson did have standing to challenge the facial validity of § 103D. The court found that, based on the allegations of its complaint and under the facts as stipulated in the trial court, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a, Munson clearly had suffered injury as a result of § 103D. The court rejected the contention that Munson may not assert the First Amendment rights of the FOP chapters, noting that where a statute is directed at persons with whom the plaintiff has a business or professional relationship, and impairs the plaintiff in that relationship, it normally is accorded standing to challenge the validity of the statute. 294 Md., at 171, 448 A. 2d, at 941. In addition, as this Court in Schaumburg held, 444 U. S., at 634, “[g]iven a case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court.” 294 Md., at 172, 448 A. 2d, at 942.
On the merits, the court concluded that Schaumburg required that the Maryland statute be ruled unconstitutional. It rejected the Secretary’s argument that the statute was valid because it did not require a permit prior to solicitation, and imposed criminal penalties only for solicitation in violation of the statute. 294 Md., at 176-179, 448 A. 2d, at 944-945. The court also concluded that the flaws in the statute were not remedied by the provision authorizing a waiver of the 25% limitation whenever it would effectively prevent the charitable organization from raising contributions. Id., at 179-181, 448 A. 2d, at 945-946. The court found that the statutory authorization for an exemption from the percentage limitation is “extremely narrow.” It did not remedy the flaw inherent in a percentage limitation on solicitation costs — that charities that make a policy decision to use more than 25% of the proceeds raised for purposes other than “charitable” are denied their constitutional right to do so, and are lumped together with those engaging in fraud. Id., at 180-181, 448 A. 2d, at 946. In sum, in the view of the Court of Appeals, the 25% limitation, like that in the ordinance addressed in Schaumburg, is not a “narrowly drawn regulatio[n] designed to serve [the State’s legitimate] interests without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms.” 444 U. S., at 637.
We granted certiorari to review both determinations of the Court of Appeals, namely, that Munson had standing to challenge the validity of §103D, and that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. 459 U. S. 1102 (1983).
I — i I — i
Standing. The first element of the standing inquiry that Munson must satisfy in this Court is the “case” or “controversy” requirement of Art. Ill of the United States Constitution. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 112 (1976). Munson is a professional fundraising company. Because its contracts call for payment in excess of 25% of the funds raised for a given event, it is subject, under § 103L, to civil restraint and criminal liability. Prior to initiation of the present lawsuit, the Secretary informed Munson that if it refused to comply with § 103D, it would be prosecuted. The parties stipulated before trial that the Montgomery County Chapter of the FOP was reluctant to enter into a contract with Munson because of the limitation imposed by § 103D. Munson has suffered both threatened and actual injury as a result of the statute. See Singleton v. Wulff, supra; Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26 (1976); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617 (1973).
In addition to the limitations on standing imposed by Art. Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement, there are prudential considerations that limit the challenges courts are willing to hear. “[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 499 (1975) (citing Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44 (1943); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17 (1960); and Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953)). The reason for this rule is twofold. The limitation “frees the Court not only from unnecessary pronouncement on constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations of statutes in areas where their constitutional application might be cloudy,” United States v. Raines, 362 U. S., at 22, and it assures the court that the issues before it will be concrete and sharply presented. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). Munson is not a charity and does not claim that its own First Amendment rights have been or will be infringed by the challenged statute. Accordingly, the Secretary insists that Munson should not be heard to complain that the State’s charitable-solicitation rule violates the First Amendment.
The Secretary concedes, however, that there are situations where competing considerations outweigh any prudential rationale against third-party standing, and that this Court has relaxed the prudential-standing limitation when such concerns are present. Where practical obstacles prevent a party from asserting rights on behalf of itself, for example, the Court has recognized the doctrine of jus tertii standing. In such a situation, the Court considers whether the third party has sufficient injury-in-fact to satisfy the Art. Ill case- or-controversy requirement, and whether, as a prudential matter, the third party can reasonably be expected properly to frame the issues and present them with the necessary adversarial zeal. See, e. g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 193-194 (1976).
Within the context of the First Amendment, the Court has enunciated other concerns that justify a lessening of prudential limitations on standing. Even where a First Amendment challenge could be brought by one actually engaged in protected activity, there is a possibility that, rather than risk punishment for his conduct in challenging the statute, he will refrain from engaging further in the protected activity. Society as a whole then would be the loser. Thus, when there is a danger of chilling free speech, the concern that constitutional adjudication be avoided whenever possible may be outweighed by society’s interest in having the statute challenged. “Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 612 (1973).
In the instant case, the Secretary’s most serious argument against allowing Munson to challenge the statute is that there is no showing that a charity cannot bring its own lawsuit. Although such an argument might defeat a party’s standing outside the First Amendment xcontext, this Court has not found the argument dispositive in determining whether standing exists to challenge a statute that allegedly chills free speech. To the contrary, where the claim is that a statute is overly broad in violation of the First Amendment, the Court has allowed a party to assert the rights of another without regard to the ability of the other to assert his own claims and “‘with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity.’” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S., at 612, quoting Dom-browski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 486 (1965). See also Schaumburg, 444 U. S., at 634 (“Given a case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court”).
The fact that, because Munson is not a charity, there might not be a possibility that the challenged statute could restrict Munson's own First Amendment rights does not alter the analysis. Facial challenges to overly broad statutes are allowed not primarily for the benefit of the litigant, but for the benefit of society — to prevent the statute from chilling the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court. Munson’s ability to serve that function has nothing to do with whether or not its own First Amendment rights are at stake. The crucial issues are whether Munson satisfies the requirement of “injury-in-fact,” and whether it can be expected satisfactorily to frame the issues in the case. If so, there is no reason that Munson need also be a charity. If not, Munson could not bring this challenge even if it were a charity.
The Secretary concedes that the Art. Ill ease-or-controversy requirement has been met, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, and the Secretary has come forward with no reason why Munson is an inadequate advocate to assert the charities’ rights. The activity sought to be protected is at the heart of the business relationship between Munson and its clients, and Munson’s interests in challenging the statute are completely consistent with the First Amendment interests of the charities it represents. We see no prudential reason not to allow it to challenge the statute.
Besides challenging Munson’s standing as a “noncharity” to bring its claim, the Secretary urges that Munson should not have standing to challenge the statute as overbroad because it has not demonstrated that the statute’s overbreadth is “substantial.” See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S., at 615. The Secretary raises a point of valid concern. The Court has indicated that application of the overbreadth doctrine is “strong medicine” that should be invoked only “as a last resort.” Id., at 613. The Secretary’s concern, however, is one that is more properly reserved for the determination of Munson’s First Amendment challenge on the merits. The requirement that a statute be “substantially overbroad” before it will be struck down on its face is a “standing” question only to the extent that if the plaintiff does not prevail on the merits of its facial challenge and cannot demonstrate that, as applied to it, the statute is unconstitutional, it has no “standing” to allege that, as applied to others, the statute might be unconstitutional. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 760 (1974); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S., at 21. See generally Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981 S. Ct. Rev. 1. We therefore move on to the merits of Munson’s First Amendment claim.
Ill
The Merits. In Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, supra, the Court struck down a municipal ordinance that required every charitable organization, which utilized door-to-door solicitation, to apply for a permit obtainable only on “ ‘[satisfactory proof that at least seventy-five per cent of the proceeds of such solicitations will be used directly for the charitable purpose of the organization.’” Id., at 624. The question before us is whether the distinctions between the Schaumburg ordinance and the Maryland statute are sufficient to render the statute constitutionally acceptable. To answer that question, we reexamine the bases for the conclusion the Court reached in Schaumburg.
A
The Court in Schaumburg determined first that charitable solicitations are so intertwined with speech that they are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment:
“Prior authorities, therefore, clearly establish that charitable appeals for funds, on the street or door to door, involve a variety of speech interests — communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes — that are within the protection of the First Amendment. Soliciting financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regulation but the latter must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political, or social issues, and for the reality that without solicitation the flow of such information and advocacy would likely cease.” Id., at 632.
Because the percentage limitation restricted the ways in which charities might engage in solicitation activity, the Court concluded that it was a “direct and substantial limitation on protected activity that cannot be sustained unless it serves a sufficiently strong, subordinating interest that the Village is entitled to protect.” Id., at 636. In addition, in order to be valid, the limitation would have to be a “narrowly drawn regulatio[n] designed to serve [the] interes[t] without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms.” Id., at 637.
Although the Court in Schaumburg recognized that the Village had legitimate interests in protecting the public from fraud, crime, and undue annoyance, it rejected the limitation because it was not a precisely tailored means of accommodating those interests. The Village’s asserted interests were only peripherally promoted by the limitation and could be served by measures less intrusive than a direct prohibition on solicitation.
In particular, although the Village’s primary interest was in preventing fraud, the Court concluded that the limitation was simply too imprecise an instrument to accomplish that purpose. The justification for the limitation was an assumption that any organization using more than 25% of its receipts on fundraising, salaries, and overhead was not charitable, but was a commercial, for-profit enterprise. Any such enterprise that represented itself as a charity thus was fraudulent.
The flaw in the Village’s assumption, as the Court recognized, was that there is no necessary connection between fraud and high solicitation and administrative costs. A number of other factors may result in high costs; the most important of these is that charities often are combining solicitation with dissemination of information, discussion, and advocacy of public issues, an activity clearly protected by the First Amendment and as to which the Village had asserted no legitimate interest in prohibiting. In light of the fact that the interest in protecting against fraud can be accommodated by measures less intrusive than a direct prohibition on solicitation, the Court concluded that the limitation was insufficiently related to the governmental interests asserted to justify its interference with protected speech.
B
Schaumburg left open the primary question now before this Court — whether the constitutional deficiencies in a percentage limitation on funds expended in solicitation are remedied by the possibility of an administrative waiver of the limitation for a charity that can demonstrate financial necessity. The Court there distinguished a case in which a percentage limitation on solicitation costs had been upheld, see National Foundation v. Fort Worth, 415 F. 2d 41 (CA5 1969), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 1040 (1970), noting that under the ordinance in Fort Worth, a charity had the opportunity to demonstrate that its solicitation costs, though high, nevertheless were reasonable. See 444 U. S., at 635, n. 9.
Section 103D has a provision similar to that in the Fort Worth ordinance. It directs the Secretary of State to “issue rules and regulations to permit a charitable organization to pay or agree to pay for expenses in connection with a fund-raising activity more than 25% of its total gross income in those instances where the 25% limitation would effectively prevent the charitable organization from raising contributions.” See n. 2, supra. Having now considered the question left open in Schaumburg, however, we conclude that the waiver provision does not save the statute.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the exception in § 103D was “extremely narrow,” being confined to instances “where the 25% limitation would effectively prevent the charitable organization from raising contributions,” 294 Md., at 180, 448 A. 2d, at 946, and of no avail to an organization whose high fundraising costs were attributable to legitimate policy decisions about how to use its funds, rather than to inability to raise funds. Under the Court of Appeals’ interpretation, the Secretary has no discretion to determine that reasons other than financial necessity warrant a waiver. The statute does not help the charity whose solicitation costs are high because it chooses, as was stipulated here, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a, to disseminate information as a part of its fundraising. Thus, the organizations that were of primary concern to the Court in Schaumburg, those whose high costs were due to “ ‘information dissemination, discussion, and advocacy of public issues,”’ 444 U. S., at 635, quoting from Citizens for a Better Environment v. Schaumburg, 590 F. 2d 220, 225 (CA7 1978), remain barred by the statute from carrying on those protected First Amendment activities.
C
The Secretary urges that even though there may remain charities whose First Amendment activity is limited by the statute, we should not strike down the statute on its face because, with the waiver provision, it no longer is “substantially overbroad.” We are not persuaded.
“Substantial overbreadth” is a criterion the Court has invoked to avoid striking down a statute on its face simply because of the possibility that it might be applied in an unconstitutional manner. It is appropriate in cases where, despite some possibly impermissible application, the “ ‘remainder of the statute... covers a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable... conduct....' CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 580-581 (1973).” Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S., at 760. See also New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 770, n. 25 (1982). In such a case, the Court has required a litigant to demonstrate that the statute “as applied” to him is unconstitutional. Id., at 774.
This is not such a case. Here there is no core of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct that the statute prohibits. While there no doubt are organizations that have high fundraising costs not due to protected First Amendment activity and that, therefore, should not be heard to complain that their activities are prohibited, this statute cannot distinguish those organizations from charities that have high costs due to protected First Amendment activities. The flaw in the statute is not simply that it includes within its sweep some impermissible applications, but that in all its applications it operates on a fundamentally mistaken premise that high solicitation costs are an accurate measure of fraud. That the statute in some of its applications actually prevents the misdirection of funds from the organization’s purported charitable goal is little more than fortuitous. It is equally likely that the statute will restrict First Amendment activity that results in high costs but is itself a part of the charity’s goal or that is simply attributable to the fact that the charity’s cause proves to be unpopular. On the other hand, if an organization indulges in fraud, there is nothing in the percentage limitation that prevents it from misdirecting funds. In either event, the percentage limitation, though restricting solicitation costs, will have done nothing to prevent fraud.
Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity, and where the defect in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State’s objectives are too imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates an unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the statute is properly subject to facial attack. Schaumburg, 444 U. S., at 637; First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 786 (1978). See also Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 565, n. 8 (1980); City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 800, n. 19 (1984) (“[W]here the statute unquestionably attaches sanctions to protected conduct, the likelihood that the statute will deter that conduct is ordinarily sufficiently great to justify an overbreadth attack,” citing Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 217 (1975)).
The possibility of a waiver may decrease the number of impermissible applications of the statute, but it does nothing to remedy the statute’s fundamental defect. We conclude that, regardless of the waiver provision, Schaumburg requires that the percentage limitation in the Maryland statute be rejected.
IV
Our conclusion is not altered by the presence of other distinctions the Secretary urges between this statute and the ordinance at issue in Schaumburg.
The Secretary points out, for example, that § 103D does not impose a prior restraint on protected activities. An organization may register as a charity and solicit funds without first demonstrating that it satisfies § 103D. The statute, it is said, regulates only after the fact. We are unmoved by the claimed distinction. As the Court of Appeals noted, several elements of the regulatory scheme suggest the possibility of a “before-the-fact” prohibition on solicitation. Section § 103D requires that every contract or agreement between a professional fundraiser and a charitable organization shall be filed with the Secretary of State prior to any solicitation. Under § 103F, no solicitation may begin until the Secretary “shall approve the registration” of a professional fundraiser counsel or professional solicitor. And the Secretary is to approve the professional fundraiser’s registration only if she finds that the application is in conformity with the requirements of the subtitle as well as the rules and regulations of the Secretary.
More important, whether the statute regulates before- or after-the-fact makes little difference in this case. Whether the charity is prevented from engaging in First Amendment activity by the lack of a solicitation permit or by the knowledge that its fundraising activity is illegal if it cannot satisfy the percentage limitation, the chill on the protected activity is the same. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572, n. 3 (1942).
The Secretary also points out that § 103D restricts only fundraising expenses and not the multitude of other expenses that are not spent directly on the organization’s charitable purpose, and that the charity may elect whether to be bound by its fundraising percentage for the prior year or to apply the 25% limitation on a campaign-by-campaign basis. Those distinctions, however, mean only that the statute will not apply to as many charities as did the ordinance in Schaum-burg. They do nothing to alter the fact that significant fundraising activity protected by the First Amendment is barred by the percentage limitation.
Finally, the fact that the statute regulates all charitable fundraising, and not just door-to-door solicitation, does not remedy the fact that the statute promotes the State’s interest only peripherally. The distinction made in Schaumburg was between regulation aimed at fraud and regulation aimed at something else in the hope that it would sweep fraud in during the process. The statute’s aim is not improved by the fact that it fires at a number of targets.
We agree with the Court of Appeals of Maryland that §103D is unconstitutionally overbroad. The judgment of that court therefore is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Effective July 1, 1984, the Maryland Legislature has revised its charitable organizations law. See 1984 Md. Laws, ch. 787. No changes are made in § 103D, but changes are made in the definitional section and in the registration requirement imposed on professional fundraisers. Those changes do not affect this case.
Section § 103D reads in full:
“(a) A charitable organization other than a charitable salvage organization may not pay or agree to pay as expenses in connection with any fund-raising activity a total amount in excess of 25 percent of the total gross income raised or received by reason of the fund-raising activity. The Secretary of State shall, by rule or regulation in accordance with the ‘standard of accounting and fiscal reporting for voluntary health and welfare organizations' provide for the reporting of actual cost, and of allocation of expenses, of a charitable organization into those which are in connection with a fund-raising activity and those which are not. The Secretary of State shall issue rules and regulations to permit a charitable organization to pay or agree to pay for expenses in connection with a fund-raising activity more than 25% of its total gross income in those instances where the 25% limitation would effectively prevent the charitable organization from raising contributions.
“The 25% limitation in this subsection shall not apply to compensation or expenses paid by a charitable organization to a professional fund-raiser counsel for conducting feasibility studies for the purpose of determining whether or not the charitable organization should undertake a fund-raising activity, such compensation or expenses paid for feasibility studies or preliminary planning not being considered to be expenses paid in connection with a fund-raising activity.
“(b) For purposes of this section, the total gross income raised or received shall be adjusted so as not to include contributions received equal to the actual cost to the charitable organization of (1) goods, food, entertainment, or drink sold or provided to the public, nor should these costs be included as fund-raising costs; (2) the actual postage paid to the United States Postal Service and printing expense in connection with the soliciting of contributions, nor should these costs be included as fund-raising costs.
“(c) Every contract or agreement between a professional fund-raiser counsel or a professional solicitor and a charitable organization shall be in writing, and a copy of it shall be filed with the Secretary of State within ten days after it is entered into and prior to any solicitations.”
Other related Maryland statutes require that a charity intending to solicit contributions within or without the State file a registration statement with the Secretary of State providing information about its purpose and its finances, § 103B, and that professional fundraisers register with and be approved by the Secretary, § 103F. Section 103L(a) subjects both the charitable organization and the professional fundraiser to criminal liability for wilfully violating the statutory requirements.
The court also rejected the Secretary’s claim that Munson could not question the validity of the statute because there had been no final administrative determination that the statute was applicable to Munson. The court concluded that Munson did not need to exhaust administrative remedies in order to attack the statute on its face. 294 Md., at 171, 448 A. 2d, at 941. The Secretary does not challenge that determination here.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Munson had suffered sufficient injury as a result of § 103D to have standing to challenge the statute. The Secretary does not dispute that determination. Nevertheless, because the “ease” or “controversy” requirement is jurisdictional here, we must satisfy ourselves that the requirements of Art. Ill are met. Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429, 434 (1952).
As the various formulations of the prudential-standing limitations illustrate, the second factor counseling against allowing a litigant to assert the rights of third parties is not completely separable from Art. Ill’s requirement that a plaintiff have a “sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of [the] suit to make it a case or controversy.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 112 (1976). The prudential limitations add to the constitutional min-ima a healthy concern that if the claim is brought by someone other than one at whom the constitutional protection is aimed, the claim not be an abstract, generalized grievance that the courts are neither well equipped nor well advised to adjudicate. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500 (1975); Schlesinger v. Reservists To Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 217-222 (1974).
In the Circuit Court, Munson claimed that § 103D intruded upon its own First Amendment rights. Now, however, it focuses its argument solely on its ability to assert the First Amendment rights of Maryland charities. Because of our disposition of the Secretary's standing challenge, we have no occasion to address the extent to which Munson might assert its own First Amendment right to disseminate information as part of a charitable solicitation. It is clear that the fact that Munson is paid to disseminate information does not in itself render its activity unprotected. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 266 (1964).
See also Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350, 380 (1977) (“The use of overbreadth analysis reflects the conclusion that the possible harm to society from allowing unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech will be muted”); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 445 (1972) (in determining whether a litigant should be able to assert third-party rights, a crucial factor is “the impact of the litigation on the third-party interests”); id., at 445, n. 5 (“Indeed, in First Amendment cases we have relaxed our rules of standing without regard to the relationship between the litigant and those whose rights he seeks to assert precisely because application of those rules would have an intolerable, inhibitory effect on freedom of speech. E. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98 (1940). See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 22 (1960)”).
The types of speech regulated by the Maryland statute clearly encompass the types of speech determined in Schaumburg to be entitled to First Amendment protection. The statute defines “solicit” as meaning “to request, directly or indirectly, money, credit, property, a credit card contribution... or other financial assistance in any form on the plea or representation that the money, credit, property, a credit card contribution... or other financial assistance will be used for a charitable purpose. It includes:
“(1) An oral or written request;
“(2) An announcement to the news media for further dissemination by it of an appeal or campaign seeking contributions from the public for one or more charitable purposes.
“(3) The distribution, circulation, posting, or publishing of any handbill, written advertisement, or other publication which, directly or by implication, seeks contributions by the public for one or more charitable purposes; and
“(4) The sale of, or offer or attempt to sell, any advertisement, advertising space, book card, tag, coupon, device, magazine, membership, subscription, ticket, admission, chance, merchandise, or other tangible item in connection with which (i) an appeal is made for contributions to one or more charitable purposes, or (ii) the name of a charitable organization is used or referred to as an inducement to make such a purchase, or (iii) a statement is made that the whole or any part of the proceeds from the sale is to be used for one or more charitable purposes. A solicitation is deemed to have taken place when the request is made, whether or not the person making it actually receives a contribution.” § 103A(i).
The Court noted, for instance, that the Village could punish fraud directly and could require disclosure of the finances of a charitable organization so that a member of the public could make an informed decision about whether to contribute. Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S., at 637-638.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the constitutionality of the retroactive application of a judicial decision abolishing the common law “year and a day rule.” At common law, the year and a day rule provided that no defendant could be convicted of murder unless his victim had died by the defendant’s act within a year and a day of the act. See, e. g., Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co. v. Clarke, 152 U.S. 230, 239 (1894); 4 W. Blaekstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 197-198 (1769). The Supreme Court of Tennessee abolished the rule as it had existed at common law in Tennessee and applied its decision to petitioner to uphold his conviction. The question before us is whether, in doing so, the court denied petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
Petitioner Wilbert K. Rogers was convicted in Tennessee state court of second degree murder. According to the undisputed facts, petitioner stabbed his victim, James Bow-dery, with a butcher knife on May 6,1994. One of the stab wounds penetrated Bowdery’s heart. During surgery to repair the wound to his heart, Bowdery went into cardiac arrest, but was resuscitated and survived the procedure. As a result, however, he had developed a condition known as "cerebral hypoxia,” which results from a loss of oxygen to the brain. Bowdery’s higher brain functions had ceased, and he slipped into and remained in a coma until August 7, 1995, when he died from a kidney infection (a common complication experienced by comatose patients). Approximately 15 months had passed between the stabbing and Bowdery’s death which, according to the undisputed testimony of the county medical examiner, was caused by cerebral hypoxia "‘secondary to a stab wound to the heart.’” 992 S. W. 2d 393, 395 (Tenn. 1999).
Based on this evidence, the jury found petitioner guilty under Tennessee’s criminal homicide statute. The statute, which makes no mention of the year and a day rule, defines criminal homicide simply as “the unlawful killing of another person which may be first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or vehicular homicide.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (1997). Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that, despite its absence from the statute, the year and a day rule persisted as part of the common law of Tennessee and, as such, precluded his conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected that argument and affirmed the conviction. The court held that Tennessee’s Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 (1989 Act), which abolished all eommon law defenses in criminal actions in Tennessee, had abolished the rule. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-ll-203(e)(2) (1997). The court also rejected petitioner’s further contention that the legislative abolition of the rule constituted an ex post facto violation, noting that the 1989 Act had taken effect five years before petitioner committed his crime. No. 02C01-9611-CR-00418 (Tenn. Crim.App., Oct. 17, 1997), App. 7.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed on different grounds. The court observed that it had recognized the viability of the year and a day rule in Tennessee in Percer v. State, 118 Tenn. 765, 103 S. W. 780 (1907), and that, “[d]espite the paucity of case law” on the rule in Tennessee, “both parties ... agree that the ... rule was a part of the common law of this State.” 992 S. W. 2d, at 396. Turning to the rule’s present status, the court noted that the rule has been legislatively or judicially abolished by the “vast majority” of jurisdictions recently to have considered the issue. Id., at 397. The court concluded that, contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the 1989 Act had not abolished the rule. After reviewing the justifications for the rule at common law, however, the court found that the original reasons for recognizing the rule no longer exist. Accordingly, the court abolished the rule as it had existed at common law in Tennessee. Id., at 399-401.
The court disagreed with petitioner’s contention that application of its decision abolishing the rule to his case would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. Those constitutional provisions, the court observed, refer only to legislative Acts. The court then noted that in Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964), this Court held that due process prohibits retroactive application of any “‘judicial construction of a criminal statute [that] is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which has been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.’” 992 S. W. 2d, at 402 (quoting Bouie v. City of Columbia, supra, at 354) (alteration in original). The court concluded, however, that application of its decision to petitioner would not offend this principle. 992 S. W. 2d, at 402. We granted certiorari, 529 U.S. 1129 (2000), and we now affirm.
II
Although petitioner’s claim is one of due process, the Con stitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause figures prominently in his argument. The Clause provides simply that “[n]o State shall... pass any... ex post facto Law.” Art. I, § 10, el. 1. The most well-known and oft-repeated explanation of the scope of the Clause’s protection was given by Justice Chase, who long ago identified, in dictum, four types of laws to which the Clause extends:
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.” Calder v. Bull, 8 Dall. 386, 390 (1798) (seriatim opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis deleted).
Accord, Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521-525 (2000); Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 41-42, 46 (1990). As the text of the Clause makes clear, it “is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature, and does not of its own force apply to the Judicial Branch of government.” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 191 (1977) (citation omitted).
We have observed, however, that limitations on ex post facto judicial decisionmaking are inherent in the notion of due process. In Bouie v. City of Columbia, we considered the South Carolina Supreme Court’s retroactive application of its construction of the State’s criminal trespass statute to the petitioners in that case. The statute prohibited “entry upon the lands of another... after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting such entry .. .378 U.S., at 349, n. 1 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The South Carolina court construed the statute to extend to patrons of a drug store who had received no notice prohibiting their entry into the store, but had refused to leave the store when asked. Prior to the court’s decision, South Carolina cases construing the statute had uniformly held that conviction under the statute required proof of notice before entry. None of those cases, moreover, had given the “slightest indication that that requirement could be satisfied by proof of the different act of remaining on the land after being told to leave.” Id., at 357.
We held that the South Carolina court’s retroactive application of its construction to the store patrons violated due process. Reviewing decisions in which we had held criminal statutes “void for vagueness” under the Due Process Clause, we noted that this Court has often recognized the “basic principle that a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime.” Id., at 350; see id., at 350-352 (discussing, inter alia, United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939), and Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)). Deprivation of the right to fair warning, we continued, can result both from vague statutory language and from an unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion of statutory language that appears narrow and precise on its face. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S., at 352. For that reason, we concluded that “[i]f a judicial construction of a criminal statute is ‘unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue,’ [the construction] must not be given retroactive effect.” Id., at 354 (quoting J. Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 61 (2d ed. 1960)). We found that the South Carolina court’s construction of the statute violated this principle because it was so clearly at odds with the statute’s plain language and had no support in prior South Carolina decisions. 378 U. S., at 356.
Relying largely upon Bouie, petitioner argues that the Tennessee court erred in rejecting his claim that the retroactive application of its decision to his case violates due process. Petitioner contends that the Ex Post Facto Clause would prohibit the retroactive application of a decision abolishing the year and a day rule if accomplished by the Tennessee Legislature. He claims that the purposes behind the Clause are so fundamental that due process should prevent the Supreme Court of Tennessee from accomplishing the same result by judicial decree. Brief for Petitioner 8-18. In support of this claim, petitioner takes Bouie to stand for the proposition that “[i]n evaluating whether the retroactive application of a judicial decree violates Due Process, a critical question is whether the Constitution would prohibit the same result attained by the exercise of the state’s legislative power.” Brief for Petitioner 12.
To the extent petitioner argues that the Due Process Clause incorporates the specific prohibitions of the Ex Post Facto Clause as identified in Calder, petitioner misreads Bouie. To be sure, our opinion in Bouie does contain some expansive language that is suggestive of the broad interpretation for which petitioner argues. Most prominent is our statement that “[i]f a state legislature is barred by the Ex Post Facto Clause from passing... a law, it must follow that a State Supreme Court is barred by the Due Process Clause from achieving precisely the same result by judicial construction.” 378 U.S., at 358-354; see also id., at 353 (“[A]n unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law”); id., at 362 (“The Due Process Clause compels the same result” as would the constitutional proscription against ex post facto laws “where the State has sought to achieve precisely the same- [impermissible] effect by judicial construction of the statute”). This language, however, was dicta. Our decision in Bouie was rooted firmly in well established notions of due process. See supra, at 457-458. Its rationale rested on core due process concepts of notice, foreseeability, and,,in particular, the right to fair warning as those concepts bear on the constitutionality of attaching criminal penalties to what previously had been innocent conduct. See, e.g., 878 U.S., at 351, 352, 354-355. And we couched its holding squarely in terms of that established due process right, and not in terms of the ex post facto-related dicta to which petitioner points. Id., at 355 (concluding that “the South Carolina Code did not give [the petitioners] fair warning, at the time of their conduct..., that the act for which they now stand convicted was rendered criminal by the statute”). Contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, nowhere in the opinion did we go so far as to incorporate jot-for-jot the specific categories of Calder into due process limitations on the retroactive application of judicial decisions.
Nor have any of our subsequent decisions addressing Bouie-type claims interpreted Bouie as extending so far. Those decisions instead have uniformly viewed Bouie as restricted to its traditional due process roots. In doing so, they have applied Bouie’s check on retroactive judicial deci-sionmaking not by reference to the ex post facto categories set out in Calder, but, rather, in accordance with the more basic and general principle of fair warning that Bouie so clearly articulated. See, e. g., United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997) (“[D]ue process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope”); Marks v. United States, 430 U.S., at 191-192 (Due process protects against judicial infringement of the “right to fair warning” that certain conduct will give rise to criminal penalties); Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 53 (1975) (per curiam) (upholding defendant’s conviction under statute prohibiting “crimes against nature” because, unlike in Bouie, the defendant “[could] make no claim that [the statute] afforded no notice that his conduct might be within its scope”); Douglas v. Buder, 412 U.S. 480, 432 (1973) (per curiam) (trial court's construction of the term “arrest” as including a traffic citation, and application of that construction to defendant to revoke his probation, was unforeseeable and thus violated due process); Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313, 316 (1972) (per curiam) (reversing conviction under state obscenity law because it did “not giv[e] fair notice” that the location of the allegedly obscene exhibition was a vital element of the offense).
Petitioner observes that the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses safeguard common interests — in particular, the interests in fundamental fairness (through notice and fair warning) and the prevention of the arbitrary and vindictive use of the laws. Brief for Petitioner 12-18. While this is undoubtedly correct, see, e. g., Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 439-440, and n. 12 (1997), petitioner is mistaken to suggest that these considerations compel extending the strictures of the Ex Post Facto Clause to the context of common law judging. The Ex Post Facto Clause, by its own terms, does not apply to courts. Extending the Clause to courts through the rubric of due process thus would circumvent the clear constitutional text. It also would evince too little regard for the important institutional and contextual differences between legislating, on the one hand, and common law decision-making, on the other.
Petitioner contends that state courts acting in their common law capacity act much like legislatures in the exercise of their lawmaking function, and indeed may in some cases even be subject to the same kinds of political influences and pressures that justify ex post facto limitations upon legislatures. Brief for Petitioner 12-18; Reply Brief for Petitioner 15. A court’s “opportunity for discrimination,” however, “is more limited than [a] legislature’s, in that [it] can only act in construing existing law in actual litigation.” James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 247, n. 3 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Moreover, “[gliven the divergent pulls of flexibility and precedent in our case law system,” ibid., incorporation of the Colder categories into due process limitations on judicial decisionmaking would place an unworkable and unacceptable restraint on normal judicial processes and would be incompatible with the resolution of uncertainly that marks any evolving legal system.
That is particularly so where, as here, the allegedly impermissible judicial application of a rule of law involves not the interpretation of a statute but an act of common law judging. In the context of common law doctrines (such as the year and a day rule), there often arises a need to clarify or even to reevaluate prior opinions as new circumstances and fact patterns present themselves. Such judicial acts, whether they be characterized as “making” or “finding” the law, are a necessary part of the judicial business in States in which the criminal law retains some of its common law elements. Strict application of ex post facto principles in that context would unduly impair the incremental and reasoned development of precedent that is the foundation of the common law system. The common law, in short, presupposes a measure of evolution that is incompatible with stringent application of ex post faeto principles. It was on account of concerns such as these that Bouie restricted due process limitations on the retroactive application of judicial interpretations of criminal statutes to those that are “unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S., at 354 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We believe this limitation adequately serves the common law context as well. It accords common law courts the substantial leeway they must enjoy as they engage in the daily task of formulating and passing upon criminal defenses and interpreting such doctrines as causation and intent, reevaluating and refining them as may be necessary to bring the common law into conformity with logic and common sense. It also adequately respects the due process concern with fundamental fairness and protects against vindictive or arbitrary judicial lawmaking by safeguarding defendants against unjustified and unpredictable breaks with prior law. Accordingly, we conclude that a judicial alteration of a common law doctrine of criminal law violates the principle of fair warning, and hence must not be given retroactive effect, only where it is “unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.” Ibid.
Justice Scaiia makes much of the fact that, at the time of the framing of the Constitution, it was widely accepted that courts could not “change” the law, see post, at 472-473, 477-478 (dissenting opinion), and that (according to Justice Scalia) there is no doubt that the Ex Post Facto Clause would have prohibited a legislative decision identical to the Tennessee court’s decision here, see post, at 469-471, 478. This latter argument seeks at bottom merely to reopen what has long been settled by the constitutional text and our own decisions: that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to judicial decisionmaking. The former argument is beside the point. Common law courts at the time of the framing undoubtedly believed that they were finding rather than making law. But, however one characterizes their actions, the fact of the matter is that common law courts then, as now, were deciding cases, and in doing so were fashioning and refining the law as it then existed in light of reason and experience. Due process clearly did not prohibit this process of judicial evolution at the time of the framing, and it does not do so today.
Ill
Turning to the particular facts of the instant ease, the Tennessee court’s abolition of the year and a day rule was not unexpected and indefensible. The year and a day rule is widely viewed as an outdated relic of the common law. Petitioner does not even so much as hint that good reasons exist for retaining the rule, and so we need not delve too deeply into the rule and its history here. Suffice it to say that the rule is generally believed to date back to the 13th century, when it served as a statute of limitations governing the time in which an individual might initiate a private action for murder known as an “appeal of death”; that by the 18th century the rule had been extended to the law governing public prosecutions for murder; that the primary and most frequently cited justification for the rule is that 13th century medical science was incapable of establishing causation beyond a reasonable doubt when a great deal of time had elapsed between the injury to the victim and his death; and that, as practically every court recently to have considered the rule has noted, advances in medical and related science have so undermined the usefulness of the rule as to render it without question obsolete. See, e. g., People v. Carrillo, 164 Ill. 2d 144, 150, 646 N. E. 2d 582, 585 (1995); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 381 Mass. 411, 414-415, 409 N. E. 2d 771, 772-773 (1980); People v. Stevenson, 416 Mich. 383, 391-392, 331 N. W. 2d 143,146 (1982); State v. Hefler, 310 N. C. 135, 138-140,310 S. E. 2d 310, 313 (1984); see generally Comment, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1337 (1992) (tracing the history of the rule).
For this reason, the year and a day rule has been legislatively or judicially abolished in the vast majority of jurisdictions recently to have addressed the issue. See 992 S. W. 2d, at 397, n. 4 (reviewing cases and statutes). Citing Bouie, petitioner contends that the judicial abolition of the rule in other jurisdictions is irrelevant to whether he had fair warning that the rule in Tennessee might similarly be abolished and, hence, to whether the Tennessee court’s decision was unexpected and indefensible as applied to him. Brief for Petitioner 28-30. In discussing the apparent meaning of the South Carolina statute in Bouie, we noted that “[i]t would be a rare situation in which the meaning of a statute of another State sufficed to afford a person ‘fair warning’ that his own State’s statute meant something quite different from what its words said.” 378 U. S., at 359-360. This case, however, involves not the precise meaning of the words of a particular statute, but rather the continuing viability of a common law rule. Common law courts frequently look to the decisions of other jurisdictions in determining whether to alter or modify a common law rule in light of changed circumstances, increased knowledge, and general logic and experience. Due process, of course, does not require a person to apprise himself of the common law of all 50 States in order to guarantee that his actions will not subject him to punishment in light of a developing trend in the law that has not yet made its way to his State. At the same time, however, the fact that a vast number of jurisdictions have abolished a rule that has so clearly outlived its purpose is surely relevant to whether the abolition of the rule in a particular case can be said to be unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law as it then existed.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, at the time of petitioner’s crime the year and a day rule had only the most tenuous foothold as part of the criminal law of the State of Tennessee. The rule did not exist as part of Tennessee’s statutory criminal code. And while the Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that the rule persisted at common law, it also pointedly observed that the rule had never once served as a ground of decision in any prosecution for murder in the State. Indeed, in all the reported Tennessee eases, the rule has been mentioned only three times, and each time in dicta.
The first mention of the rule in Tennessee, and the only mention of it by the Supreme Court of that State, was in 1907 in Percer v. State, 118 Tenn. 765, 103 S. W. 780. In Percer, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction for second degree murder because the defendant was not present in court when the verdict was announced and because the proof failed to show that the murder occurred prior to the finding of the indictment. In discussing the latter ground for its decision, the court quoted the rule that “ ‘it is ... for the State to show that the crime was committed before the indictment was found, and, where it fails to do so, a conviction will be reversed.'” Id., at 777, 103 S.W., at 783 (quoting 12 Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure 382 (1904)). The court then also quoted the rule that ‘“[i]n murder, the death must be proven to have taken place within a year and a day from the date of the injury received.'” 118 Tenn., at 777, 103 S. W., at 783 (quoting P. Wharton, Law of Homicide § 18 (3d ed. 1907)).
While petitioner relies on this case for the proposition that the year and a day rule was firmly entrenched in the common law of Tennessee, we agree with the Supreme Court of Tennessee that the case cannot establish nearly so much. After reciting the rules just mentioned, the court in Pereer went on to point out that the indictment was found on July 6,1906; that it charged that the murder was committed sometime in May 1906; and that the only evidence of when the victim died was testimony from a witness stating that he thought the death occurred sometime in July, but specifying neither a date nor a year. From this, the court concluded that it did “not affirmatively appear” from the evidence “whether the death occurred before or after the finding of the indictment.” 118 Tenn., at 777, 103 S. W., at 783. The court made no mention of the year and a day rule anywhere in its legal analysis or, for that matter, anywhere else in its opinion. Thus, whatever the import of the court’s earlier quoting of the rule, it is clear that the rule did not serve as the basis for the Pereer court’s decision.
The next two references to the rule both were by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in eases in which the date of the victim’s death was not even in issue. Sixty-seven years after Pereer, the court in Cole v. State, 512 S. W. 2d 598 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974), noted the existence of the rule in rejecting the defendants’ contentions that insufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s conclusion that they had caused the victim’s death in a drag-racing crash. Id., at 601. Twenty-one years after that, in State v. Ruane, 912 S. W. 2d 766 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995), a defendant referred to the rule in arguing that the operative cause of his victim's death was removal of life support rather than a gunshot wound at the defendant’s hand. The victim had died within 10 days of receiving the wound. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument, concluding, as it had in this case, that the year and a day rule had been abolished by the 1989 Act. It went on to hold that the evidence of causation was sufficient to support the conviction. Id., at 773-777. Ruane, of course, was decided after petitioner committed his crime, and it concluded that the year and a day rule no longer existed in Tennessee for a reason that the high court of that State ultimately rejected. But we note the case nonetheless to complete our account of the few appearances of the common law rule in the decisions of the Tennessee courts.
These eases hardly suggest that the Tennessee court’s decision was “unexpected and indefensible” such that it offended the due process principle of fair warning articulated in Bouie and its progeny. This is so despite the fact that, as Justice Scalia correctly points out, the court viewed the year and a day rule as a “substantive principle” of the common law of Tennessee. See post, at 480. As such, however, it was a principle in name only, having never once been enforced in the State. The Supreme Court of Tennessee also emphasized this fact in its opinion, see 992 S. W. 2d, at 402, and rightly so, for it is surely relevant to whether the court’s abolition of the rule in petitioner’s ease violated due process limitations on retroactive judicial decisionmaking. And while we readily agree with Justice Scalia that fundamental due process prohibits the punishment of conduct that cannot fairly be said to have been criminal at the time the conduct occurred, see, e. g., post, at 470, 478, 480, nothing suggests that is what took place here.
There is, in short, nothing to indicate that the Tennessee court’s abolition of the rule in petitioner’s ease represented an exercise of the sort of unfair and arbitrary judicial action against which the Due Process Clause aims to protect. Par from a marked and unpredictable departure from prior precedent, the court’s decision was a routine exercise of common law decisionmaking in which the court brought the law into conformity with reason and common sense. It did so by laying to rest an archaic and outdated rule that had never been relied upon as a ground of decision in any reported Tennessee case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is accordingly affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
When the law grants persons the right to compensation for injury from wrongful conduct, there must be some demonstrated connection, some link, between the injury sustained and the wrong alleged. The requisite relation between prohibited conduct and compensable injury is governed by the principles of causation, a subject most often arising in elaborating the law of torts. This case requires the Court to define those rules in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., which provides remedies to employees for injuries related to discriminatory conduct and associated wrongs by employers.
Title VII is central to the federal policy of prohibiting wrongful discrimination in the Nation's workplaces and in all sectors of economic endeavor. This opinion discusses the causation rules for two categories of wrongful employer conduct prohibited by Title VII. The first type is called, for purposes of this opinion, status-based discrimination. The term is used here to refer to basic workplace protection such as prohibitions against employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in hiring, firing, salary structure, promotion and the like. See § 2000e-2(a). The second type of conduct is employer retaliation on account of an employee's having opposed, complained of, or sought remedies for, unlawful workplace discrimination. See § 2000e-3(a).
An employee who alleges status-based discrimination under Title VII need not show that the causal link between injury and wrong is so close that the injury would not have occurred but for the act. So-called but-for causation is not the test. It suffices instead to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer's motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer's decision. This principle is the result of an earlier case from this Court, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), and an ensuing statutory amendment by Congress that codified in part and abrogated in part the holding in Price Waterhouse, see §§ 2000e-2(m), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). The question the Court must answer here is whether that lessened causation standard is applicable to claims of unlawful employer retaliation under § 2000e-3(a).
Although the Court has not addressed the question of the causation showing required to establish liability for a Title VII retaliation claim, it has addressed the issue of causation in general in a case involving employer discrimination under a separate but related statute, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In Gross, the Court concluded that the ADEA requires proof that the prohibited criterion was the but-for cause of the prohibited conduct. The holding and analysis of that decision are instructive here.
I
Petitioner, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (University), is an academic institution within the University of Texas system. The University specializes in medical education for aspiring physicians, health professionals, and scientists. Over the years, the University has affiliated itself with a number of healthcare facilities including, as relevant in this case, Parkland Memorial Hospital (Hospital). As provided in its affiliation agreement with the University, the Hospital permits the University's students to gain clinical experience working in its facilities. The agreement also requires the Hospital to offer empty staff physician posts to the University's faculty members, see App. 361-362, 366, and, accordingly, most of the staff physician positions at the Hospital are filled by those faculty members.
Respondent is a medical doctor of Middle Eastern descent who specializes in internal medicine and infectious diseases. In 1995, he was hired to work both as a member of the University's faculty and a staff physician at the Hospital. He left both positions in 1998 for additional medical education and then returned in 2001 as an assistant professor at the University and, once again, as a physician at the Hospital.
In 2004, Dr. Beth Levine was hired as the University's Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine. In that position Levine became respondent's ultimate (though not direct) superior. Respondent alleged that Levine was biased against him on account of his religion and ethnic heritage, a bias manifested by undeserved scrutiny of his billing practices and productivity, as well as comments that " 'Middle Easterners are lazy.' " 674 F.3d 448, 450 (C.A.5 2012). On different occasions during his employment, respondent met with Dr. Gregory Fitz, the University's Chair of Internal Medicine and Levine's supervisor, to complain about Levine's alleged harassment. Despite obtaining a promotion with Levine's assistance in 2006, respondent continued to believe that she was biased against him. So he tried to arrange to continue working at the Hospital without also being on the University's faculty. After preliminary negotiations with the Hospital suggested this might be possible, respondent resigned his teaching post in July 2006 and sent a letter to Dr. Fitz (among others), in which he stated that the reason for his departure was harassment by Levine. That harassment, he asserted, "'stems from... religious, racial and cultural bias against Arabs and Muslims.' " Id., at 451. After reading that letter, Dr. Fitz expressed consternation at respondent's accusations, saying that Levine had been "publicly humiliated by th[e] letter" and that it was "very important that she be publicly exonerated." App. 41.
Meanwhile, the Hospital had offered respondent a job as a staff physician, as it had indicated it would. On learning of that offer, Dr. Fitz protested to the Hospital, asserting that the offer was inconsistent with the affiliation agreement's requirement that all staff physicians also be members of the University faculty. The Hospital then withdrew its offer.
After exhausting his administrative remedies, respondent filed this Title VII suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He alleged two discrete violations of Title VII. The first was a status-based discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a). Respondent alleged that Dr. Levine's racially and religiously motivated harassment had resulted in his constructive discharge from the University. Respondent's second claim was that Dr. Fitz's efforts to prevent the Hospital from hiring him were in retaliation for complaining about Dr. Levine's harassment, in violation of § 2000e-3(a). 674 F.3d, at 452. The jury found for respondent on both claims. It awarded him over $400,000 in backpay and more than $3 million in compensatory damages. The District Court later reduced the compensatory damages award to $300,000.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court first concluded that respondent had submitted insufficient evidence in support of his constructive-discharge claim, so it vacated that portion of the jury's verdict. The court affirmed as to the retaliation finding, however, on the theory that retaliation claims brought under § 2000e-3(a) -like claims of status-based discrimination under § 2000e-2(a) -require only a showing that retaliation was a motivating factor for the adverse employment action, rather than its but-for cause. See id., at 454, n. 16 (citing Smith v. Xerox Corp., 602 F.3d 320, 330 (C.A.5 2010) ). It further held that the evidence supported a finding that Dr. Fitz was motivated, at least in part, to retaliate against respondent for his complaints against Levine. The Court of Appeals then remanded for a redetermination of damages in light of its decision to vacate the constructive-discharge verdict.
Four judges dissented from the court's decision not to rehear the case en banc, arguing that the Circuit's application of the motivating-factor standard to retaliation cases was "an erroneous interpretation of [Title VII] and controlling caselaw" and should be overruled en banc. 688 F.3d 211, 213-214 (C.A.5 2012) (Smith, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
Certiorari was granted. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 978, 184 L.Ed.2d 758 (2013).
II
A
This case requires the Court to define the proper standard of causation for Title VII retaliation claims. Causation in fact-i.e., proof that the defendant's conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff's injury-is a standard requirement of any tort claim, see Restatement of Torts § 9 (1934) (definition of "legal cause"); § 431, Comment a (same); § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of physical harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); § 281(c) (negligence). This includes federal statutory claims of workplace discrimination. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (In intentional-discrimination cases, "liability depends on whether the protected trait" "actually motivated the employer's decision" and "had a determinative influence on the outcome"); Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) (explaining that the "simple test" for determining a discriminatory employment practice is "whether the evidence shows treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person's sex would be different" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In the usual course, this standard requires the plaintiff to show "that the harm would not have occurred" in the absence of-that is, but for-the defendant's conduct. Restatement of Torts § 431, Comment a (negligence); § 432(1), and Comment a (same); see § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of bodily harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 27, and Comment b (2010) (noting the existence of an exception for cases where an injured party can prove the existence of multiple, independently sufficient factual causes, but observing that "cases invoking the concept are rare"). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 432(1) (1963 and 1964) (negligence claims); § 870, Comment l (intentional injury to another); cf. § 435a, and Comment a (legal cause for intentional harm). It is thus textbook tort law that an action "is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular event would have occurred without it." W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 265 (5th ed. 1984). This, then, is the background against which Congress legislated in enacting Title VII, and these are the default rules it is presumed to have incorporated, absent an indication to the contrary in the statute itself. See Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285, 123 S.Ct. 824, 154 L.Ed.2d 753 (2003) ; Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-258, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978).
B
Since the statute's passage in 1964, it has prohibited employers from discriminating against their employees on any of seven specified criteria. Five of them-race, color, religion, sex, and national origin-are personal characteristics and are set forth in § 2000e-2. (As noted at the outset, discrimination based on these five characteristics is called status-based discrimination in this opinion.) And then there is a point of great import for this case: The two remaining categories of wrongful employer conduct-the employee's opposition to employment discrimination, and the employee's submission of or support for a complaint that alleges employment discrimination-are not wrongs based on personal traits but rather types of protected employee conduct.
These latter two categories are covered by a separate, subsequent section of Title VII, § 2000e-3(a).
Under the status-based discrimination provision, it is an "unlawful employment practice" for an employer "to discriminate against any individual... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." § 2000e-2(a). In its 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse, the Court sought to explain the causation standard imposed by this language. It addressed in particular what it means for an action to be taken "because of" an individual's race, religion, or nationality. Although no opinion in that case commanded a majority, six Justices did agree that a plaintiff could prevail on a claim of status-based discrimination if he or she could show that one of the prohibited traits was a "motivating" or "substantial" factor in the employer's decision. 490 U.S., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 276, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). If the plaintiff made that showing, the burden of persuasion would shift to the employer, which could escape liability if it could prove that it would have taken the same employment action in the absence of all discriminatory animus. Id., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259-260, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 276-277, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). In other words, the employer had to show that a discriminatory motive was not the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.
Two years later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act), 105 Stat. 1071. This statute (which had many other provisions) codified the burden-shifting and lessened-causation framework of Price Waterhouse in part but also rejected it to a substantial degree. The legislation first added a new subsection to the end of § 2000e-2, i.e., Title VII's principal ban on status-based discrimination. See § 107(a), 105 Stat. 1075. The new provision, § 2000e-2(m), states:
"[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice."
This, of course, is a lessened causation standard.
The 1991 Act also abrogated a portion of Price Waterhouse's framework by removing the employer's ability to defeat liability once a plaintiff proved the existence of an impermissible motivating factor. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In its place, Congress enacted § 2000e-5(g)(2), which provides:
"(B) On a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section 2000e-2(m) of this title and [the employer] demonstrates that [it] would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court-
"(i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief... and [limited] attorney's fees and costs...; and
"(ii) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment...."
So, in short, the 1991 Act substituted a new burden-shifting framework for the one endorsed by Price Waterhouse. Under that new regime, a plaintiff could obtain declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and some forms of injunctive relief based solely on proof that race, color, religion, sex, or nationality was a motivating factor in the employment action; but the employer's proof that it would still have taken the same employment action would save it from monetary damages and a reinstatement order. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343; see also id., at 175, n. 2, 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343.
After Price Waterhouse and the 1991 Act, considerable time elapsed before the Court returned again to the meaning of "because" and the problem of causation. This time it arose in the context of a different, yet similar statute, the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). See Gross, supra.
Much like the Title VII statute in Price Waterhouse, the relevant portion of the ADEA provided that " '[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.' " 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting § 623(a)(1) ; emphasis and ellipsis in original).
Concentrating first and foremost on the meaning of the phrase " 'because of... age,' " the Court in Gross explained that the ordinary meaning of " 'because of' " is " 'by reason of' " or " 'on account of.' " Id., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 194 (1966); 1 Oxford English Dictionary 746 (1933); The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 132 (1966); emphasis in original). Thus, the "requirement that an employer took adverse action 'because of' age [meant] that age was the'reason' that the employer decided to act," or, in other words, that "age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse decision." 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343. See also Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 63-64, and n. 14, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) (noting that "because of" means "based on" and that " 'based on' indicates a but-for causal relationship"); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 265-266, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992) (equating "by reason of" with " 'but for' cause").
In the course of approving this construction, Gross declined to adopt the interpretation endorsed by the plurality and concurring opinions in Price Waterhouse. Noting that "the ADEA must be'read... the way Congress wrote it,' " 557 U.S., at 179, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84, 102, 128 S.Ct. 2395, 171 L.Ed.2d 283 (2008) ), the Court concluded that "the textual differences between Title VII and the ADEA" "prevent[ed] us from applying Price Waterhouse... to federal age discrimination claims," 557 U.S., at 175, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In particular, the Court stressed the congressional choice not to add a provision like § 2000e-2(m) to the ADEA despite making numerous other changes to the latter statute in the 1991 Act. Id., at 174-175, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) ); 557 U.S., at 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 270, 129 S.Ct. 1456, 173 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) ).
Finally, the Court in Gross held that it would not be proper to read Price Waterhouse as announcing a rule that applied to both statutes, despite their similar wording and near-contemporaneous enactment. 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. This different reading was necessary, the Court concluded, because Congress' 1991 amendments to Title VII, including its "careful tailoring of the'motivating factor' claim" and the substitution of § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) for Price Waterhouse's full affirmative defense, indicated that the motivating-factor standard was not an organic part of Title VII and thus could not be read into the ADEA. See 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343.
In Gross, the Court was careful to restrict its analysis to the statute before it and withhold judgment on the proper resolution of a case, such as this, which arose under Title VII rather than the ADEA. But the particular confines of Gross do not deprive it of all persuasive force. Indeed, that opinion holds two insights for the present case. The first is textual and concerns the proper interpretation of the term "because" as it relates to the principles of causation underlying both § 623(a) and § 2000e-3(a). The second is the significance of Congress' structural choices in both Title VII itself and the law's 1991 amendments. These principles do not decide the present case but do inform its analysis, for the issues possess significant parallels.
III
A
As noted, Title VII's antiretaliation provision, which is set forth in § 2000e-3(a), appears in a different section from Title VII's ban on status-based discrimination. The antiretaliation provision states, in relevant part:
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter."
This enactment, like the statute at issue in Gross, makes it unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment action against an employee "because" of certain criteria. Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Given the lack of any meaningful textual difference between the text in this statute and the one in Gross, the proper conclusion here, as in Gross, is that Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action. See Gross, supra, at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343.
The principal counterargument offered by respondent and the United States relies on their different understanding of the motivating-factor section, which-on its face-applies only to status discrimination, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In substance, they contend that: (1) retaliation is defined by the statute to be an unlawful employment practice; (2) § 2000e-2(m) allows unlawful employment practices to be proved based on a showing that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for-and not necessarily the but-for factor in-the challenged employment action; and (3) the Court has, as a matter of course, held that "retaliation for complaining about race discrimination is 'discrimination based on race.' " Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14; see id., at 11-14; Brief for Respondent 16-19.
There are three main flaws in this reading of § 2000e-2(m). The first is that it is inconsistent with the provision's plain language. It must be acknowledged that because Title VII defines "unlawful employment practice" to include retaliation, the question presented by this case would be different if § 2000e-2(m) extended its coverage to all unlawful employment practices. As actually written, however, the text of the motivating-factor provision, while it begins by referring to "unlawful employment practices," then proceeds to address only five of the seven prohibited discriminatory actions-actions based on the employee's status, i.e., race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. This indicates Congress' intent to confine that provision's coverage to only those types of employment practices. The text of § 2000e-2(m) says nothing about retaliation claims. Given this clear language, it would be improper to conclude that what Congress omitted from the statute is nevertheless within its scope. Gardner v. Collins, 2 Pet. 58, 93, 7 L.Ed. 347 (1829) ("What the legislative intention was, can be derived only from the words they have used; and we cannot speculate beyond the reasonable import of these words"); see Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1886, 1894, 185 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2013).
The second problem with this reading is its inconsistency with the design and structure of the statute as a whole. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 175, n. 2, 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. Just as Congress' choice of words is presumed to be deliberate, so too are its structural choices. See id., at 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343. When Congress wrote the motivating-factor provision in 1991, it chose to insert it as a subsection within § 2000e-2, which contains Title VII's ban on status-based discrimination, § 2000e-2(a) to (d), (l ), and says nothing about retaliation. See 1991 Act, § 107(a), 105 Stat. 1075 (directing that " § 2000e-2... [be] further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection... (m)"). The title of the section of the 1991 Act that created § 2000e-2(m) -"Clarifying prohibition against impermissible consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment practices"-also indicates that Congress determined to address only claims of status-based discrimination, not retaliation. See § 107(a), id., at 1075.
What is more, a different portion of the 1991 Act contains an express reference to all unlawful employment actions, thereby reinforcing the conclusion that Congress acted deliberately when it omitted retaliation claims from § 2000e-2(m). See Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S., at 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227 (congressional amendment of ADEA on a similar subject coupled with congressional failure to amend Title VII weighs against conclusion that the ADEA's standard applies to Title VII); see also Gross, supra, at 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343. The relevant portion of the 1991 Act, § 109(b), allowed certain overseas operations by U.S. employers to engage in "any practice prohibited by section 703 or 704," i.e., § 2000e-2 or § 2000e-3, "if compliance with such section would cause such employer... to violate the law of the foreign country in which such workplace is located." 105 Stat. 1077.
If Congress had desired to make the motivating-factor standard applicable to all Title VII claims, it could have used language similar to that which it invoked in § 109. See Arabian American Oil Co., supra, at 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227 Or, it could have inserted the motivating-factor provision as part of a section that applies to all such claims, such as § 2000e-5, which establishes the rules and remedies for all Title VII enforcement actions. See FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 160, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). But in writing § 2000e-2(m), Congress did neither of those things, and "[w]e must give effect to Congress' choice." Gross,supra, at 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343.
The third problem with respondent's and the Government's reading of the motivating-factor standard is in its submission that this Court's decisions interpreting federal antidiscrimination law have, as a general matter, treated bans on status-based discrimination as also prohibiting retaliation. In support of this proposition, both respondent and the United States rely upon decisions in which this Court has "read [a] broadly worded civil rights statute... as including an antiretaliation remedy." CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 452-453, 128 S.Ct. 1951, 170 L.Ed.2d 864 (2008). In CBOCS, for example, the Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 -which declares that all persons "shall have the same right... to make and enforce contracts... as is enjoyed by white citizens"-prohibits not only racial discrimination but also retaliation against those who oppose it. 553 U.S., at 445, 128 S.Ct. 1951. And in Gómez-Pérez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474, 128 S.Ct. 1931, 170 L.Ed.2d 887 (2008), the Court likewise read a bar on retaliation into the broad wording of the federal-employee provisions of the ADEA. Id., at 479, 487, 128 S.Ct. 1931 ("All personnel actions affecting [federal] employees... who are at least 40 years of age... shall be made free from any discrimination based on age," 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a) ); see also Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U.S. 167, 173, 179, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005) ( 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (Title IX)); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 235, n. 3, 237, 90 S.Ct. 400, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 (1969) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1982 ).
These decisions are not controlling here. It is true these cases do state the general proposition that Congress' enactment of a broadly phrased antidiscrimination statute may signal a concomitant intent to ban retaliation against individuals who oppose that discrimination, even where the statute does not refer to retaliation in so many words. What those cases do not support, however, is the quite different rule that every reference to race, color, creed, sex, or nationality in an antidiscrimination statute is to be treated as a synonym for "retaliation." For one thing, § 2000e-2(m) is not itself a substantive bar on discrimination. Rather, it is a rule that establishes the causation standard for proving a violation defined elsewhere in Title VII. The cases cited by respondent and the Government do not address rules of this sort, and those precedents are of limited relevance here.
The approach respondent and the Government suggest is inappropriate in the context of a statute as precise, complex, and exhaustive as Title VII. As noted, the laws at issue in CBOCS, Jackson, and Gómez-Pérez were broad, general bars on discrimination. In interpreting them the Court concluded that by using capacious language Congress expressed the intent to bar retaliation in addition to status-based discrimination. See Gómez-Pérez, supra, at 486-488, 128 S.Ct. 1931. In other words, when Congress' treatment of the subject of prohibited discrimination was both broad and brief, its omission of any specific discussion of retaliation was unremarkable.
If Title VII had likewise been phrased in broad and general terms, respondent's argument might have more force. But that is not how Title VII was written, which makes it incorrect to infer that Congress meant anything other than what the text does say on the subject of retaliation. Unlike Title IX, § 1981, § 1982, and the federal-sector provisions of the ADEA, Title VII is a detailed statutory scheme. This statute enumerates specific unlawful employment practices. See § 2000e-2(a)(1), (b), (c)(1), (d) (status-based discrimination by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and training programs, respectively); § 2000e-2(l ) (status-based discrimination in employment-related testing); § 2000e-3(a) (retaliation for opposing, or making or supporting a complaint about, unlawful employment actions); § 2000e-3(b) (advertising a preference for applicants of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin). It defines key terms, see § 2000e, and exempts certain types of employers, see § 2000e-1. And it creates an administrative agency with both rulemaking and enforcement authority. See §§ 2000e-5, 2000e-12.
This fundamental difference in statutory structure renders inapposite decisions which treated retaliation as an implicit corollary of status-based discrimination. Text may not be divorced from context. In light of Congress' special care in drawing so precise a statutory scheme, it would be improper to indulge respondent's suggestion that Congress meant to incorporate the default rules that apply only when Congress writes a broad and undifferentiated statute. See Gómez-Pérez,supra, at 486-488, 128 S.Ct. 1931 (when construing the broadly worded federal-sector provision of the ADEA, Court refused to draw inferences from Congress' amendments to the detailed private-sector provisions); Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S., at 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227; cf. Jackson, supra, at 175, 125 S.Ct. 1497 (distinguishing Title IX's "broadly written general prohibition on discrimination" from Title VII' s "greater detail [with respect to] the conduct that constitutes discrimination").
Further confirmation of the inapplicability of § 2000e-2(m) to retaliation claims may be found in Congress' approach to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), 104 Stat. 327. In the ADA Congress provided not just a general prohibition on discrimination "because of [an individual's] disability," but also seven paragraphs of detailed description of the practices that would constitute the prohibited discrimination, see §§ 102(a), (b)(1)-(7), id., at 331-332 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12112 ). And, most pertinent for present purposes, it included an express antiretal
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1954, the International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (IUE) became the collective-bargaining representative of respondent's employees. At that time respondent had a rule prohibiting employees from distributing literature on any of its property, including parking lots and other nonwork areas. The collective agreement authorized the company to issue rules for the “maintenance of orderly conditions op plant property,” provided the rules were not “unfair” or “discriminatory.” It also provided that bulletin boards would be available for the posting of union notices, subject to the company’s right to reject “controversial” notices. All subsequent contracts contained similar provisions. Throughout the period since 1954 respondent has prohibited employees from distributing literature even in nonworking areas during nonworking time.
In due course, the IUE challenged the validity of the company’s rule and requested that the rule be changed. The request was denied and the IUE filed charges against respondent for unfair labor practices in violation of § 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a)(1). The Board held for the IUE, following its earlier decision in Gale Products, 142 N. L. R. B. 1246, where it had said:
“Their place of work is.the one location where employees are brought together on a daily basis. It is the one place where they clearly share common interests and where they traditionally seek to persuade fellow workers in matters affecting their union organizational life and other matters related to their status as employees.” Id., at 1249.
The remedy in Gale Products ran in favor of employees whose distribution project was to reject a union representative. The Board in the present case, however, broadened the relief to embrace those who wanted to support a union representative, 195 N. L. R. B. 265. The Court of Appeals denied enforcement of the Board's order, because in its view the union had waived objection to the ban on on-premises distribution of literature and had the authority to do so. 474 F. 2d 1269. The case is here on petition for certiorari, which we granted because of the conflict between this decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit with that of the Eighth in International Association of Machinists v. NLRB, 415 F. 2d 113, and that of the Fifth in NLRB v. Mid-States Metal Products, 403 F. 2d 702.
Employees have the right recognized in § 7 of the Act “to form, join, or assist labor organizations” or “to refrain” from such activities. 29 U. S. C. § 157. We agree that a ban on the distribution of union literature or the solicitation of union support by employees at the plant during nonworking time may constitute an interference with § 7 rights. The Board had earlier held that solicitation outside working hours but on company property was protected by § 7 and that a rule prohibiting it was “discriminatory in the absence of evidence that special circumstances make the rule necessary in order to maintain production or discipline.” In re Peyton Packing Co., 49 N. L. R. B. 828, 843-844. We approved that ruling in Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793, 801-803. No contention is made here that considerations of production or discipline make respondent’s rule necessary. The sole issue concerns the power of the collective-bargaining representative to waive those rights.
The union may, of course, reach an agreement as to wages and other employment benefits and waive the right to strike during the time of the agreement as the quid pro quo for the employer’s acceptance of the grievance and arbitration procedure. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 455. Such agreements, however, rest on “the premise of fair representation” and presuppose that the selection of the bargaining representative “remains free.” Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270, 280. In that case we held that the waiver of the “right to strike” did not embrace a waiver of the right to strike “against unlawful practices destructive of the foundation on which collective bargaining must rest.” Id., at 281. We dealt there with rights in the economic area. Yet, as the Fifth Circuit held in the Mid-States case, a different rule should obtain where the rights of the employees to exercise their choice of a bargaining representative is involved — whether to have no bargaining representative, or to retain the present one, or to obtain a new one. When the right to such a choice is at issue, it is difficult to assume that the incumbent union has no self-interest of its own to serve by perpetuating itself as the bargaining representative. 403 F. 2d, at 705. The place of work is a place uniquely appropriate for dissemination of views concerning the bargaining representative and the various options open to the employees. So long as the distribution is by employees to employees and so long as the in-plant solicitation is on nonworking time, banning of that solicitation might seriously dilute § 7 rights. For Congress declared in § 1 of the Act that it was the policy of the United States to protect “the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing.” 29 U. S. C. § 151.
It is argued that the use of the bulletin board is a fair substitute. But as the Fifth Circuit said in the Mid-States case the bulletin board may be an adequate medium for “preserving the status quo” and yet not give a union’s adversaries “equal access to and communication with their fellow employees.” 403 F. 2d, at 705.
Moreover, a limitation of the right of in-plant distribution of literature to employees opposing the union does not give a fair balance to § 7 rights, as the Board ruled in the present case. For employees supporting the union have as secure § 7 rights as those in opposition. The Board’s position, as noted, has not always been consistent. But its present ruling is, we think, quite consistent with § 7 rights of employees. It is the Board’s function to strike a balance among “conflicting legitimate interests” which will “effectuate national labor policy,” including those who support versus those who oppose the union. NLRB v. Truck Drivers Union, 353 U. S. 87, 96. Moreover, as respects employers, the rights of solicitation of employees by employees concerning § 7 rights are not absolute. As we noted in Republic Aviation Corp. the Board may well conclude that considerations of production or discipline may make controls necessary. No such evidence existed here and the trial examiner so found. Accordingly, this is not the occasion to balance the availability of alternative channels of communication against a legitimate employer business justification for barring or limiting in-plant communications.
Reversed.
IUE, in a brief supporting the Board’s position, states there are some 2,300 employees in the bargaining unit who live scattered over a two-state area covering more than 100 square miles. The plant is located in Greenville, Tennessee. Some workers live 30 miles distant in Johnson City, Tennessee, and others live in Morrison, North Carolina. It claims that handing out leaflets at the plant gate is impractical as cars enter or exit four abreast at fast speeds. We mention these statements not to resolve a controversy, but to indicate at least a part of the range of any inquiry into the need for in-plant solicitation if § 7 rights are to be protected.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under Minnesota law, voters may not wear a political badge, political button, or anything bearing political insignia inside a polling place on Election Day. The question presented is whether this ban violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
I
A
Today, Americans going to their polling places on Election Day expect to wait in a line, briefly interact with an election official, enter a private voting booth, and cast an anonymous ballot. Little about this ritual would have been familiar to a voter in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. For one thing, voters typically deposited privately prepared ballots at the polls instead of completing official ballots on-site. These pre-made ballots often took the form of "party tickets"-printed slates of candidate selections, often distinctive in appearance, that political parties distributed to their supporters and pressed upon others around the polls. See E. Evans, A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States 6-11 (1917) (Evans); R. Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century 14-15 (2004) (Bensel).
The physical arrangement confronting the voter was also different. The polling place often consisted simply of a "voting window" through which the voter would hand his ballot to an election official situated in a separate room with the ballot box. Bensel 11, 13; see, e.g., C. Rowell, Digest of Contested-Election Cases in the Fifty-First Congress 224 (1891) (report of Rep. Lacey) (considering whether "the ability to reach the window and actually tender the ticket to the [election] judges" is "essential in all cases to constitute a good offer to vote"); Holzer, Election Day 1860, Smithsonian Magazine (Nov. 2008), pp. 46, 52 (describing the interior voting window on the third floor of the Springfield, Illinois courthouse where Abraham Lincoln voted). As a result of this arrangement, "the actual act of voting was usually performed in the open," frequently within view of interested onlookers. Rusk, The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876-1908, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1220, 1221 (1970) (Rusk); see Evans 11-13.
As documented in Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992), "[a]pproaching the polling place under this system was akin to entering an open auction place." Id., at 202, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion). The room containing the ballot boxes was "usually quiet and orderly," but "[t]he public space outside the window... was chaotic." Bensel 13. Electioneering of all kinds was permitted. See id., at 13, 16-17 ; R. Dinkin, Election Day: A Documentary History 19 (2002). Crowds would gather to heckle and harass voters who appeared to be supporting the other side. Indeed, "[u]nder the informal conventions of the period, election etiquette required only that a'man of ordinary courage' be able to make his way to the voting window." Bensel 20-21. "In short, these early elections were not a very pleasant spectacle for those who believed in democratic government." Burson, 504 U.S., at 202, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted).
By the late nineteenth century, States began implementing reforms to address these vulnerabilities and improve the reliability of elections. Between 1888 and 1896, nearly every State adopted the secret ballot. See id., at 203-205, 112 S.Ct. 1846. Because voters now needed to mark their state-printed ballots on-site and in secret, voting moved into a sequestered space where the voters could "deliberate and make a decision in... privacy." Rusk 1221; see Evans 35; 1889 Minn. Stat. ch. 3, §§ 27-28, p. 21 (regulating, as part of Minnesota's secret ballot law, the arrangement of voting compartments inside the polling place). In addition, States enacted "viewpoint-neutral restrictions on election-day speech" in the immediate vicinity of the polls. Burson, 504 U.S., at 214-215, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (by 1900, 34 of 45 States had such restrictions). Today, all 50 States and the District of Columbia have laws curbing various forms of speech in and around polling places on Election Day.
Minnesota's such law contains three prohibitions, only one of which is challenged here. See Minn. Stat. § 211B.11(1) (Supp. 2017). The first sentence of § 211B.11(1) forbids any person to "display campaign material, post signs, ask, solicit, or in any manner try to induce or persuade a voter within a polling place or within 100 feet of the building in which a polling place is situated" to "vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate or ballot question." The second sentence prohibits the distribution of "political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia to be worn at or about the polling place." The third sentence-the "political apparel ban"-states that a "political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place." Versions of all three prohibitions have been on the books in Minnesota for over a century. See 1893 Minn. Laws ch. 4, § 108, pp. 51-52; 1912 Minn. Laws, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 3, p. 24; 1988 Minn. Laws ch. 578, Art. 3, § 11, p. 594 (reenacting the prohibitions as part of § 211B.11 ).
There is no dispute that the political apparel ban applies only within the polling place, and covers articles of clothing and accessories with "political insignia" upon them. Minnesota election judges-temporary government employees working the polls on Election Day-have the authority to decide whether a particular item falls within the ban. App. to Pet. for Cert. I-1. If a voter shows up wearing a prohibited item, the election judge is to ask the individual to conceal or remove it. Id., at I-2. If the individual refuses, the election judge must allow him to vote, while making clear that the incident "will be recorded and referred to appropriate authorities." Ibid. Violators are subject to an administrative process before the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, which, upon finding a violation, may issue a reprimand or impose a civil penalty. Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.32, 211B.35(2) (2014). That administrative body may also refer the complaint to the county attorney for prosecution as a petty misdemeanor; the maximum penalty is a $300 fine. §§ 211B.11(4) (Supp. 2017), 211B.35(2) (2014), 609.02(4a) (2016).
B
Petitioner Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA) is a nonprofit organization that "seeks better government through election reforms." Pet. for Cert. 5. Petitioner Andrew Cilek is a registered voter in Hennepin County and the executive director of MVA; petitioner Susan Jeffers served in 2010 as a Ramsey County election judge. Five days before the November 2010 election, MVA, Jeffers, and other likeminded groups and individuals filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court challenging the political apparel ban on First Amendment grounds. The groups-calling themselves "Election Integrity Watch" (EIW)-planned to have supporters wear buttons to the polls printed with the words "Please I.D. Me," a picture of an eye, and a telephone number and web address for EIW. (Minnesota law does not require individuals to show identification to vote.) One of the individual plaintiffs also planned to wear a "Tea Party Patriots" shirt. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and allowed the apparel ban to remain in effect for the upcoming election.
In response to the lawsuit, officials for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties distributed to election judges an "Election Day Policy," providing guidance on the enforcement of the political apparel ban. The Minnesota Secretary of State also distributed the Policy to election officials throughout the State. The Policy specified that examples of apparel falling within the ban "include, but are not limited to":
"• Any item including the name of a political party in Minnesota, such as the Republican, [Democratic-Farmer-Labor], Independence, Green or Libertarian parties.
• Any item including the name of a candidate at any election.
• Any item in support of or opposition to a ballot question at any election.
• Issue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting (including specifically the 'Please I.D. Me' buttons).
• Material promoting a group with recognizable political views (such as the Tea Party, MoveOn.org, and so on)." App. to Pet. for Cert. I-1 to I-2.
As alleged in the plaintiffs' amended complaint and supporting declarations, some voters associated with EIW ran into trouble with the ban on Election Day. One individual was asked to cover up his Tea Party shirt. Another refused to conceal his "Please I.D. Me" button, and an election judge recorded his name and address for possible referral. And petitioner Cilek-who was wearing the same button and a T-shirt with the words "Don't Tread on Me" and the Tea Party Patriots logo-was twice turned away from the polls altogether, then finally permitted to vote after an election judge recorded his information.
Back in court, MVA and the other plaintiffs (now joined by Cilek) argued that the ban was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to their apparel. The District Court granted the State's motions to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 708 F.3d 1051 (2013). In evaluating MVA's facial challenge, the Court of Appeals observed that this Court had previously upheld a state law restricting speech "related to a political campaign" in a 100-foot zone outside a polling place; the Court of Appeals determined that Minnesota's law likewise passed constitutional muster. Id., at 1056-1058 (quoting Burson, 504 U.S., at 197, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion)). The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' as-applied challenge, however, finding that the District Court had improperly considered matters outside the pleadings. 708 F.3d, at 1059. Judge Shepherd concurred in part and dissented in part. In his view, Minnesota's broad restriction on political apparel did not "rationally and reasonably" serve the State's asserted interests. Id., at 1062. On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment for the State on the as-applied challenge, and this time the Court of Appeals affirmed. Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 849 F.3d 749 (2017).
MVA, Cilek, and Jeffers (hereinafter MVA) petitioned for review of their facial First Amendment claim only. We granted certiorari. 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 446, 199 L.Ed.2d 328 (2017).
II
The First Amendment prohibits laws "abridging the freedom of speech." Minnesota's ban on wearing any "political badge, political button, or other political insignia" plainly restricts a form of expression within the protection of the First Amendment.
But the ban applies only in a specific location: the interior of a polling place. It therefore implicates our " 'forum based' approach for assessing restrictions that the government seeks to place on the use of its property." International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (ISKCON ). Generally speaking, our cases recognize three types of government-controlled spaces: traditional public forums, designated public forums, and nonpublic forums. In a traditional public forum-parks, streets, sidewalks, and the like-the government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on private speech, but restrictions based on content must satisfy strict scrutiny, and those based on viewpoint are prohibited. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 469, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009). The same standards apply in designated public forums-spaces that have "not traditionally been regarded as a public forum" but which the government has "intentionally opened up for that purpose." Id., at 469-470, 129 S.Ct. 1125. In a nonpublic forum, on the other hand-a space that "is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication"-the government has much more flexibility to craft rules limiting speech. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). The government may reserve such a forum "for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Ibid.
This Court employs a distinct standard of review to assess speech restrictions in nonpublic forums because the government, "no less than a private owner of property," retains the "power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47, 87 S.Ct. 242, 17 L.Ed.2d 149 (1966). "Nothing in the Constitution requires the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to exercise their right to free speech on every type of Government property without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker's activities." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799-800, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). Accordingly, our decisions have long recognized that the government may impose some content-based restrictions on speech in nonpublic forums, including restrictions that exclude political advocates and forms of political advocacy. See id., at 806-811, 105 S.Ct. 3439 ; Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 831-833, 838-839, 96 S.Ct. 1211, 47 L.Ed.2d 505 (1976) ; Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 303-304, 94 S.Ct. 2714, 41 L.Ed.2d 770 (1974) (plurality opinion); id., at 307-308, 94 S.Ct. 2714 (Douglas, J., concurring in judgment).
A polling place in Minnesota qualifies as a nonpublic forum. It is, at least on Election Day, government-controlled property set aside for the sole purpose of voting. The space is "a special enclave, subject to greater restriction." ISKCON, 505 U.S., at 680, 112 S.Ct. 2701. Rules strictly govern who may be present, for what purpose, and for how long. See Minn. Stat. § 204C.06 (2014). And while the four-Justice plurality in Burson and Justice Scalia's concurrence in the judgment parted ways over whether the public sidewalks and streets surrounding a polling place qualify as a nonpublic forum, neither opinion suggested that the interior of the building was anything but. See 504 U.S., at 196-197, and n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion); id., at 214-216, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (opinion of Scalia, J.).
We therefore evaluate MVA's First Amendment challenge under the nonpublic forum standard. The text of the apparel ban makes no distinction based on the speaker's political persuasion, so MVA does not claim that the ban discriminates on the basis of viewpoint on its face. The question accordingly is whether Minnesota's ban on political apparel is "reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum": voting. Cornelius, 473 U.S., at 806, 105 S.Ct. 3439.
III
A
We first consider whether Minnesota is pursuing a permissible objective in prohibiting voters from wearing particular kinds of expressive apparel or accessories while inside the polling place. The natural starting point for evaluating a First Amendment challenge to such a restriction is this Court's decision in Burson, which upheld a Tennessee law imposing a 100-foot campaign-free zone around polling place entrances. Under the Tennessee law-much like Minnesota's buffer-zone provision-no person could solicit votes for or against a candidate, party, or ballot measure, distribute campaign materials, or "display... campaign posters, signs or other campaign materials" within the restricted zone. 504 U.S., at 193-194, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion). The plurality found that the law withstood even the strict scrutiny applicable to speech restrictions in traditional public forums. Id., at 211, 112 S.Ct. 1846. In his opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Scalia argued that the less rigorous "reasonableness" standard of review should apply, and found the law "at least reasonable" in light of the plurality's analysis. Id., at 216, 112 S.Ct. 1846.
That analysis emphasized the problems of fraud, voter intimidation, confusion, and general disorder that had plagued polling places in the past. See id., at 200-204, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion). Against that historical backdrop, the plurality and Justice Scalia upheld Tennessee's determination, supported by overwhelming consensus among the States and "common sense," that a campaign-free zone outside the polls was "necessary" to secure the advantages of the secret ballot and protect the right to vote. Id., at 200, 206-208, 211, 112 S.Ct. 1846. As the plurality explained, "[t]he State of Tennessee has decided that [the] last 15 seconds before its citizens enter the polling place should be their own, as free from interference as possible."
Id., at 210, 112 S.Ct. 1846. That was not "an unconstitutional choice." Ibid.
MVA disputes the relevance of Burson to Minnesota's apparel ban. On MVA's reading, Burson considered only "active campaigning" outside the polling place by campaign workers and others trying to engage voters approaching the polls. Brief for Petitioners 36-37. Minnesota's law, by contrast, prohibits what MVA characterizes as "passive, silent" self-expression by voters themselves when voting. Reply Brief 17. MVA also points out that the plurality focused on the extent to which the restricted zone combated "voter intimidation and election fraud," 504 U.S., at 208, 112 S.Ct. 1846 -concerns that, in MVA's view, have little to do with a prohibition on certain types of voter apparel.
Campaign buttons and apparel did come up in the Burson briefing and argument, but neither the plurality nor Justice Scalia expressly addressed such applications of the law. Nor did either opinion specifically consider the interior of the polling place as opposed to its environs, and it is true that the plurality's reasoning focused on campaign activities of a sort not likely to occur in an area where, for the most part, only voters are permitted while voting. At the same time, Tennessee's law swept broadly to ban even the plain "display" of a campaign-related message, and the Court upheld the law in full. The plurality's conclusion that the State was warranted in designating an area for the voters as "their own" as they enter the polling place suggests an interest more significant, not less, within that place. Id., at 210, 112 S.Ct. 1846.
In any event, we see no basis for rejecting Minnesota's determination that some forms of advocacy should be excluded from the polling place, to set it aside as "an island of calm in which voters can peacefully contemplate their choices." Brief for Respondents 43. Casting a vote is a weighty civic act, akin to a jury's return of a verdict, or a representative's vote on a piece of legislation. It is a time for choosing, not campaigning. The State may reasonably decide that the interior of the polling place should reflect that distinction.
To be sure, our decisions have noted the "nondisruptive" nature of expressive apparel in more mundane settings. Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 576, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987) (so characterizing "the wearing of a T-shirt or button that contains a political message" in an airport); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) (students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War engaged in "silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance"). But those observations do not speak to the unique context of a polling place on Election Day. Members of the public are brought together at that place, at the end of what may have been a divisive election season, to reach considered decisions about their government and laws. The State may reasonably take steps to ensure that partisan discord not follow the voter up to the voting booth, and distract from a sense of shared civic obligation at the moment it counts the most. That interest may be thwarted by displays that do not raise significant concerns in other situations.
Other States can see the matter differently, and some do. The majority, however, agree with Minnesota that at least some kinds of campaign-related clothing and accessories should stay outside. That broadly shared judgment is entitled to respect. Cf. Burson, 504 U.S., at 206, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion) (finding that a "widespread and time-tested consensus" supported the constitutionality of campaign buffer zones).
Thus, in light of the special purpose of the polling place itself, Minnesota may choose to prohibit certain apparel there because of the message it conveys, so that voters may focus on the important decisions immediately at hand.
B
But the State must draw a reasonable line. Although there is no requirement of narrow tailoring in a nonpublic forum, the State must be able to articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out. See Cornelius, 473 U.S., at 808-809, 105 S.Ct. 3439. Here, the unmoored use of the term "political" in the Minnesota law, combined with haphazard interpretations the State has provided in official guidance and representations to this Court, cause Minnesota's restriction to fail even this forgiving test.
Again, the statute prohibits wearing a "political badge, political button, or other political insignia." It does not define the term "political." And the word can be expansive. It can encompass anything "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of governmental affairs," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1755 (2002), or anything "[o]f, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state," American Heritage Dictionary 1401 (3d ed. 1996). Under a literal reading of those definitions, a button or T-shirt merely imploring others to "Vote!" could qualify.
The State argues that the apparel ban should not be read so broadly. According to the State, the statute does not prohibit "any conceivably 'political' message" or cover "all 'political' speech, broadly construed." Brief for Respondents 21, 23. Instead, the State interprets the ban to proscribe "only words and symbols that an objectively reasonable observer would perceive as conveying a message about the electoral choices at issue in [the] polling place." Id., at 13; see id., at 19 (the ban "applies not to any message regarding government or its affairs, but to messages relating to questions of governmental affairs facing voters on a given election day").
At the same time, the State argues that the category of "political" apparel is not limited to campaign apparel. After all, the reference to "campaign material" in the first sentence of the statute-describing what one may not "display" in the buffer zone as well as inside the polling place-implies that the distinct term "political" should be understood to cover a broader class of items. As the State's counsel explained to the Court, Minnesota's law "expand [s] the scope of what is prohibited from campaign speech to additional political speech." Tr. of Oral Arg. 50.
We consider a State's "authoritative constructions" in interpreting a state law. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 131, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992). But far from clarifying the indeterminate scope of the political apparel provision, the State's "electoral choices" construction introduces confusing line-drawing problems. Cf. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S., at 575-576, 107 S.Ct. 2568 (a resolution banning all "First Amendment activities" in an airport could not be saved by a "murky" construction excluding "airport-related" activity).
For specific examples of what is banned under its standard, the State points to the 2010 Election Day Policy-which it continues to hold out as authoritative guidance regarding implementation of the statute. See Brief for Respondents 22-23. The first three examples in the Policy are clear enough: items displaying the name of a political party, items displaying the name of a candidate, and items demonstrating "support of or opposition to a ballot question." App. to Pet. for Cert. I-2.
But the next example-"[i]ssue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting," id., at I-2-raises more questions than it answers. What qualifies as an "issue"? The answer, as far as we can tell from the State's briefing and argument, is any subject on which a political candidate or party has taken a stance. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37 (explaining that the "electoral choices" test looks at the "issues that have been raised" in a campaign "that are relevant to the election"). For instance, the Election Day Policy specifically notes that the "Please I.D. Me" buttons are prohibited. App. to Pet. for Cert. I-2. But a voter identification requirement was not on the ballot in 2010, see Brief for Respondents 47, n. 24, so a Minnesotan would have had no explicit "electoral choice" to make in that respect. The buttons were nonetheless covered, the State tells us, because the Republican candidates for Governor and Secretary of State had staked out positions on whether photo identification should be required. Ibid. ; see App. 58-60.
A rule whose fair enforcement requires an election judge to maintain a mental index of the platforms and positions of every candidate and party on the ballot is not reasonable. Candidates for statewide and federal office and major political parties can be expected to take positions on a wide array of subjects of local and national import. See, e.g., Democratic Platform Committee, 2016 Democratic Party Platform (approved July 2016) (stating positions on over 90 issues); Republican Platform Committee, Republican Platform 2016 (approved July 2016) (similar). Would a "Support Our Troops" shirt be banned, if one of the candidates or parties had expressed a view on military funding or aid for veterans? What about a "# MeToo" shirt, referencing the movement to increase awareness of sexual harassment and assault? At oral argument, the State indicated that the ban would cover such an item if a candidate had "brought up" the topic. Tr. of Oral Arg. 64-65.
The next broad category in the Election Day Policy-any item "promoting a group with recognizable political views," App. to Pet. for Cert. I-2-makes matters worse. The State construes the category as limited to groups with "views" about "the issues confronting voters in a given election." Brief for Respondents 23. The State does not, however, confine that category to groups that have endorsed a candidate or taken a position on a ballot question.
Any number of associations, educational institutions, businesses, and religious organizations could have an opinion on an "issue[ ] confronting voters in a given election." For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AARP, the World Wildlife Fund, and Ben & Jerry's all have stated positions on matters of public concern. If the views of those groups align or conflict with the position of a candidate or party on the ballot, does that mean that their insignia are banned? See id., at 24, n. 15 (representing that "AFL-CIO or Chamber of Commerce apparel" would be banned if those organizations "had objectively recognizable views on an issue in the election at hand"). Take another example: In the run-up to the 2012 election, Presidential candidates of both major parties issued public statements regarding the then-existing policy of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude members on the basis of sexual orientation. Should a Scout leader in 2012 stopping to vote on his way to a troop meeting have been asked to cover up his uniform?
The State emphasizes that the ban covers only apparel promoting groups whose political positions are sufficiently "well-known." Tr. of Oral Arg. 37. But that requirement, if anything, only increases the potential for erratic application. Well known by whom? The State tells us the lodestar is the "typical observer" of the item. Brief for Respondents 21. But that measure may turn in significant part on the background knowledge and media consumption of the particular election judge applying it.
The State's "electoral choices" standard, considered together with the nonexclusive examples in the Election Day Policy, poses riddles that even the State's top lawyers struggle to solve. A shirt declaring "All Lives Matter," we are told, could be "perceived" as political. Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. How about a shirt bearing the name of the National Rifle Association? Definitely out. Id., at 39-40. That said, a shirt displaying a rainbow flag could be worn "unless there was an issue on the ballot" that "related somehow... to gay rights." Id., at 38 (emphasis added). A shirt simply displaying the text of the Second Amendment? Prohibited. Id., at 40. But a shirt with the text of the First Amendment? "It would be allowed." Ibid.
"[P]erfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required even of regulations that restrict expressive activity." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). But the State's difficulties with its restriction go beyond close calls on borderline or fanciful cases. And that is a serious matter when the whole point of the exercise is to prohibit the expression of political views.
It is "self-evident" that an indeterminate prohibition carries with it "[t]he opportunity for abuse, especially where [it] has received a virtually open-ended interpretation." Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S., at 576, 107 S.Ct. 2568 ; see Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981) (warning of the "more covert forms of discrimination that may result when arbitrary discretion is vested in some governmental authority"). Election judges "have the authority to decide what is political" when screening individuals at the entrance to the polls. App. to Pet. for Cert. I-1. We do not doubt that the vast majority of election judges strive to enforce the statute in an evenhanded manner, nor that some degree of discretion in this setting is necessary. But that discretion must be guided by objective, workable standards. Without them, an election judge's own politics may shape his views on what counts as "political." And if voters experience or witness episodes of unfair or inconsistent enforcement of the ban, the State's interest in maintaining a polling place free of distraction and disruption would be undermined by the very measure intended to further it.
That is not to say that Minnesota has set upon an impossible task. Other States have laws proscribing displays (including apparel) in more lucid terms. See, e.g., Cal. Elec. Code Ann. § 319.5 (West Cum. Supp. 2018) (prohibiting "the visible display... of information that advocates for or against any candidate or measure," including the "display of a candidate's name, likeness, or logo," the "display of a ballot measure's number, title, subject, or logo," and "[b]uttons, hats," or "shirts" containing such information); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 61.010(a) (West 2010) (prohibiting the wearing of "a badge, insignia, emblem, or other similar communicative device relating to a candidate, measure, or political party appearing on the ballot, or to the conduct of the election"). We do not suggest that such provisions set the outer limit of what a State may proscribe, and do not pass on the constitutionality of laws that are not before us. But we do hold that if a State wishes to set its polling places apart as areas free of partisan discord, it must employ a more discernible approach than the one Minnesota has offered here.
Cases like this "present[ ] us with a particularly difficult reconciliation: the accommodation of the right to engage in political discourse with the right to vote." Burson, 504 U.S., at 198, 112 S.Ct. 1846 (plurality opinion). Minnesota, like other States, has sought to strike the balance in a way that affords the voter the opportunity to exercise his civic duty in a setting removed from the clamor and din of electioneering. While that choice is generally worthy of our respect, Minnesota has not supported its good intentions with a law capable of reasoned application.
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.
APPENDIX
STATE LAWS PROHIBITING ACCESSORIES OR APPAREL IN THE POLLING PLACE*
Alaska- Alaska Stat. §§ 15.15.170, 15.56.016(a)(2) (2016)
Arkansas- Ark. Code Ann. § 7-1-103(a)(9) (Supp. 2017)
California-Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 319.5, 18370(West Cum. Supp. 2018)
Colorado- Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether the jury that sentenced petitioner, Gary Graham, to death was able to give effect, consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to mitigating evidence of Graham’s youth, family background, and positive character traits. Because this case comes to us on collateral review, however, we must first decide whether the relief that petitioner seeks would require announcement of a new rule of constitutional law, in contravention of the principles set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). Concluding that Graham’s claim is barred by Teague, we affirm.
I
On the night of May 13, 1981, Graham accosted Bobby Grant Lambert in the parking lot of a Houston, Texas, grocery store and attempted to grab his wallet. When Lambert resisted, Graham drew a pistol and shot him to death. Five months later, a jury rejected Graham’s defense of mistaken identity and convicted him of capital murder in violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) (1989).
At the sentencing phase of Graham’s trial, the State offered evidence that Graham’s murder of Lambert commenced a week of violent attacks during which the 17-year-old Graham committed a string of robberies, several assaults, and one rape. Graham did not contest this evidence. Rather, in mitigation, the defense offered testimony from Graham’s stepfather and grandmother concerning his upbringing and positive character traits. The stepfather, Joe Samby, testified that Graham, who lived and worked with his natural father, typically visited his mother once or twice a week and was a “real nice, respectable” person. Samby further testified that Graham would pitch in on family chores and that Graham, himself a father of two young children, would “buy . . . clothes for his children and try to give them food.”
Graham’s grandmother, Emma Chron, testified that Graham had lived with her off and on throughout his childhood because his mother had been hospitalized periodically for a “nervous condition.” Chron also stated that she had never known Graham to be violent or disrespectful, that he attended church regularly while growing up, and that “[h]e loved the Lord.” In closing arguments to the jury, defense counsel depicted Graham’s criminal behavior as aberrational and urged the jury to take Graham’s youth into account in deciding his punishment.
In accord with the capital sentencing statute then in effect, Graham’s jury was instructed that it was to answer three “special issues”:
“(1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result;
(2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and
(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071(b) (Vernon 1981).
The jury unanimously answered each of these questions in the affirmative, and the court, as required by the statute, sentenced Graham to death. Art. 37.071(e). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Graham’s conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion.
In 1987, Graham unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in the Texas state courts. The following year, Graham petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254, contending, inter alia, that his sentencing jury had been unable to give effect to his mitigating evidence within the confines of the statutory “special issues.” The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Graham’s petition for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Graham v. Lynaugh, 854 F. 2d 715 (1988). The Court of Appeals found Graham’s claim to be foreclosed by our recent decision in Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U. S. 164 (1988), which held that a sentencing jury was fully able to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence of a defendant’s clean prison disciplinary record by way of answering Texas’ special issues. 854 F. 2d, at 719-720.
While Graham’s petition for a writ of certiorari was pending here, the Court announced its decision in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), holding that evidence of a defendant’s mental retardation and abused childhood could not be given mitigating effect by a jury within the framework of the special issues. We then granted Graham’s petition, vacated the judgment below, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Penry. Graham v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 915 (1989). On remand, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and vacated Graham’s death sentence. 896 F. 2d 893 (CA5 1990).
On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals vacated the panel’s decision and reinstated its prior mandate affirming the District Court. 950 F. 2d 1009 (1992). The court reviewed our holdings on the constitutional requirement that a sentencer be permitted to consider and act upon any relevant mitigating evidence put forward by a capital defendant, and then rejected Graham’s claim on the merits. The court noted that this Court had upheld the Texas capital sentencing statute against a facial attack in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976), after acknowledging that “ ‘the constitutionality of the Texas procedures turns on whether the enumerated questions allow consideration of particularized mitigating factors.’” 950 F. 2d, at 1019 (quoting Jurek, supra, at 272). Noting that the petitioner in Jurek had himself proffered mitigating evidence of his young age, employment history, and aid to his family, the Court of Appeals concluded that “[a]t the very least, Jurek must stand for the proposition that these mitigating factors — relative youth and evidence reflecting good character traits such as steady employment and helping others — are adequately covered by the second special issue” concerning the defendant’s risk of future dangerousness. 950 F. 2d, at 1029. “Penry cannot hold otherwise,” the court observed, “and at the same time not be a ‘new rule’ for Teague purposes.” Ibid. Accordingly, the court ruled that the jury that sentenced Graham could give adequate mitigating effect to his evidence of youth, unstable childhood, and positive character traits by way of answering the Texas special issues.
We granted certiorari, 504 U. S. 972 (1992), and now affirm.
H-t > — (
A
Because this case is before us on Graham’s petition for a writ of federal habeas corpus, “we must determine, as a threshold matter, whether granting him the relief he seeks would create a ‘new rule’ ” of constitutional law. Penry v. Lynaugh, supra, at 313; see also Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S., at 301 (plurality opinion). “Under Teague, new rules will not be applied or announced in cases on collateral review unless they fall into one of two exceptions.” Penry, supra, at 313. This restriction on our review applies to capital cases as it does to those not involving the death penalty. 492 U. S., at 314; Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222 (1992); Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227 (1990); Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484 (1990); Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407 (1990).
A holding constitutes a “new rule” within the meaning of Teague if it “breaks new ground,” “imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government,” or was not “dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Teague, supra, at 301 (emphasis in original). While there can be no dispute that a decision announces a new rule if it expressly overrules a prior decision, “it is more difficult... to determine whether we announce a new rule when a decision extends the reasoning of our prior cases.” Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S., at 488. Because the leading purpose of federal habeas review is to “ensur[e] that state courts conduct criminal proceedings in accordance with the Constitution as interpreted at the time of th[ose] proceedings,” ibid., we have held that “[t]he ‘new rule’ principle . . . validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts.” Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S., at 414. This principle adheres even if those good-faith interpretations “are shown to be contrary to later decisions.” Ibid. Thus, unless reasonable jurists hearing petitioner’s claim at the time his conviction became final “would have felt compelled by existing precedent” to rule in his favor, we are barred from doing so now. Saffle v. Parks, supra, at 488.
B
Petitioner’s conviction and sentence became final on September 10,1984, when the time for filing a petition for certio-rari from the judgment affirming his conviction expired. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 321, n. 6 (1987). Surveying the legal landscape as it then existed, we conclude that it would have been anything but clear to reasonable jurists in 1984 that petitioner’s sentencing proceeding did not comport with the Constitution.
1
In the years since Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), the Court has identified, and struggled to harmonize, two competing commandments of the Eighth Amendment. On one hand, as Furman itself emphasized, States must limit and channel the discretion of judges and juries to ensure that death sentences are not meted out “wantonly” or “freakishly.” Id., at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring). On the other, as we have emphasized in subsequent cases, States must confer on the sentencer sufficient discretion to take account of the “character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense” to ensure that “death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 304-305 (1976) (plurality opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
Four years after Furman, and on the same day that Wood-son was announced, the Court in Jurek v. Texas, supra, examined the very statutory scheme under which Graham was sentenced and concluded that it struck an appropriate balance between these constitutional concerns. The Court thus rejected an attack on the entire statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty and in particular an attack on the so-called “special issues.” It is well to set out how the Court arrived at its judgment. The joint opinion of Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens observed that while Texas had not adopted a list of aggravating circumstances that would justify the imposition of the death penalty, “its action in narrowing the categories of murders for which a death sentence may ever be imposed serves much the same purpose.” Id., at 270. The joint opinion went on to say that because the constitutionality of a capital sentencing system also requires the sentencing authority to consider mitigating circumstances and since the Texas statute did not speak of mitigating circumstances and instead directs only that the jury answer three questions, “the constitutionality of the Texas procedures turns on whether the enumerated questions allow consideration of particularized mitigating factors.” Id., at 272.
The joint opinion then recognized that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had held:
“Tn determining the likelihood that the defendant would be a continuing threat to society, the jury could consider whether the defendant had a significant criminal record. It could consider the range and severity of his prior criminal conduct. It could further look to the age of the defendant and whether or not at the time of the commission of the offense he was acting under duress or under the domination of another. It could also consider whether the defendant was under an extreme form of mental or emotional pressure, something less, perhaps, than insanity, but more than the emotions of the average man, however inflamed, could withstand.’ 522 S. W. 2d, at 939-940.” Id., at 272-273.
Based on this assurance, the opinion characterized the Texas sentencing procedure as follows:
“Thus, Texas law essentially requires that one of five aggravating circumstances be found before a defendant can be found guilty of capital murder, and that in considering whether to impose a death sentence the jury may be asked to consider whatever evidence of mitigating circumstances the defense can bring before it. It thus appears that, as in Georgia and Florida, the Texas capital-sentencing procedure guides and focuses the jury’s objective consideration of the particularized circumstances of the individual offense and the individual offender before it can impose a sentence of death.” Id., at 273-274.
“What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine. Texas law clearly assures that all such evidence will be adduced.” Id., at 276. '
The joint opinion’s ultimate conclusion was:
“Texas’ capital-sentencing procedures, like those of Georgia and Florida, do not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. By narrowing its definition of capital murder, Texas has essentially said that there must be at least one statutory aggravating circumstance in a first-degree murder case before a death sentence may even be considered. By authorizing the defense to bring before the jury at the separate sentencing hearing whatever mitigating circumstances relating to the individual defendant can be adduced, Texas has ensured that the sentencing jury will have adequate guidance to enable it to perform its sentencing function. By providing prompt judicial review of the jury’s decision in a court with statewide jurisdiction, Texas has provided a means to promote the evenhanded, rational, and consistent imposition of death sentences under law. Because this system serves to assure that sentences of death will not be ‘wantonly’ or ‘freakishly’ imposed, it does not violate the Constitution. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S., at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring).” Ibid.
It is plain enough, we think, that the joint opinion could reasonably be read as having arrived at this conclusion only after being satisfied that the mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant, including his age, would be given constitutionally adequate consideration in the course of the jury’s deliberation on the three special issues. Three other Justices concurred in the holding that the Texas procedures for imposing the death penalty were constitutional. Id,., at 278-279 (White, J., concurring in judgment).
Two years after Jurek, in another splintered decision, Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), the Court invalidated an Ohio death penalty statute that prevented the sentencer from considering certain categories of relevant mitigating evidence. In doing so, a plurality of the Court consisting of Chief Justice Burger and Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens stated that the constitutional infirmities in the Ohio statute could “best be understood by comparing it with the statutes upheld in Gregg, Proffitt, and Jurek.” Id., at 606. This the plurality proceeded to do, recounting in the process that the Texas statute had been held constitutional in Jurek because it permitted the sentencer to consider whatever mitigating circumstances the defendant could show. Emphasizing that “an individualized [sentencing] decision is essential in capital cases,” the plurality concluded:
“There is no perfect procedure for deciding in which cases governmental authority should be used to impose death. But a statute that prevents the sentencer in all capital cases from giving independent mitigating weight to aspects of the defendant’s character and record and to circumstances of the offense proffered in mitigation creates the risk that the death penalty will be imposed in spite of factors that may call for a less severe penalty.” 438 U. S., at 605.
Obviously, the plurality did not believe the Texas statute suffered this infirmity.
The plurality’s rule was embraced by a majority of the Court four years later in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982). There, the Court overturned a death sentence on the ground that the judge who entered it had felt himself bound by state law to disregard mitigating evidence concerning the defendant’s troubled youth and emotional disturbance. The Court held that, “[j]ust 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.” Id., at 113-114 (emphasis omitted); see also Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U. S. 393,394 (1987); Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1, 4-5 (1986). The Eddings opinion rested on Lockett and made no mention of Jurek.
We cannot say that reasonable jurists considering petitioner’s claim in 1984 would have felt that these cases “dictated” vacatur of petitioner’s death sentence. See Teague, 489 U. S., at 301. To the contrary, to most readers at least, these cases reasonably would have been read as upholding the constitutional validity of Texas’ capital sentencing scheme with respect to mitigating evidence and otherwise. Lockett expressly embraced the Jurek holding, and Eddings signaled no retreat from that conclusion. It seems to us that reasonable jurists in 1984 would have found that, under our cases, the Texas statute satisfied the commands of the Eighth Amendment: It permitted petitioner to place before the jury whatever mitigating evidence he could show, including his age, while focusing the jury’s attention upon what that evidence revealed about the defendant’s capacity for deliberation and prospects for rehabilitation.
We find nothing in our more recent cases, to the extent they are relevant, that would undermine this analysis. In 1988, in Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U. S. 164, we rejected a claim that the Texas special issues provided an inadequate vehicle for jury consideration of evidence of a defendant’s clean prison disciplinary record. There, a plurality of the Court observed that “[i]n resolving the second Texas Special Issue, the jury was surely free to weigh and evaluate petitioner’s disciplinary record as it bore on his ‘character’ — that is, his ‘character’ as measured by his likely future behavior.” Id., at 178. Moreover, the plurality found
“unavailing petitioner’s reliance on this Court’s statement in Eddings, 455 U. S., at 114, that the sentencing jury may not be precluded from considering ‘any relevant, mitigating evidence.’ This statement leaves unanswered the question: relevant to what? While Lockett, supra, at 604, answers this question at least in part — making it clear that a State cannot take out of the realm of relevant sentencing considerations the questions of the defendant’s ‘character,’ ‘record,’ or the ‘circumstances of the offense’ — Lockett does not hold that the State has no role in structuring or giving shape to the jury’s consideration of these mitigating factors.” Id., at 179 (citations omitted).
To be sure, Justice O’Connor’s opinion concurring in the judgment in Franklin expressed “doubts” about the validity of the Texas death penalty statute as that statute might be applied in future cases. Id., at 183. The Justice agreed, however, that the special issues adequately accounted for the mitigating evidence presented in that case. Ibid.
This brings us to Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), upon which petitioner chiefly relies. In that case, the Court overturned a prisoner’s death sentence, finding that the Texas special issues provided no genuine opportunity for the jury to give mitigating effect to evidence of his mental retardation and abused childhood. The Court considered these factors to be mitigating because they diminished the defendant’s ability “to control his impulses or to evaluate the consequences of his conduct,” and therefore reduced his moral culpability. Id., at 322. The Texas special issues permitted the jury to consider this evidence, but. not necessarily in a way that would benefit the defendant. Although Penry’s evidence of mental impairment and childhood abuse indeed had relevance to the “future dangerousness” inquiry, its relevance was aggravating only. “Penry’s mental retardation and history of abuse is thus a two-edged sword: it may diminish his blameworthiness for his crime even as it indicates that there is a probability that he will be dangerous in the future.” Id., at 324. Whatever relevance Penry’s evidence may have had to the other two special issues was too tenuous to overcome this aggravating potential. Because it was impossible to give meaningful mitigating effect to Penry’s evidence by way of answering the special issues, the Court concluded that Penry was constitutionally entitled to further instructions “informing the jury that it could consider and give effect to [Penry’s] evidence ... by declining to impose the death penalty.” Id., at 328.
We do not read Penry as effecting a sea change in this Court’s view of the constitutionality of the former Texas death penalty statute; it does not broadly suggest the invalidity of the special issues framework. Indeed, any such reading of Penry would be inconsistent with the Court’s conclusion in that case that it was not announcing a “new rule” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). See Penry, supra, at 318-319. As we have explained in subsequent cases:
“To the extent that Penry’s claim was that the Texas system prevented the jury from giving any mitigating effect to the evidence of his mental retardation and abuse in childhood, the decision that the claim did not require the creation of a new rule is not surprising. Lock-ett and Eddings command that the State must allow the jury to give effect to mitigating evidence in making the sentencing decision; Penry’s contention was that Texas barred the jury from so acting. Here, by contrast, there is no contention that the State altogether prevented Parks’ jury from considering, weighing, and giving effect to all of the mitigating evidence that Parks put before them; rather, Parks’ contention is that the State has unconstitutionally limited the manner in which his mitigating evidence may be considered. As we have concluded above, the former contention would come under the rule of Lockett and Eddings; the latter does not.” Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S., at 491.
In our view, the rule that Graham seeks is not commanded by the cases upon which Penry rested. In those cases, the constitutional defect lay in the fact that relevant mitigating evidence was placed beyond the effective reach of the sen-tencer. In Lockett, Eddings, Skipper, and Hitchcock, the sentencer was precluded from even considering certain types of mitigating evidence. In Penry, the defendant’s evidence was placed before the sentencer but the sentencer had no reliable means of giving mitigating effect to that evidence. In this case, however, Graham’s mitigating evidence was not placed beyond the jury’s effective reach. Graham indisputably was permitted to place all of his evidence before the jury and both of Graham’s two defense lawyers vigorously urged the jury to answer “no” to the special issues based on this evidence. Most important, the jury plainly could have done so consistent with its instructions. The jury was not forbidden to accept the suggestion of Graham’s lawyers that his brief spasm of criminal activity in May 1981 was properly viewed, in light of his youth, his background, and his character, as an aberration that was not likely to be repeated. Even if Graham’s evidence, like Penry’s, had significance beyond the scope of the first special issue, it is apparent that Graham’s evidence — unlike Penry’s — had mitigating relevance to the second special issue concerning his likely future dangerousness. Whereas Penry’s evidence compelled an affirmative answer to that inquiry, despite its mitigating significance, Graham’s evidence quite readily could have supported a negative answer. This distinction leads us to conclude that neither Penry nor any of its predecessors “dictates” the relief Graham seeks within the meaning required by Teague. See Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S., at 238 (Souter, J., dissenting): “The result in a given case is not dictated by precedent if it is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds/ or, put differently, if ‘reasonable jurists may disagree’ ” (citations omitted).
Moreover, we are not convinced that Penry could be extended to cover the sorts of mitigating evidence Graham suggests without a wholesale abandonment of Jurek and perhaps also of Franklin v. Lynaugh. As we have noted, Jurek is reasonably read as holding that the circumstance of youth is given constitutionally adequate consideration in deciding the special issues. We see no reason to regard the circumstances of Graham’s family background and positive character traits in a different light. Graham’s evidence of transient upbringing and otherwise nonviolent character more closely resembles Jurek’s evidence of age, employment history, and familial ties than it does Penry’s evidence of mental retardation and harsh physical abuse. As the dissent in Franklin made clear, virtually any mitigating evidence is capable of being viewed as having some bearing on the defendant’s “moral culpability” apart from its relevance to the particular concerns embodied in the Texas special issues. See Franklin, 487 U. S., at 190 (Stevens, J., dissenting). It seems to us, however, that reading Penry as petitioner urges — and thereby holding that a defendant is entitled to special instructions whenever he can offer mitigating evidence that has some arguable relevance beyond the special issues — would be to require in all cases that a fourth “special issue” be put to the jury: “‘Does any mitigating evidence before you, whether or not relevant to the above [three] questions, lead you to believe that the death penalty should not be imposed?’” The Franklin plurality rejected precisely this contention, finding it irreconcilable with the Court’s holding in Jurek, see Franklin, supra, at 180, n. 10, and we affirm that conclusion today. Accepting Graham’s submission would unmistakably result in a new rule under Teague. See Saffle v. Parks, supra, at 488; Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S., at 412.
In sum, even if Penry reasonably could be read to suggest that Graham’s mitigating evidence was not adequately considered under the former Texas procedures, that is not the relevant inquiry under Teague. Rather, the determinative question is whether reasonable jurists reading the case law that existed in 1984 could have concluded that Graham’s sentencing was not constitutionally infirm. We cannot say that all reasonable jurists would have deemed themselves compelled to accept Graham’s claim in 1984. Nor can we say,' even with the benefit of the Court’s subsequent decision in Penry, that reasonable jurists would be of one mind in ruling on Graham’s claim today. The ruling Graham seeks, therefore, would be a “new rule” under Teague.
2
Having decided that the relief Graham seeks would require announcement of a new rule under Teague, we next consider whether that rule nonetheless would fall within one of the two exceptions recognized in Teague to the “new rule” principle. “The first exception permits the retroactive application of a new rule if the rule places a class of private conduct beyond the power of the State to proscribe, see Teague, 489 U. S., at 311, or addresses a ‘substantive categorical guarante[e] accorded by the Constitution,’ such as a rule ‘prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense.’” Saffle v. Parks, supra, at 494 (quoting Penry, 492 U. S., at 329, 330). Plainly, this exception has no application here because the rule Graham seeks “would neither decriminalize a class of conduct nor prohibit the imposition of capital punishment on a particular class of persons.” 494 U. S., at 495.
The second exception permits federal courts on collateral review to announce “ ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure' implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Ibid. Whatever the precise scope of this exception, it is clearly meant to apply only to a small core of rules requiring “observance of ‘those procedures that ... are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”"’ Teague, supra, at 311 (quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 693 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part) (in turn quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937))); see also Butler v. McKellar, supra, at 416. As the plurality cautioned in Teague, “[b]ecause we operate from the premise that such procedures would be so central to an accurate determination of innocence or guilt, we believe it unlikely that many such components of basic due process have yet to emerge.” 489 U. S., at 313. We do not believe that denying Graham special jury instructions concerning his mitigating evidence of youth, family background, and positive character traits “seriously diminish[ed] the likelihood of obtaining an accurate determination” in his sentencing proceeding. See Butler v. McKellar, supra, at 416. Accordingly, we find the second Teague exception to be inapplicable as well.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
The Texas Legislature amended the statute in 1991. Those changes are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. 950 F. 2d 1009, 1012, n. 1 (CA5 1992) (en banc).
Penry further held that its result was dictated by the Court’s prior decisions in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978) (plurality opinion), within the sense required by Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), and thus that its rule applied to eases on collateral review. See Penry, 492 U. S., at 314-319.
To the contrary, the Court made clear in that case the limited nature of the question presented: “Penry does not challenge the facial validity of the Texas death penalty statute, which was upheld against an Eighth Amendment challenge in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976). Nor does he dispute that some types of mitigating evidence can be fully considered by the sentencer in the absence of special jury instructions. See Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U. S. 164, 175 (1988) (plurality opinion); id., at 186-186 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Instead, Penry argues that, on the fact s of this case, the jury was unable to fully consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of his mental retardation and abused background in answering the three special issues.” 492 U. S., at 315.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act requires railroads to pay damages for personal injuries negligently inflicted upon their employees. The question this case presents is whether a railroad can escape this statutory liability by proving that an employee so injured had obtained his job by making false representations upon which the railroad rightfully relied in hiring him.
Petitioner brought this action in a West Virginia state court seeking damages for personal injuries from the respondent Norfolk & Western Railway Company, for which, as of the date of his alleged injuries, he had worked continuously, except for a one-year interruption, for some six years. By special plea, the railroad set up as a defense the contention that petitioner was not “employed” by it within the meaning of the Act and alleged in support of this defense: (1) that petitioner had made false and fraudulent representations in his application for employment with regard to his physical condition and other matters pertinent to his eligibility and capacity to serve as a railroad employee; (2) that petitioner would not have been hired but for these misrepresentations and the fact that they misled the railroad's hiring officials; and (3) that the very physical defects which had been fraudulently concealed from the railroad contributed to the injury upon which petitioner’s action is based. Petitioner’s demurrer to this plea was overruled and evidence by both parties was presented to a jury. When all the evidence was in, however, the trial court directed the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the undisputed evidénce showed that the railroad had been deceived into hiring petitioner by petitioner’s fraudulent misrepresentations as to his health and that these misrepresentations had a “direct causal connection” with the injuries upon which petitioner’s action is based.
Throughout the proceedings in the trial court, petitioner contended that no verdict should be directed against him on the grounds, among others: (1) that the allegations of fraud set up in the railroad’s special plea were not sufficient in law to state a defense under the Act; and (2) that even if the plea were sufficient in law, it rested upon questions of fact which should be submitted to the jury. On writ of error, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused to overturn the trial court’s action on either of these two grounds. Though we recognized that the case might possibly be disposed of on the second of these grounds, we granted certiorari to consider the important question raised by petitioner’s first ground concerning the proper interpretation, scope and application of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
The railroad’s primary contention, which was accepted as the principal basis of the action of the trial court, is that the sufficiency in law of its fraud defense was established by this Court’s decision in Minneapolis, St. Paul & S. Ste. Marie R. Co. v. Rock. That case involved the railroad’s liability for the negligent injury of one Joe Rock, who had obtained his employment by a whole series of fraudulent misrepresentations. Rock had originally applied for a job in his own name and had been rejected when his physical condition was found to be such that he did not meet the railroad’s requirements. Several days later, he reapplied for the same job and, in order to conceal the fact that he had previously been refused employment because of his health, represented himself to be “John Rock,” an apparently fictitious name he assumed for the purpose. He next arranged to have one Lenhart pose as “John Rock” and take the railroad’s physical examination. When Lenhart passed the physical, the railroad hired Joe Rock on the mistaken belief that he was “John Rock” and that he had Lenhart’s physical condition. On this unusual combination of facts, this Court held that Rock could not recover damages against the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, saying: “Right to recover may not justify or reasonably be rested on a foundation so abhorrent to public policy.”
The railroad here seeks to bring itself within the Rock decision by arguing that Rock established the principle that any false representation which deceives the employer and results in a railroad worker’s getting a job he would not otherwise have obtained is sufficient to bar the worker from recovering the damages Congress has provided for railroad workers negligently injured in the honest performance of their duties under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Although there is some language in the Rock opinion which might lend itself to such an interpretation, we think it plain that no such rule was ever intended. Certainly that was not the contemporaneous understanding of Rock among other courts as is plainly shown by the statements of Judge Nordbye when that interpretation of Rock was urged upon him only one year later at the trial of Minneapolis, St. Paul & S. Ste. Marie R. Co. v. Borum: “It is inconceivable to this court that Justice Butler intended to hold in the Rock case that every fraudulent violation of the rules framed for maintaining a certain standard of safety and efficiency of the employees would render such employment void and deny the defrauding employee any rights under the act. It seems quite clear that any fraud practiced by the plaintiff herein at the most rendered the contract voidable.” And when the Borum case came here, this Court, although urged to do so, itself refused to extend Rock in any such manner. The decision in Borum, considered in the light of the facts there involved, reflects clearly the contemporaneously understood limitations upon the Rock approach and the reluctance of this Court to extend the vague notions of public policy upon which that case rested to new factual situations.
Borum, who was forty-nine at the time, wanted a job with a railroad that had, in the interest of promoting safety and efficiency in its operations, adopted a rule against hiring men over forty-five. Knowing this, he told the railroad employment officials that he was only thirty-eight and, by this deliberate misrepresentation, obtained a job he would not otherwise have been given. Although Borum took the railroad’s required physical examination, it apparently knew nothing of Borum’s deception about his age until some seven years later, after he had lost both of his legs in an accident caused by the railroad’s negligence and had filed suit against it for damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Just before trial of this case, a last-minute investigation turned up Borum’s real age and the railroad sought to rely upon this fact to escape its liability under the Act. This Court unanimously upheld the Minnesota courts’ determination that Borum had a right to recover despite his admittedly fraudulent and material misrepresentation of his age, brushing aside the railroad’s attempted reliance upon Bock on the ground “that the facts found, when taken in connection with those shown by uncon-tradicted evidence, are not sufficient to bring this case within the rule applied in Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. Rock, supra, or the reasons upon which that decision rests.”
In support of this conclusion, the Court in Borum pointed to a number of factual differences with the Rock case. The first mentioned, and apparently the most important of these in the mind of the Court, was the fact that Rock, unlike Borum, had obtained his employment as an “impostor” by presenting himself to the railroad under an assumed name after his initial application in his own name had been rejected. Secondly, the Court pointed to the fact that Rock, again unlike Borum, had never been approved as physically fit for employment by the railroad’s examining surgeon. Finally, the Court made reference to the fact that under the railroad’s own rules, it could not have discharged Borum for his misrepresentation because more than thirty days had passed since his original provisional employment and the rules made this action final unless changed within that period. But no one of these facts, as the Court recognized, was sufficient to justify a distinction between Rock and Borum based upon an acceptable reconciling principle. In both cases, the worker had been guilty of making a material, false and fraudulent representation without which he would not have been employed. And if such a method of obtaining employment was, as intimated in Rock, to be considered so “abhorrent to public policy” that the normal distinction between “void” and “voidable” contracts was to be ignored, the mere existence of a railroad rule limiting the time for discharge without cause could not, of course, have overridden that policy. The Court therefore, as shown above, based its decision upholding Borum’s right to recover upon all of the factual distinctions between his case and that of Rock and held merely that Rock would not be extended to cover these new facts.
This factual distinction of Rock, though sufficient to show the non-existence of any broad principle that material misrepresentations relied upon by a railroad in hiring bar recovery under the Act, proved completely unsatisfactory to establish affirmatively an intelligible guide by which lower courts could decide what misrepresentations were so “abhorrent to public policy” as to compel a forfeiture of the worker’s right to recover under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. And since Borum, the lower federal courts and state courts have been forced to struggle with the baffling problem of how much and what kinds of fraud are sufficiently abhorrent without further guidance from this Court. Consequently, in almost all of such cases, the courts have been faced with a dilemma occasioned by the fact that both parties have been able to argue with considerable force that a decision in their favor is absolutely required by one or the other of the two decisions on the question by this Court. The result in a vast majority of these courts has been an acceptance of Rock as laying down a narrow public policy holding to which Borum establishes the need for courts to make broad exceptions in appropriate cases. And, perhaps not so surprisingly, most cases have been deemed appropriate ones for avoiding the harsh consequences of Rock, with the courts creating new exceptions to allow recovery whenever a case did not fit within one already established. Occasionally, as here, a worker has been held to be barred from recovery, but these few cases seem entirely indistinguishable on any significant grounds from the many in which other courts have found or created exceptions.
In this situation, it seems necessary for this Court, in the interest of the orderly administration of justice, to take a fresh look at this question in an effort to supply an intelligible guide for future decisions. Having done so, we conclude that the Rock case, properly interpreted, lays down no general rule at all. In that case, the Court was confronted with an action by a railroad worker who, though undeniably an employee of the railroad in any practical or legal sense, had obtained his employment in what was deemed to be such an outrageous manner that it seemed to the Court at that time to be “abhorrent to public policy” to permit him to recover under the Act Congress had passed. There is no occasion for us here to reconsider the correctness of that decision on the basis of the peculiar combination of facts involved in that case, for no such facts are involved here and, indeed, they may never arise again. We do conclude, however, that Rock must be limited to its precise facts. In the face of the legislative policy embodied in the Eederal Employers’ Liability Act that a railroad should pay damages to its workers and their families for personal injuries inflicted by the railroad’s negligence upon those who perform its duties, considerations of public policy of the general kind relied upon by the Court in Rock cannot be permitted to encroach further upon the special policy expressed by Congress in the Act. To facilitate this congressional policy, the terms “employed” and “employee” as used in the Act must, in all cases not involving the precise kind of fraud involved in Rock, be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning, and the status of employees who become such through other kinds of fraud, although possibly subject to termination through rescission of the contract of employment, must be recognized for purposes of suits under the Act. And this conclusion is not affected by the fact that an employee’s misrepresentation may have, as is urged here, contributed to the injury or even to the accident upon which his action is based. This argument, which seems to have gained its popularity primarily as an exception by which the application of Rock could be avoided, suggests that a railroad worker may be partially “employed” under the Act — that he may be able to recover for some injuries negligently inflicted upon him by the railroad and not be able to recover for others so inflicted, depending upon the circumstances of each particular injury. Even if this suggestion recommended itself to reason — which, other than as an exception to the broad principle mistakenly drawn from Rock, it plainly does not — we would not be free to accept it. For it finds no support at all in the history, purpose or language of the Act which provides recovery for any “injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of” the railroad and there is no prior authority of this Court which requires or even permits us to disregard or impair this controlling declaration of public policy.
The petitioner in this case was an employee under the Act and is therefore entitled to recover if he suffered injuries due to the railroad's negligence. It was therefore error to direct a verdict against him on the railroad’s plea of fraud. The case is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
45 U. S. C. §§ 51-60.
“Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the "several States or Territories, or between any of the States and Territories, or between the District of Columbia and any of the States or Territories, or between the District of Columbia or any of the States or Territories and any foreign nation or nations, shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.” 45 U. S. C. § 51. (Emphasis supplied.)
365 U. S. 877
279 U. S. 410.
Id,., at 415.
Judge Nordbye’s opinion is not reported but appears in the record in the Borum case certified to this Court. See also Qualls v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 112 Cal. App. 7, 17, 296 P. 645, 650: “This case [Rock] may be reasonably distinguished from the case at bar. In the Rock case the plaintiff was never really employed by the company. In the present ease the plaintiff was employed.” But cf. Fort Worth & Denver City R. Co. v. Griffith, 27 S. W. 2d 351, 354.
286 U. S. 447.
Id., at 451.
"The general rule is that fraud of this character renders a contract voidable rather than void, but that rule has been ignored in the Rock Case by the Supreme Court upon the ground that the safety of the traveling public is involved in a contract of this character, and for reasons of public policy it is held that the contract is void and, in effect, that appellee never became an employee of the appellant.” Fort Worth & Denver City R. Co. v. Griffith, 27 S. W. 2d 351, 354.
See, e. g., Qualls v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 112 Cal. App. 7, 17, 296 P. 645, 650 (misrepresentations as to past employment record held “immaterial”); Powers v. Michigan Central R. Co., 268 Ill. App. 493, 498 (misrepresentations as to age and past employment record held insufficient to justify application of Rock because Rock “involved an unusual state of facts”); Dawson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 123 Tex. 191, 196, 70 S. W. 2d 392, 394 (misrepresentations as to past employment record and medical history held no bar because they were “in nowise connected with the causé of his injury and not related to his fitness or his ability to discharge the duties required of him”); Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Webster, 123 Tex. 197, 201, 70 S. W. 2d 394, 396 (misrepresentations as to previous injury and litigation arising out of that injury held no bar because “it was not shown that his physical condition was such as to make his employment inconsistent with plaintiff in error’s proper policy or its reasonable rules to insure discharge of its duty to select fit employees”); Carter v. Peoria & Pekin Union R. Co., 275 Ill. App. 298, 303-304 (misrepresentations as to medical history held no bar because there was no “evidence to the effect that this former injury in any way disqualified or prevented appellant from properly performing his duties as switchman”); Phillips v. Southern Pacific Co., 14 Cal. App. 2d 454, 457, 58 P. 2d 688, 690 (misrepresentations as to past employment record held no bar even though facilitated by the use of an assumed name because there was no showing of “a causal connection between the injury and the misstatements in the application for employment”) ; Laughter v. Powell, 219 N. C. 689, 698, 14 S. E. 2d 826, 832 (misrepresentations as to age held no bar because there was, despite these misrepresentations, “a contract of employment, even though voidable, by which the relation of master and servant, or employer and employee, was created between defendants and plaintiff”); Newkirk v. Los Angeles Junction R. Co., 21 Cal. 2d 308, 320, 131 P. 2d 535, 543 (misrepresentations as to age held no bar because “[w]here employment is induced .by fraudulent representations of the employee not going to the factum of the contract the employment exists although there may be ground for rescinding the contract, and recovery may be had from the employer for negligent injury to the employee at least where there is no causal connection between the injury and the misrepresentation”); Matthews v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 54 Cal. App. 2d 549, 556, 129 P. 2d 435, 441 (misrepresentations as to age and past employment record held no bar even though these misrepresentations were facilitated by the use of an assumed name and even though they may have contributed to the worker’s injury because the rule requiring “ 'a causal connection between the injury and the misstatements’ refers to the happening of the injury, not to its effects”); Blanton v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 215 Minn. 442, 446, 10 N. W. 2d 382, 384 (misrepresentations as to medical history and physical condition held no bar because “the jury could have found that there was no causal connection between the misrepresentation and plaintiff’s hurt”); Casso v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 219 F. 2d 303, 305 (misrepresentations as to medical history and physical condition held no bar because the misrepresentations were not “of such character that it ‘substantially affected the examining surgeon’s conclusion that he was in good health and acceptable physical condition’ ”); Eresafe v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 250 F. 2d 619, 621-622 (misrepresentations as to identity, medical history and physical condition held no bar because “[a] humane and realistic policy in such cases requires substantial proof of a direct causal connection between the misrepresentations made at the time of hiring and the subsequent injury to the employee”); White v. Thompson, 181 Kan. 485, 497-498, 312 P. 2d 612, 621 (misrepresentations as to medical history and physical condition held no bar because “it is not alleged the misrepresentations had causal relation to plaintiff’s fitness to perform his duties and to the injuries he sustained, or that they substantially affected the medical examiner’s conclusion that plaintiff was in good health and acceptable physical condition, or that defendant remained unaware of the deception until after plaintiff’s injuries”).
Only four cases have been brought to the attention of this Court in which the railroad has been permitted to prevail on an issue raised by the defense of fraudulent procurement of employment. One of these, Fort Worth & Denver City R. Co. v. Griffith, 27 S. W. 2d 351, was decided before Borum by a court which felt itself entirely bound by Rock; “In deference to the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States, which we feel constrained to follow, the judgment is reversed and is here rendered for the appellant.” Id., at 354. The other three are: Clark v. Union Pacific R. Co., 70 Idaho 70, 211 P. 2d 402 (judgment for plaintiff reversed for failure to instruct the jury with regard to the railroad’s fraud defense); Southern Pac. Co. v. Libbey, 199 F. 2d 341 (judgment for plaintiff reversed for exclusion of evidence relating to railroad’s fraud defense); and Talarowski v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 135 F. Supp. 503 (motion to strike the railroad’s fraud defense denied). All four of these cases involved misrepresentations as to the worker’s physical condition. Compare these cases with those cited in note 10, supra, especially with Blanton v. Northern Pacific R. Co.; Casso v. Pennsylvania R. Co.; Eresafe v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co.; and White v. Thompson.
For contemporaneous comment on the Rock decision, see Merrill, Misrepresentation to Secure Employment, 14 Minn. L. Rev. 646; Comment, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 141; Comment, 28 Mich. L. Rev. 357.
“A humane and realistic policy in such cases requires substantial proof of a direct causal connection between the misrepresentations made at the time of hiring and the subsequent injury to the employee, before any defense of fraud can be considered as a bar to a recovery.” Eresafe v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 250 F. 2d 619, 621-622. Mention of a requirement of direct causal connection between the misrepresentations and the injury can be found in cases prior to Rock, but there too the requirement was used to permit recovery despite fraud. See, e. g., St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Brantley, 168 Ala. 579, 588, 53 So. 305, 307; Lupher v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 81 Kan. 585, 589, 106 P. 284, 286; Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio R. Co. v. Harris, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 434, 437, 107 S. W. 108, 110; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Lewis, 218 Ky. 197, 205, 291 S. W. 401, 404.
We do not, of course, mean to intimate that, in appropriate circumstances, evidence of a pre-existing physical defect might not be relevant on the issue of whether the injury complained of was caused by the railroad’s negligence “in whole or- in part” by tending to show either that the worker was not injured by the railroad at all, that, if injured, the railroad was not responsible for the full extent of the injury, or that damages should be diminished by the jury because of contributory negligence.
Indeed, if the decisions of this Court can be said to point in either direction, it is toward the conclusion that a causal connection between the injury and the misrepresentations is totally irrelevant. For, as this Court expressly recognized, there was no such connection in Rock. “While his [Rock’s] physical condition was not a cause of his injuries, it did have direct relation to the propriety of admitting him to such employment.” 279 U. S., at 415.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We granted certiorari in these consolidated cases to decide whether the United States Forest Service has authority under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq., to grant rights-of-way through lands within national forests traversed by the Appalachian Trail. 588 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 36, 204 L.Ed.2d 1193 (2019) ; 588 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 36, 204 L.Ed.2d 1193 (2019). We hold that the Mineral Leasing Act does grant the Forest Service that authority and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
I
A
In 2015, petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to construct and operate an approximately 604-mile natural gas pipeline extending from West Virginia to North Carolina. The pipeline's proposed route traverses 16 miles of land within the George Washington National Forest. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Appalachian Trail or Trail) also crosses parts of the George Washington National Forest.
To construct the pipeline, Atlantic needed to obtain special use permits from the United States Forest Service for the portions of the pipeline that would pass through lands under the Forest Service's jurisdiction. In 2018, the Forest Service issued these permits and granted a right-of-way that would allow Atlantic to place a 0.1-mile segment of pipe approximately 600 feet below the Appalachian Trail in the George Washington National Forest.
B
Respondents Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Highlanders for Responsible Development, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Shenandoah Valley Network, Sierra Club, Virginia Wilderness Committee, and Wild Virginia filed a petition for review in the Fourth Circuit. They contended that the issuance of the special use permit for the right-of-way under the Trail, as well as numerous other aspects of the Forest Service's regulatory process, violated the Mineral Leasing Act (Leasing Act), 41 Stat. 437, 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., the National Forest Management Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2952, 16 U.S.C. § 1604, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. Atlantic intervened in the suit.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the Forest Service's special use permit after holding that the Leasing Act did not empower the Forest Service to grant the pipeline right-of-way beneath the Trail. As relevant here, the court concluded that the Appalachian Trail had become part of the National Park System because, though originally charged with the Trail's administration, 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(1), the Secretary of the Interior delegated that duty to the National Park Service, 34 Fed. Reg. 14337 (1969). In the Fourth Circuit's view, this delegation made the Trail part of the National Park System because the Trail was now an "area of land... administered by the Secretary [of the Interior] acting through the Director [of the National Park Service]." 54 U.S.C. § 100501. Because it concluded the Trail was now within the National Park System, the court held that the Trail was beyond the authority of "the Secretary of the Interior or appropriate agency head" to grant pipeline rights-of-way under the Leasing Act. 30 U.S.C. § 185(a). See 911 F.3d 150, 179-181 (CA4 2018).
II
These cases involve the interaction of multiple federal laws. We therefore begin by summarizing the relevant statutory and regulatory background.
A
Congress enacted the Weeks Act in 1911, Pub. L. 61-435, 36 Stat. 961, which provided for the acquisition of lands for inclusion in the National Forest System, see 16 U.S.C. §§ 516 - 517. The Weeks Act also directed that lands acquired for the National Forest System "shall be permanently reserved, held, and administered as national forest lands." § 521. Though Congress initially granted the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to administer national forest lands, § 472, the Secretary has delegated that authority to the Forest Service, 36 C.F.R. § 200.3(b)(2)(i) (2019).
What is now known as the George Washington National Forest was established as a national forest in 1918, see Proclamation No. 1448, 40 Stat. 1779, and renamed the George Washington National Forest in 1932, Exec. Order No. 5867. No party here disputes that the George Washington National Forest was acquired for inclusion in the National Forest System and that it is under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. See 16 U.S.C. § 1609.
B
Enacted in 1968, the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), among other things, establishes national scenic and national historic trails. 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a). See 82 Stat. 919, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq. The Appalachian Trail was one of the first two trails created under the Act. § 1244(a)(1).
Under the statute, the Appalachian Trail "shall be administered primarily as a footpath by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture." Ibid. The statute empowers the Secretary of the Interior to establish the location and width of the Appalachian Trail by entering into "rights-of-way" agreements with other federal agencies as well as States, local governments, and private landowners. §§ 1246(a)(2), (d), (e). However, the Trails Act also contains a proviso stating that "[n]othing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to transfer among Federal agencies any management responsibilities established under any other law for federally administered lands which are components of the National Trails System." § 1246(a)(1)(A).
The Trails Act currently establishes 30 national historic and national scenic trails. See §§ 1244(a)(1)-(30). It assigns responsibility for most of those trails to the Secretary of the Interior. Ibid. Though the Act is silent on the issue of delegation, the Department of the Interior has delegated the administrative responsibility over each of those trails to either the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management, both of which are housed within the Department of the Interior. Congressional Research Service, M. De Santis & S. Johnson, The National Trails System: A Brief Overview 2-3 (Table 1), 4 (Fig. 1) (2020). Currently, the National Park Service administers 21 trails, the Bureau of Land Management administers 1 trail, and the two agencies co-administer 2 trails. Ibid. The Secretary of Interior delegated his authority over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service in 1969. 34 Fed. Reg. 14337.
C
In 1920, Congress passed the Leasing Act, which enabled the Secretary of the Interior to grant pipeline rights-of-way through "public lands, including the forest reserves," § 28, 41 Stat. 449. Congress amended the Leasing Act in 1973 to provide that not only the Secretary of the Interior but also any "appropriate agency head" may grant "[r]ights-of-way through any Federal lands... for pipeline purposes." Pub. L. 93-153, 87 Stat. 576, codified at 30 U.S.C. § 185(a). Notably, the 1973 amendment also defined "Federal lands" to include "all lands owned by the United States, except lands in the National Park System, lands held in trust for an Indian or Indian tribe, and lands on the Outer Continental Shelf." 87 Stat. 577, codified at 30 U.S.C. § 185(b). In 1970, Congress defined the National Park System as "any area of land and water now and hereafter administered by the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other purposes." § 2(b), 84 Stat. 826, codified at 54 U.S.C. § 100501.
III
We are tasked with determining whether the Leasing Act enables the Forest Service to grant a subterranean pipeline right-of-way some 600 feet under the Appalachian Trail. To do this, we first focus on the distinction between the lands that the Trail traverses and the Trail itself, because the lands (not the Trail) are the object of the relevant statutes.
Under the Leasing Act, the "Secretary of the Interior or appropriate agency head" may grant pipeline rights-of-way across "Federal lands." 30 U.S.C. § 185(a) (emphasis added). The Forest Service is an "appropriate agency head" for "Federal lands" over "which [it] has jurisdiction." § 185(b)(3). As stated above, it is undisputed that the Forest Service has jurisdiction over the "Federal lands" within the George Washington National Forest. The question before us, then, becomes whether these lands within the forest have been removed from the Forest Service's jurisdiction and placed under the Park Service's control because the Trail crosses them. If no transfer of jurisdiction has occurred, then the lands remain National Forest lands, i.e., "Federal lands" subject to the grant of a pipeline right-of-way. If, on the other hand, jurisdiction over the lands has been transferred to the Park Service, then the lands fall under the Leasing Act's carve-out for "lands in the National Park System," thus precluding the grant of the right-of-way. § 185(b)(1) (emphasis added).
We conclude that the lands that the Trail crosses remain under the Forest Service's jurisdiction and, thus, continue to be "Federal lands" under the Leasing Act.
A
We begin our analysis by examining the interests and authority granted under the Trails Act. Pursuant to the Trails Act, the Forest Service entered into "right-of-way" agreements with the National Park Service "for [the] approximately 780 miles of Appalachian Trail route within national forests," including the George Washington National Forest. 36 Fed. Reg. 2676 (1971) ; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)(2) ; 36 Fed. Reg. 19805. These "right-of-way" agreements did not convert "Federal lands" into "lands" within the "National Park System."
1
A right-of-way is a type of easement. In 1968, as now, principles of property law defined a right-of-way easement as granting a nonowner a limited privilege to "use the lands of another." Kelly v. Rainelle Coal Co., 135 W.Va. 594, 604, 64 S.E.2d 606, 613 (1951) ; Builders Supplies Co. of Goldsboro, N. C., Inc. v. Gainey, 282 N.C. 261, 266, 192 S.E.2d 449, 453 (1972) ; see also R. Powell & P. Rohan, Real Property § 405 (1968); Restatement (First) of Property § 450 (1944). Specifically, a right-of-way grants the limited "right to pass... through the estate of another." Black's Law Dictionary 1489 (4th ed. 1968). Courts at the time of the Trails Act's enactment acknowledged that easements grant only nonpossessory rights of use limited to the purposes specified in the easement agreement. See, e.g., Bunn v. Offutt, 216 Va. 681, 684, 222 S.E.2d 522, 525 (1976). And because an easement does not dispossess the original owner, Barnard v. Gaumer, 146 Colo. 409, 412, 361 P.2d 778, 780 (1961), "a possessor and an easement holder can simultaneously utilize the same parcel of land," J. Bruce & J. Ely, Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 1:1, p. 1-5 (2015). Thus, it was, and is, elementary that the grantor of the easement retains ownership over "the land itself."
Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler, 287 Minn. 254, 257, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789 (1970) (emphasis added). Stated more plainly, easements are not land, they merely burden land that continues to be owned by another. See Bruce, Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 1:1, at 1-2.
If analyzed as a right-of-way between two private landowners, determining whether any land had been transferred would be simple. If a rancher granted a neighbor an easement across his land for a horse trail, no one would think that the rancher had conveyed ownership over that land. Nor would anyone think that the rancher had ceded his own right to use his land in other ways, including by running a water line underneath the trail that connects to his house. He could, however, make the easement grantee responsible for administering the easement apart from the land. Likewise, when a company obtains a right-of-way to lay a segment of pipeline through a private owner's land, no one would think that the company had obtained ownership over the land through which the pipeline passes.
Although the Federal Government owns all lands involved here, the same general principles apply. We must ascertain whether one federal agency has transferred jurisdiction over lands-meaning "jurisdiction to exercise the incidents of ownership"-to another federal agency. Brief for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 22-23, n. 2. The Trails Act refers to the granted interests as "rights-of-way," both when describing agreements with the Federal Government and with private and state property owners. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1246(a)(2), (e). When applied to a private or state property owner, "right-of-way" would carry its ordinary meaning of a limited right to enjoy another's land. Nothing in the statute suggests that the term adopts a more expansive meaning when the right is granted to a federal agency, and we do "not lightly assume that Congress silently attaches different meanings to the same term in the same... statute," Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U. S. ----,---- - ----, 139 S.Ct. 1804, 1812, 204 L.Ed.2d 139 (2019). Accordingly, as would be the case with private or state property owners, a right-of-way between two agencies grants only an easement across the land, not jurisdiction over the land itself.
The dissent notes that the Federal Government has referred to the Trail as an "area" and a "unit" and has described the Trail in terms of "acres." See post, at 1853 - 1855, 1857 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). In the dissent's view, this indicates that the Trail and the land are the same. This is not so. Like other right-of-way easements, the Trail burdens "a particular parcel of land." Bruce, Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 1:1, at 1-6. It is thus not surprising that the Government might refer to the Trail as an "area," much as one might mark out on his property the "area" of land burdened by a sewage easement. The fact remains that the land and the easement are still separate.
The dissent also cites provisions of the Trails Act that discuss "lands" to be included in the Trail. See post, at 1856 - 1857. But this, too, is consistent with our conclusion that the Trail is an easement. Like all easements, the parcel of land burdened by the easement has particular metes and bounds. See, e.g., Carnemella v. Sadowy, 147 App.Div.2d 874, 876, 538 N.Y.S.2d 96, 98 (1989) ("[T]he subject easement... reasonably described the portion of the property where the easement existed"); Sorrell v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., 314 S.W.2d 193, 195-196 (Ky. 1958). In fact, without such descriptions, parties to an easement agreement would be unable to understand their rights or enforce another party's obligations under the easement agreement. Thus, there is nothing noteworthy about the fact that the Trails Act discusses whether particular lands should be included within the metes and bounds of the tracts of land burdened by the easement. In short, none of the characterizations identified by the dissent changes the fact that the burden on the land and the land itself remain separate.
In sum, read in light of basic property law principles, the plain language of the Trails Act and the agreement between the two agencies did not divest the Forest Service of jurisdiction over the lands that the Trail crosses. It gave the Department of the Interior (and by delegation the National Park Service) an easement for the specified and limited purpose of establishing and administering a Trail, but the land itself remained under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. To restate this conclusion in the parlance of the Leasing Act, the lands that the Trail crosses are still "Federal lands," 30 U.S.C. § 185(a), and the Forest Service may grant a pipeline right-of-way through them-just as it granted a right-of-way for the Trail. Sometimes a complicated regulatory scheme may cause us to miss the forest for the trees, but at bottom, these cases boil down to a simple proposition: A trail is a trail, and land is land.
2
The various duties described in the Trails Act reinforce that the agency responsible for the Trail has a limited role of administering a trail easement, but that the underlying land remains within the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The Trails Act states that the Secretary of the Interior (and by delegation the National Park Service) shall "administe[r]" the Trail "primarily as a footpath." 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(1). The Secretary is charged with designating Trail uses, providing Trail markers, and establishing interpretative and informational sites "to present information to the public about the [T]rail." § 1246(c). He also has the authority to pass regulations governing Trail protection and good conduct and can regulate the "protection, management, development, and administration" of the Trail. § 1246(i). Though the Trails Act states that the responsible agency shall "provide for" the maintenance of the Trail, § 1246(h)(1) (emphasis added), it is the Forest Service that performs the necessary physical work. As the Government explained at oral argument (and as respondents did not dispute), "[i]f a tree falls on forest lands over the trail, it's the Forest Service that's responsible for it. You don't call the nine [National] Park Service employees at Harpers Ferry [in West Virginia] and ask them to come out and fix the tree." Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. These statutory duties refer to the Trail easement, not the lands over which the easement passes.
The dissent resists this conclusion by asserting that the National Park Service "administers" the Trail, and that so long as that is true, the Trail is land within the National Park System. See post, at 1858 - 1859. But the National Park Service does not administer the "land" crossed by the Trail. It administers the Trail as an easement-an easement that is separate from the underlying land.
3
Finally, Congress has used unequivocal and direct language in multiple statutes when it wished to transfer land from one agency to another, just as one would expect if a property owner conveyed land in fee simple to another private property owner. In the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, for instance, which was enacted the same day as the Trails Act, Congress specified that "[a]ny component of the national wild and scenic rivers system that is administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service shall become a part of the [N]ational [P]ark [S]ystem." § 10(c), 82 Stat. 916, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1281(c) (emphasis added). That statute also explicitly permits the head of an agency "to transfer to the appropriate secretary jurisdiction over such lands." § 6(e), 82 Stat. 912-913, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1277(e) (emphasis added). Congress has also authorized the Department of the Interior "to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture for national forest purposes lands or interests in lands acquired for or in connection with the Blue Ridge Parkway" and specifies that "[l]ands transferred under this Act shall become national forest lands." Pub. L. 82-336, 66 Stat. 69 (emphasis added). Similar language appears in a host of other statutes. See §§ 5(a)(2), 8(c)(2), 114 Stat. 2529, 2533; Pub. L. 89-446, 80 Stat. 199 ; § 7(c), 79 Stat. 217; Pub. L. 88-415, 78 Stat. 388. The fact that Congress chose to speak in terms of rights-of-way in the Trails Act, rather than in terms of land transfers, reinforces the conclusion that the Park Service has a limited role over only the Trail, not the lands that the Trail crosses. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 178-179, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993).
For these reasons, we hold that the Trails Act did not transfer jurisdiction of the lands crossed by the Trail from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior. It created a trail easement and gave the Department of the Interior the administrative responsibilities concomitant with administering the Trail as a trail.
Accordingly, because the Department of the Interior had no jurisdiction over any lands, its delegation to the National Park Service did not convert the Trail into "lands in the National Park System," 30 U.S.C. § 185(b)(1) (emphasis added)-i.e., an "area of land... administered by the Secretary [of the Interior] acting through the Director [of the National Park Service]." 54 U.S.C. § 100501 (emphasis added). The Forest Service therefore retained the authority to grant Atlantic a pipeline right-of-way.
B
1
Respondents take a markedly different view, which is shared by the dissent. According to respondents, the Trail cannot be separated from the underlying land. In their view, if the National Park Service administers the Trail, then it also administers the lands that the Trail crosses, and no pipeline rights-of-way may be granted.
Respondents' argument that the National Park Service administers the Trail (and therefore the lands that the Trail crosses) proceeds in four steps. First, the Trails Act granted the Department of the Interior the authority to administer the Trail. 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(1). Second, the Department of the Interior delegated those responsibilities to the National Park Service in 1969. 34 Fed. Reg. 14337. Third, in 1970, Congress defined the National Park System to include "any area of land and water administered by the Secretary [of the Interior] acting through the Director [of the National Park Service]." 54 U.S.C. § 100501. Under respondents' view, the 1970 National Park System definition made the Trail part of the National Park System. But one more step was still required to place the Trail outside the Forest Service's Leasing Act pipeline authority. That final step occurred in 1973, when the amendment to the Leasing Act carved out lands in the National Park System from the definition of the "Federal lands" through which pipeline rights-of-way could be granted. 30 U.S.C. § 185(b)(1). Because the Trail had become part of the National Park Service in 1970, respondents conclude that the 1973 carve-out applied to the Trail. Therefore, in their view, the Forest Service cannot grant pipeline rights-of-way under the parcels on which there is a right-of-way for the Appalachian Trail.
This circuitous path misses the mark. As described above, under the plain language of the Trails Act and basic property principles, responsibility for the Trail and jurisdiction over the lands that the Trail crosses can and must be separated for purposes of determining whether the Forest Service can grant a right-of-way. See supra, at 1844 - 1846.
2
Even accepting respondents' argument on its own terms, however, we remain unpersuaded. Respondents' entire theory depends on an administrative action about which the statutes at issue are completely silent: the Department of the Interior's voluntary decision to assign responsibility over a given trail to the National Park Service rather than to the Bureau of Land Management. To reiterate, respondents contend that the Department of the Interior's decision to delegate responsibility over a trail to the National Park Service renders that trail an "area of land... administered by the Secretary [of the Interior], acting through the [Park Service.]" 54 U.S.C. § 100501. Respondents' theory requires us to accept that, without a word from Congress, the Department of the Interior has the power to vastly expand the scope of the National Park Service's jurisdiction through its delegation choices. See Addendum to Reply Brief for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 1a-2a. After all, respondents' view would not just apply to the approximately 2,000-mile-long Appalachian Trail. It would apply equally to all 21 national historic and national scenic trails currently administered by the National Park Service. See Congressional Research Service, National Trails System. Under our precedents, when Congress wishes to " 'alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme,' " as respondents contend it did here through delegation, we would expect it to speak with the requisite clarity to place that intent beyond dispute. See Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1612, 1617, 200 L.Ed.2d 889 (2018) (quoting Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) ). We will not presume that the act of delegation, rather than clear congressional command, worked this vast expansion of the Park Service's jurisdiction and significant curtailment of the Forest Service's express authority to grant pipeline rights-of-way on "lands owned by the United States." 30 U.S.C. § 185(b).
Respondents' theory also has striking implications for federalism and private property rights. Respondents do not contest that, in addition to federal lands, these 21 trails cross lands owned by States, local governments, and private landowners. See also post, at ---- (acknowledging that the Trail alone "comprises 58,110.94 acres of Non-Federal land, including 8,815.98 acres of Private land" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Under respondents' view, these privately owned and state-owned lands would also become lands in the National Park System. Our precedents require Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property. Cf. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991).
Finally, reliance on the Department of the Interior's delegation of its Trails Act authority is especially questionable here, given that Congress has used express language in other statutes when it wished to transfer lands between agencies. See supra, at 1847. Congress not only failed to enact similar language in the Trails Act, but it clearly expressed the opposite view. The entire Trails Act must be read against the backdrop of the Weeks Act, which states that lands acquired for the National Forest System-including the George Washington National Forest-"shall be permanently reserved, held, and administered as national forest lands." 16 U.S.C. § 521. The Trails Act further provides that "[n]othing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to transfer among Federal agencies any management responsibilities established under any other law for federally administered lands which are components of the National Trails System." § 1246(a)(1)(A). These two provisions, when combined with the Trails Act's use of the term "rights-of-way" and the administrative duties set out in the Trails Act, provide much clearer-and more textual-guides to Congress' intent than an agency's silent decision to delegate responsibilities to the National Park Service.
In sum, we conclude that the Department of the Interior's unexplained decision to assign responsibility over certain trails to the National Parks System and the Leasing Act's definition of federal lands simply cannot bear the weight of respondents' interpretation.
IV
We hold that the Department of the Interior's decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the Trail passes into land within the National Park System. Accordingly, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the permit here.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice KAGAN joins, dissenting.
The majority's complicated discussion of private-law easements, footpath maintenance, differently worded statutes, and policy masks the simple (and only) dispute here. Is the Appalachian National Scenic Trail "lan[d] in the National Park System"? 30 U.S.C. § 185(b)(1). If it is, then the Forest Service may not grant a natural-gas pipeline right-of-way that crosses the Trail on federally owned land. So says the Mineral Leasing Act, and the parties do not disagree. See Brief for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 10; Brief for Federal Petitioners 3; Brief for Respondents 1.
By definition, lands in the National Park System include "any area of land" "administered" by the Park Service for "park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other purposes." 54 U.S.C. § 100501. So says the National Park Service Organic Act, and the parties agree. See Brief for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 38; Brief for Federal Petitioners 45-46; Brief for Respondents 5-6.
The Appalachian Trail, in turn, is "administered" by the Park Service to ensure "outdoor recreation" and to conserve "nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities." §§ 3(b), 5(a)(1), 82 Stat. 919-920; see also 34 Fed. Reg. 14337 (1969). So say the National Trails System Act and relevant regulations, and again the parties agree. See Brief for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 6, 8-9; Brief for Federal Petitioners 9, 26; Brief for Respondents 5.
Thus, as the Government puts it, the only question here is whether parts of the Appalachian Trail are " 'lands' " within the meaning of those statutes. Brief for Federal Petitioners 3. Those laws, a half century of agency understanding, and common sense confirm that the Trail is land, land on which generations of people have walked. Indeed, for 50 years the "Federal Government has referred to the Trail" as a " 'unit' " of the National Park System. Ante, at 1845 - 1846; see Part I-C, infra. A "unit" of the Park System is by definition either "land" or "water" in the Park System. 54 U.S.C. §§ 100102(6), 100501. Federal law does not distinguish "land" from the Trail any more than it distinguishes "land" from the many monuments, historic buildings, parkways, and recreational areas that are also units of the Park System. Because the Trail is land in the Park System, "no federal agency" has "authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant a pipeline right-of-way across such lands." Brief for Federal Petitioners 3.
By contrast, today's Court suggests that the Trail is not "land" in the Park System at all. The Court strives to separate "the lands that the Trail traverses" from "the Trail itself," reasoning that the Trail is simply an "easement," "not land." Ante, at 1844, 1844 - 1845. In doing so, however, the Court relies on anything except the provisions that actually answer the question presented. Because today's Court condones the placement of a pipeline that subverts the plain text of the statutes governing the Appalachian Trail, I respectfully dissent.
I
Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, seeks to construct a natural-gas pipeline across the George Washington National Forest. The proposed route traverses 21 miles of national forests and requires crossing 57 rivers, streams, and lakes within those forests. See 911 F.3d 150, 155 (CA4 2018) (case below in No. 18-1584); App. in No. 18-1144 (CA4), p. 1659. The plan calls for "clearing trees and other vegetation from a 125-foot right of way (reduced to 75 feet in wetlands) through the national forests, digging a trench to bury the pipeline, and blasting and flattening ridgelines in mountainous terrains." 911 F.3d at 155. Construction noise will affect Appalachian Trail use 24 hours a day. See App. 79-80. Atlantic's machinery (including the artificial lights required to work all night) will dim the stars visible from the Trail. See id., at 80. As relevant here, at one stretch the pipeline would cross the Trail.
A
Three interlocking statutes foreclose this proposal. The Mineral Leasing Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior "or appropriate agency head" to grant rights-of-way for natural-gas pipelines "through any Federal lands." 30 U.S.C. § 185(a) ; see also § 185(q) (governing renewals of pre-existing pipeline rights-of-way "across Federal lands"). "For the purposes of " § 185, however, " 'Federal lands' " exclude "lands in the National Park System." § 185(b). Thus, as all acknowledge, if a proposed pipeline would cross any land in the Park System, then no federal agency would have "authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant" a "right-of-way across" that land. Brief for Federal Petitioners 3; see also Brief for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 10; Brief for Respondents 1.
Although the Mineral Leasing Act does not define "lands in the National Park System," the Park Service Organic Act does. Under the Organic Act, the Park System and any "unit" of the Park System "include any area of land and water administered by the Secretary" of the Interior, "acting through the Director" of the Park Service, for "park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other purposes." 54 U.S.C. §§ 100102, 100501. That definition is sweeping; whether land or water, "any area" so "administered" by the Park Service is in the Park System. § 100501.
In turn, the National Trails System Act 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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action, instituted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenges the constitutionality of the loitering ordinance of the city of Dallas. We do not reach the merits, for the District Court dismissed the case under the compulsion of a procedural precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which we have since reversed.
I
Petitioners Tom E. Ellis and Robert D. Love, while in an automobile, were arrested in Dallas at 2 a. m. on January 18, 1972, and were charged with violating the city’s loitering ordinance. That ordinance, § 31-60 of the 1960 Revised Code of Civil and Criminal Ordinances of the City of Dallas, Texas, as amended by Ordinance No. 12991, adopted July 20,1970, provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter, as hereinafter defined, in, on or about any place, public or private, when such loitering is accompanied by activity or is under circumstances that afford probable cause for alarm or concern for the safety and well-being of persons or for the security of property, in the surrounding area.”
The term “loiter” is defined to
“include the following activities: The walking about aimlessly without apparent purpose; lingering; hanging around; lagging behind; the idle spending of time; delaying; sauntering and moving slowly about, where such conduct is not due to physical defects or conditions.”
A violation of the ordinance is classified as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not more than $200.
Before their trial in the Dallas Municipal Court petitioners sought a writ of prohibition from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to preclude their prosecution on the ground that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. App. 29. The petitioners contended, in particular, that § 31-60 is vague and overbroad, that it “permits arrest on the basis of alarm or concern only,” and that it allows the offense to be defined “upon the moment-by-moment opinions and suspicions of a police officer on patrol.” App. 31. The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, denied the application without opinion on February 21, 1972. The following day the Municipal Court proceeded to try the case. After overruling petitioners’ motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of the ordinance’s unconstitutionality, the court accepted their pleas of nolo contendere and fined each petitioner $10 plus $2.50 costs.
Under Texas’ two-tier criminal justice system, petitioners could not directly appeal the judgment of the Municipal Court, but were entitled to seek a trial de novo in the County Court; Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 44.17 (1966), by filing at least a $50 bond within the 10 days following the Municipal Court’s judgment. Arts. 44.13 and 44.16. At the de novo trial petitioners would have been subject to the same maximum fine of $200. Appellate review of the County Court judgment would be available in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if the fine imposed exceeded $100. Art. 4.03.
Electing to avoid the possibility of the imposition of a larger fine by the County Court than was imposed by the Municipal Court, petitioners brought the present federal action under the civil rights statutes, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4), and under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201-2202. Named as defendants, in both their individual and official capacities, were the then chief of police, the city attorney, the then city manager, the then clerk of the Municipal Courts, and the mayor. Petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that the loitering ordinance is unconstitutional. They complained that the statute is vague and overbroad, places too much discretion in arresting officers, proscribes conduct that may not constitutionally be limited, and impermissibly chills the rights of free speech, association, assembly, and movement. Petitioners also sought equitable relief in the form of expunction of their records of arrests and convictions for violating the ordinance, and of some counteraction to any distribution to other law enforcement agencies of information as to their arrests and convictions. No injunctive relief against any future application of the statute to them was requested. Cf. Reed v. Giarrusso, 462 F. 2d 706 (CA5 1972). .
The petitioners moved for summary judgment upon the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, and “other matters of record.” App. 42. The respondents, in turn, moved to dismiss and suggested, as well, “that the abstention doctrine is applicable.” Id., at 58. The District Court held that federal declaratory and injunctive relief against future state criminal prosecutions was not available where there was no allegation of bad-faith prosecution, harassment, or other unusual circumstances presenting a likelihood of irreparable injury and harm to the petitioners if the ordinance were enforced. This result, it concluded, was mandated by the decision of its controlling court in Becker v. Thompson, 459 F. 2d 919 (CA5 1972). In Becker, the Fifth Circuit had held that the principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), applied not only where a state criminal prosecution was actually pending, but also where a state criminal prosecution was merely threatened. Since the present petitioners’ complaint contained insufficient allegation of irreparable harm, the ease was dismissed. 358 F. Supp. 262 (1973). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed without opinion. 475 F. 2d 1402 (1973). After we unanimously reversed the B&cker decision on which the District Court had relied, Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452 (1974), we granted the petition for certiorari. 416 U. S. 954 (1974).
II
In Steffel the Court considered the issue whether the Younger doctrine should apply to a case where state prosecution under a challenged ordinance was merely threatened but not pending. In that case, Steffel and his companion, Becker, engaged in protest handbilling at a shopping center. Police informed them that they would be arrested for violating the Georgia criminal trespass statute if they did not desist. Steffel ceased his handbilling activity, but his companion persisted in the endeavor and was arrested and charged.
Steffel then filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 in Federal District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was being applied in violation of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It was stipulated that if Steffel returned and refused upon request to stop handbilling, a warrant would be sworn out and he might be arrested and charged with a violation of the statute. 415 U. S., at 456. Contrary to the views of the District Court and of the Court of Appeals in the present case, we held that “federal declaratory relief is not precluded when no state prosecution is pending and a federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute, whether an attack is made on the constitutionality of the statute on its face or as applied.” Id., at 475.
Thus, in Steffel, we rejected the argument that bad-faith prosecution, harassment, or other unique and extraordinary circumstances must be shown before federal declaratory relief may be invoked against a genuine threat of state prosecution. Unlike the situation where state prosecution is actually pending, cf. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), where there is simply a threatened prosecution, considerations of equity, comity, and federalism have less vitality. Instead, the opportunity for adjudication of constitutional rights in a federal forum, as authorized by the Declaratory Judgment Act, becomes paramount. 415 U. S., at 462-463.
Exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies in Stefjel was ruled not to be necessary, for we have long held that an action under § 1983 is free of that requirement. 415 U. S., at 472-473. See, e. g., Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 183 (1961). We did require, however, that it be clearly demonstrated that there was a continuing, actual controversy, as is mandated both by the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, and by Art. Ill of the Constitution itself. Although we noted in Steffel, 415 U. S., at 459, that the threats of prosecution were not “imaginary or speculative,” as those terms were used in Younger, 401 U. S., at 42, we remanded the case to the District Court to determine, among other things, if the controversy was still live and continuing. See 415 U. S., at 460. In particular, we observed that the handbilling had been directed against our Government’s policy in Vietnam and “the recent developments reducing the Nation’s involvement in that part of the world” could not be ignored, so that there was a possibility there no longer existed “ ‘a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment,’ ” ibid., quoting Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941).
Ill
The principles and approach of Stejfel are applicable here. The District Court and the Court of Appeals decided this case under the misapprehension that the Younger doctrine applied where there is a threatened state criminal prosecution as well as where there is a state criminal prosecution already pending. Those courts had no reason to reach the merits of the case or to determine the actual existence of a genuine threat of prosecution, or to inquire into the relationship between the past prosecution and the threat of prosecutions for similar activity in the future. Now that Stejfel has been decided, these issues may properly be investigated.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in the light of our opinion in Steffel v. Thompson, reversing Becker v. Thompson. It is appropriate to observe in passing, however, that we possess greater reservations here than we did in Steffel as to whether a case or controversy exists today. First, at oral argument counsel for petitioners acknowledged that they had not been in touch with their clients for approximately a year and were unaware of their clients’ whereabouts. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-7, 18-22, 25-26. Petitioners, apparently, are not even apprised of the progress of this litigation. Unless petitioners have been found by the time the District Court considers this case on remand, it is highly doubtful that a case or controversy could be held to exist; it is elemental that there must be parties before there is a case or controversy. Further, if petitioners no longer frequent Dallas, it is most unlikely that a sufficiently genuine threat of prosecution for possible future violations of the Dallas ordinance could be established.
Second, there is some question on this record as it now stands regarding the pattern of the statute’s enforcement. Answers to interrogatories reveal an average of somewhat more than two persons per day were arrested in Dallas during seven specified months in 1972 for the statutory loitering offense. App. 68. Of course, on remand, the District Court will find it desirable to examine the current enforcement scheme in order to determine whether, indeed, there now is a credible threat that petitioners, assuming they are physically present in Dallas, might be arrested and charged with loitering. A genuine threat must be demonstrated if a case or controversy, within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution and of the Declaratory Judgment Act, may be said to exist. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S., at 458-460. See generally O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 493-499 (1974); Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S. 77, 81 (1971). Further, the credible threat must be shown to be alive at each stage of the litigation. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S., at 459 n. 10, and cases cited therein.
Because of the fact that the District Court has not had the opportunity to consider this case in the light of Steffel, and because of our grave reservations about the existence of an actual case or controversy, we have concluded that it would be inappropriate for us to touch upon any of the other complex and difficult issues that the case otherwise might present. The District Court must determine that , the litigation meets the threshold requirements of a case or controversy before there can be resolution of such questions as the interaction between the past prosecution and the threat of future prosecutions, and of the potential considerations, in the context of this case, of the Younger doctrine, of res judicata, of the plea of nolo contendere, and of the petitioners’ failure to utilize the state appellate remedy available to them. Expunction of the records of the arrests and convictions and the nature of corrective action with respect thereto is another claim we do not reach at this time.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. No costs are allowed.
It is so ordered.
The Municipal Court was formerly known as the Corporation Court. The name was changed by Tex. Sess. Laws, 61st Leg., p. 1689, c. 547 (1969), now codified as Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Art. 1194A (Supp. 1974-1975).
The denial may have been based on State ex rel. Bergeron v. Travis County Court, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 153-154, 174 S. W. 365, 367-368 (1915), and State ex rel. Burks v. Stovall, 324 S. W. 2d 874, 877 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 1959), requiring that questions concerning the constitutionality of a local ordinance be raised in County Court before a writ of prohibition will issue from the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The pertinent Texas statute provides:
“On the part of the defendant, the following are the only pleadings:
“6. A plea of nolo contendere. The legal effect of such plea shall be the same as that of a plea of guilty, but the plea may not be used against the defendant as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the criminal prosecution is based.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 27.02 (1966), as amended by Tex. Sess. Laws, 60th Leg., c. 659, § 17, p. 1738 (1967).
Since petitioners’ convictions, the Article has been, further amended but the new amendments are of no significance for this case. See Tex. Sess. Laws, 63d Leg., c. 399, §2 (A), p. 969 (1973).
We upheld a similar two-tier system in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 112-119 (1972).
The federal action was instituted after the 10-day period for posting bond and filing for review de novo in the County Court had expired.
Ҥ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
“Every person who, under color of an}' statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
The District Court noted, too, that no showing of exhaustion of the state appellate process had been made. 358 F. Supp., at 265-266.
Steffel initially also sought an injunction. After the District Court had denied both declaratory and injunctive relief, Steffel chose to appeal only the denial of declaratory relief. Becker v. Thompson, 459 F. 2d 919, 921 (CA5 1972); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 456 n. 6 (1974). We were not presented, therefore, with any dispute concerning the propriety of injunctive relief.
The Court stated in Stefjel, id., at 462:
“When no state criminal proceeding is pending at the time the federal complaint is filed, federal intervention does not result in duplicative legal proceedings or disruption of the state criminal justice system; nor can federal intervention, in that circumstance, be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state court’s ability to enforce constitutional principles. In addition, while a pending state prosecution provides the federal plaintiff with a concrete opportunity to vindicate his constitutional rights, a refusal on the part of the federal courts to intervene when no state proceeding is pending may place the hapless plaintiff between the Scylla of intentionally flouting state law and the Charybdis of forgoing what he believes to be constitutionally protected activity in order to avoid becoming enmeshed in a criminal proceeding.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 trade dress of a restaurant may be protected under § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 60 Stat. 441, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a) (1982 ed.), based on a finding of inherent distinctiveness, without proof that the trade dress has secondary meaning.
I
Respondent Taco Cabana, Inc., operates a chain of fast-food restaurants in Texas. The restaurants serve Mexican food. The first Taco Cabana restaurant was opened in San Antonio in September 1978, and five more restaurants had been opened in San Antonio by 1985. Taco Cabana describes its Mexican trade dress as
“a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme.” 932 F. 2d 1113, 1117 (CA5 1991).
In December 1985, a Two Pesos, Inc., restaurant was opened in Houston. Two Pesos adopted a motif very similar to the foregoing description of Taco Cabana’s trade dress. Two Pesos restaurants expanded rapidly in Houston and other markets, but did not enter San Antonio. In 1986, Taco Cabana entered the Houston and Austin markets and expanded into other Texas cities, including Dallas and El Paso where Two Pesos was also doing business.
In 1987, Taco Cabana sued Two Pesos in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for trade dress infringement under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a) (1982 ed.), and for theft of trade secrets under Texas common law. The case was tried to a jury, which was instructed to return its verdict in the form of, answers to five questions propounded by the trial judge. The jury’s answers were: Taco Cabana has a trade dress; taken as a whole, the trade dress is nonfunctional; the trade dress is inherently distinctive; the trade dress has not acquired a secondary meaning in the Texas market; and the alleged infringement creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of ordinary customers as to the source or association of the restaurant’s goods or services. Because, as the jury was told, Taco Cabana’s trade dress was protected if it either was inherently distinctive or had acquired a secondary meaning, judgment was entered awarding damages to Taco Cabana. In the course of calculating damages, the trial court held that Two Pesos had intentionally and deliberately infringed Taco Cabana’s trade dress.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the instructions adequately stated the applicable law and that the evidence supported the jury’s findings. In particular, the Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument that a finding of no secondary meaning contradicted a finding of inherent distinctiveness.
In so holding, the court below followed precedent in the Fifth Circuit. In Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., 659 F. 2d 695, 702 (CA5 1981), the court noted that trademark law requires a demonstration of secondary meaning only when the claimed trademark is not sufficiently distinctive of itself to identify the producer; the court held that the same principles should apply to protection of trade dresses. The Court of Appeals noted that this approach conflicts with decisions of other courts, particularly the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc., 652 F. 2d 299 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 909 (1982), that § 48(a) protects unregistered trademarks or designs only where secondary meaning is shown. Chevron, supra, at 702. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether trade dress that is inherently distinctive is protectible under § 43(a) without a showing that it has acquired secondary meaning. 502 U. S. 1071 (1992). We find that it is, and we therefore affirm.
pH HH
The Lanham Act was intended to make “actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks” and “to protect persons engaged in . . . commerce against unfair competition.” §45, 15 U. S. C. §1127. Section 43(a) “prohibits a broader range of practices than does §32,” which applies to registered marks, Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 858 (1982), but it is common ground that § 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and that the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under §2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under § 43(a). See A. J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F. 2d 291, 299, n. 9 (CA3 1986); Thompson Medical Co. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F. 2d 208, 215-216 (CA2 1985).
A trademark is defined in 15 U. S. C. § 1127 as including “any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof” used by any person “to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.” In order to be registered, a mark must be capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of others. § 1052. Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; following the classic formulation set out by Judge Friendly, they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful. See Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F. 2d 4, 9 (CA2 1976). The Court of Appeals followed this classification and petitioner accepts it. Brief for Petitioner 11-15. The latter three categories of marks, because their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection. In contrast, generic marks — those that “refe[r] to the genus of which the particular product is a species,” Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985), citing Abercrombie & Fitch, supra, at 9 — are not registrable as trademarks. Park ’N Fly, supra, at 194.
Marks which are merely descriptive of a product are not inherently distinctive. When used to describe a product, they do not inherently identify a particular source, and hence cannot be protected. However, descriptive marks may acquire the distinctiveness which will allow them to be protected under the Act. Section 2 of the Lanham Act provides that a descriptive mark that otherwise could not be registered under the Act may be registered if it “has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.” §§2(e), (f), 15 U. S. C. §§ 1052(e), (f). See Park ’N Fly, supra, at 194, 196. This acquired distinctiveness is generally called “secondary meaning.” See ibid.; Inwood Laboratories, supra, at 851, n. 11; Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U. S. 111, 118 (1938). The concept of secondary meaning has been applied to actions under §43(a). See, e.g., University of Georgia Athletic Assn. v. Laite, 756 F. 2d 1535 (CA11 1985); Thompson Medical Co. v. Pfizer Inc., supra.
The general rule regarding distinctiveness is clear: An identifying mark is distinctive and capable of being protected if it either (1) is inherently distinctive or (2) has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 13, pp. 37-38, and Comment a (Tent. Draft No. 2, Mar. 23,1990). Cf. Park ’N Fly, supra, at 194. It is also clear that eligibility for protection under § 43(a) depends on nonfunetionality. See, e. g., Inwood Laboratories, supra, at 863 (White, J., concurring in result); see also, e. g., Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co., 832 F. 2d 513, 517 (CA10 1987); First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyers, Inc., 809 F. 2d 1378, 1381 (CA9 1987); Stormy Clime Ltd. v. Pro-Group, Inc., 809 F. 2d 971, 974 (CA2 1987); Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F. 2d 1531, 1535 (CA11 1986); American Greetings Corp. v. Dan-Dee Imports, Inc., 807 F. 2d 1136, 1141 (CA3 1986). It is, of course, also undisputed that liability under § 43(a) requires proof of the likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., Brunswick Corp., supra, at 516-517; AmBrit, supra, at 1535; First Brands, supra, at 1381; Stormy Clime, supra, at 974; American Greetings, supra, at 1141.
The Court of Appeals determined that the District Court’s instructions were consistent with the foregoing principles and that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Both courts thus ruled that Taco Cabana’s trade dress was not descriptive but rather inherently distinctive, and that it was not functional. None of these rulings is before us in this case, and for present purposes we assume, without deciding, that each of them is correct. In going on to affirm the judgment for respondent, the Court of Appeals, following its prior decision in Chevron, held that Taco Cabana’s inherently distinctive trade dress was entitled to protection despite the lack of proof of secondary meaning. It is this issue that is before us for decision, 'and we agree with its resolution by the Court of Appeals. There is no persuasive reason to apply to trade dress a general requirement of secondary meaning which is at odds with the principles generally applicable to infringement suits under § 43(a). Petitioner devotes much of its briefing to arguing issues that are not before us, and we address only its arguments relevant to whether proof of secondary meaning is essential to qualify an inherently distinctive trade dress for protection under § 43(a).
Petitioner argues that the jury’s finding that the trade dress has not acquired a secondary meaning shows conclusively that the trade dress is not inherently distinctive. Brief for Petitioner 9. The Court of Appeals’ disposition of this issue was sound:
“Two Pesos’ argument — that the jury finding of inherent distinctiveness contradicts its finding of no secondary meaning in the Texas market — ignores the law in this circuit. While the necessarily imperfect (and often prohibitively difficult) methods for. assessing secondary meaning address the empirical question of current consumer association, the legal recognition of an inherently distinctive trademark or trade dress acknowledges the owner’s legitimate proprietary interest in its unique and valuable informational device, regardless of whether substantial consumer association yet bestows the additional empirical protection of secondary meaning.” 932 F. 2d, at 1120, n. 7.
Although petitioner makes the above argument, it appears to concede elsewhere in its brief that it is possible for a trade dress, even a restaurant trade dress, to be inherently distinctive and thus eligible for protection under § 43(a). Brief for Petitioner 10-11, 17-18; Reply Brief for Petitioner 10-14. Recognizing that a general requirement of secondary meaning imposes “an unfair prospect of theft [or] financial loss” on the developer of fanciful or arbitrary trade dress at the outset of its use, petitioner suggests that such trade dress should receive limited protection without proof of secondary meaning. Id., at 10. Petitioner argues that such protection should be only temporary and subject to defeasance when over time the dress has failed to acquire a secondary meaning. This approach is also vulnerable for the reasons given by the Court of Appeals. If temporary protection is available from the earliest use of the trade dress, it must be because it is neither functional nor descriptive, but an inherently distinctive dress that is capable of identifying a particular source of the product. Such a trade dress, or mark, is not subject to copying by concerns that have an equal opportunity to choose their own inherently distinctive trade dress. To terminate protection for failure to gain secondary meaning over some unspecified time could not be based on the failure of the dress to retain its fanciful, arbitrary, or suggestive nature, but on the failure of the user of the dress to be successful enough in the marketplace. This is not a valid basis to find a dress or mark ineligible for protection. The user of such a trade dress should be able to maintain what competitive position it has and continue to seek wider identification among potential customers.
This brings us to the line of decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that would find protection for trade dress unavailable absent proof of secondary meaning, a position that petitioner concedes would have to be modified if the temporary protection that it suggests is to be recognized. Brief for Petitioner 10-14. In Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc., 652 F. 2d 299 (1981), the plaintiff claimed protection under § 43(a) for a product whose features the defendant had allegedly copied. The Court of Appeals held that unregistered marks did not enjoy the “presumptive source association” enjoyed by registered marks and hence could not qualify for protection under § 43(a) without proof of secondary meaning. Id., at 303, 304. The court’s rationale seemingly denied protection for unregistered, but inherently distinctive, marks of all kinds, whether the claimed mark used distinctive words or symbols or distinctive product design. The court thus did not accept the arguments that an unregistered mark was capable of identifying a source and that copying such a mark could be making any kind of a false statement or representation under § 43(a).
This holding is in considerable tension with the provisions of the Lanham Act. If a verbal or symbolic mark or the features of a product design may be registered under §2, it necessarily is a mark “by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others,” 60 Stat. 428, and must be registered unless otherwise disqualified. Since §2 requires secondary meaning only as a condition to registering descriptive marks, there are plainly marks that are registrable without showing secondary meaning. These same marks, even if not registered, remain inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of the users of these marks. Furthermore, the copier of such a mark may be seen as falsely claiming that his products may for some reason be thought of as originating from the plaintiff.
Some years after Vibrant, the Second Circuit announced in Thompson Medical Co. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F. 2d 208 (1985), that in deciding whether an unregistered mark is eligible for protection under § 43(a), it would follow the classification of marks set out by Judge Friendly in Abercrombie & Fitch, 537 F. 2d, at 9. Hence, if an unregistered mark is deemed merely descriptive, which the verbal mark before the court proved to be, proof of secondary meaning is required; however, “[s]uggestive marks are eligible for protection without any proof of secondary meaning, since the connection between the mark and the source is presumed.” 753 F. 2d, at 216. The Second Circuit has nevertheless continued to deny protection for trade dress under § 43(a) absent proof of secondary meaning, despite the fact that § 43(a) provides no basis for distinguishing between trademark and trade dress. See, e. g., Stormy Clime Ltd. v. ProGroup, Inc., 809 F. 2d, at 974; Union Mfg. Co. v. Han Baek Trading Co., 763 F. 2d 42, 48 (1985); LeSportsac, Inc. v. K mart Corp., 754 F. 2d 71, 75 (1985).
The Fifth Circuit was quite right in Chevron, and in this ease, to follow the Abercrombie classifications consistently and to inquire whether trade dress for which protection is claimed under § 43(a) is inherently distinctive. If it is, it is capable of identifying produets or services as coming from a specific source and secondary meaning is not required. This is the rule generally applicable to trademarks, and the protection of trademarks and trade dress under § 43(a) serves the same statutory purpose of preventing deception and unfair competition. There is no persuasive reason to apply different analysis to the two. The “proposition that secondary meaning must be shown even if the trade dress is a distinctive, identifying mark, [is] wrong, for the reasons explained by Judge Rubin for the Fifth Circuit in Chevron.” Blau Plumbing, Inc. v. S. O. S. Fix-It, Inc., 781 F. 2d 604, 608 (CA7 1986). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also follows Chevron, Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 805 F. 2d 974, 979 (1986), and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appears to think that proof of secondary meaning is superfluous if a trade dress is inherently distinctive, Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc’s B. R. Others, Inc., 826 F. 2d 837, 843 (1987).
It would be a different matter if there were textual basis in § 43(a) for treating inherently distinctive verbal or symbolic trademarks differently from inherently distinctive trade dress. But there is none. The section does not mention trademarks or trade dress, whether they be called generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, fanciful, or functional. Nor does the concept of secondary meaning appear in the text of § 43(a). Where secondary meaning does appear in the statute, 15 U. S. C. § 1052 (1982 ed.), it is a requirement that applies only to merely descriptive marks and not to inherently distinctive ones. We see no basis for requiring secondary meaning for inherently distinctive trade dress protection under §.43(a) but not for other distinctive words, symbols, or devices capable of identifying a producer’s product.
Engrafting onto § 43(a) a requirement of secondary meaning for inherently distinctive trade dress also would undermine the purposes of the Lanham Act. Protection of trade dress, no less than of trademarks, serves the Act’s purpose to “secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers. National protection of trademarks is desirable, Congress concluded, because trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation.” Park ’N Fly, 469 U. S., at 198, citing S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 3-5 (1946) (citations omitted). By making more difficult the identification of a producer with its product, a secondary meaning requirement for a nondeseriptive trade dress would hinder improving or maintaining the producer’s competitive position.
Suggestions that under the Fifth Circuit’s law, the initial user of any shape or design would cut off competition from products of like design and shape are not persuasive. Only nonfunctional, distinctive trade dress is protected under § 43(a). The Fifth Circuit holds that a design is legally functional, and thus unproteetible, if it is one of a limited number of equally efficient options available to competitors and free competition would be unduly hindered by according the design trademark protection. See Sicilia Di R. Biebow & Co. v. Cox, 732 F. 2d 417, 426 (1984). This serves to assure that competition will not be stifled by the exhaustion of a limited number of trade dresses.
On the other hand, adding a secondary meaning requirement could have anticompetitive effects, creating particular burdens on the startup of small companies. It would present special difficulties for a business, such as respondent, that seeks to start a new product in a limited area and then expand into new markets. Denying protection for inherently distinctive nonfunctional trade dress until after secondary meaning has been established would allow a competitor, which has not adopted a distinctive trade dress of its own, to appropriate the originator’s dress in other markets and to deter the originator from expanding into and competing in these areas.
As noted above, petitioner concedes that protecting an inherently distinctive trade dress from its inception may be critical to new entrants to the market and that withholding protection until secondary meaning has been established would be contrary to the goals of the Lanham Act. Petitioner specifically suggests, however, that the solution is to dispense with the requirement of secondary meaning for a reasonable, but brief, period at the outset of the use of a trade dress. Reply Brief for Petitioner 11-12. If § 43(a) does not require secondary meaning at the outset of a business’ adoption of trade dress, there is no basis in the statute to support the suggestion that such a requirement comes into being after some unspecified time.
1 — < h — {
We agree with the Court of Appeals that proof of secondary meaning is not required to prevail on a claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act where the trade dress at issue is inherently distinctive, and accordingly the judgment of that court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The District Court instructed the jury: ‘“[Tirade dress’ is the total image of the business. Taco Cabana’s trade dress may include the shape and general appearance of the exterior of the restaurant, the identifying sign, the interior kitchen floor plan, the decor, the menu, the equipment used to serve food, the servers’ uniforms and other features reflecting on the total image of the restaurant.” 1 App. 83-84. The Court of Appeals accepted this definition and quoted from Blue Bell Bio-Medical v. Cin-Bad, Inc., 864 F. 2d 1253, 1256 (CA5 1989): “The ‘trade dress’ of a product is essentially its total image and overall appearance.” See 932 F. 2d 1113, 1118 (CA5 1991). It “involves the total image of a product and may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, or even particular sales techniques.” John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F. 2d 966, 980 (CA11 1983). Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 16, Comment a (Tent. Draft No. 2, Mar. 23, 1990).
Section 43(a) provides: “Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce, and any person who shall with knowledge of the falsity of such designation of origin or description or representation cause or procure the same to be transported or used in commerce or deliver the same to any carrier to be transported or used, shall be liable to a civil action by any person doing business in the locality falsely indicated as that of origin or in the region in which said locality is situated, or by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation.” 60 Stat. 441.
This provision has been superseded by § 132 of the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988,102 Stat. 3946, 15 U. S. C. § 1121.
The instructions were that, to be found inherently distinctive, the trade dress must not be descriptive.
Secondary meaning is used generally to indicate that a mark or dress “has come through use to be uniquely associated with a specific source.” Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 13, Comment e (Tent. Draft No. 2, Mar. 23, 1990). “To establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 851, n. 11 (1982).
The Court of Appeals agreed: "The weight of the evidence persuades us, as it did Judge Singleton, that Two Pesos brazenly copied Taco Cabana’s successful trade dress, and proceeded to expand in a manner that foreelosed several lucrative markets within Taeo Cabana’s natural zone of expansion.” 932 F. 2d, at 1127, n. 20.
We limited our grant of certiorari to the above question on which there is a conflict. We did not grant certiorari on the second question presented by the petition, which challenged the Court of Appeals’ acceptance of the jury’s finding that Taco Cabana’s trade dress was not functional.
The Lanham Act, including the provisions at issue here, has been substantially amended since the present suit was brought. See Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988,102 Stat. 3946,16 U. S. C. § 1121.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV-A-2.
This ease began with attempts by respondent Del Monte Dunes and its predecessor in interest to develop a parcel of land within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, the city of Monterey. The city, in a series of repeated rejections, denied proposals to develop the property, each time imposing more rigorous demands on the developers. Del Monte Dunes brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1988. After protracted litigation, the ease was submitted to the jury on Del Monte Dunes’ theory that the city effected a regulatory taking or otherwise injured the property by unlawful acts, without paying compensation or providing an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the loss. The jury found for Del Monte Dunes, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The petitioner should not have been decided by the jury and that the Court of Appeals adopted an erroneous standard for regulatory takings liability. We need not decide all of the questions presented by the petitioner, nor need we examine each of the points given by the Court of Appeals in its decision to affirm. The controlling question is whether, given the city’s apparent concession that the instructions were a correct statement of the law, the matter was properly submitted to the jury. We conclude that it was, and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
H-Í
A
The property which Del Monte Dunes and its predecessor in interest (landowners) sought to develop was a 37.6-acre ocean-front parcel located in the city of Monterey, at or near the city’s boundary to the north, where Highway 1 enters. With the exception of the ocean and a state park located to the northeast, the parcel was virtually surrounded by a railroad right-of-way and properties devoted to industrial, commercial, and multifamily residential uses. The parcel itself was zoned for multifamily residential use under the city’s general zoning ordinance.
The parcel had not been untouched by its urban and industrial proximities. A sewer line housed in 15-foot man-made dunes covered with jute matting and surrounded by snow fencing traversed the property. Trash, dumped in violation of the law, had accumulated on the premises. The parcel had been used for many years by an oil company as a terminal and tank farm where large quantities of oil were delivered, stored, and reshipped. When the company stopped using the site, it had removed its oil tanks but left behind tank pads, an industrial complex, pieces of pipe, broken concrete, and oil-soaked sand. The company had introduced nonnative ice plant to prevent erosion and to control soil conditions around the oil tanks. Ice plant secretes a substance that forces out other plants and is not compatible with the parcel’s natural flora. By the time the landowners sought to develop the property, ice plant had spread to some 25 percent of the parcel, and, absent human intervention, would continue to advance, endangering and perhaps eliminating the parcel’s remaining natural vegetation.
ice plant encroached upon included buckwheat, the natural habitat of the endangered Smith’s Blue Butterfly. The butterfly lives for one week, travels a maximum of 200 feet, and must land on a mature, flowering buckwheat plant to survive. Searches for the butterfly from 1981 through 1985 yielded but a single larva, discovered in 1984. No other specimens had been found on the property, and the parcel was quite isolated from other possible habitats of the butterfly.
B
In 1981 the landowners submitted an application to develop the property in conformance with the city’s zoning and general plan requirements. Although the zoning requirements permitted the development of up to 29 housing units per acre, or more than 1,000 units for the entire parcel, the landowners’ proposal was limited to 344 residential units. In 1982 the city’s planning commission denied the application but stated that a proposal for 264 units would receive favorable consideration. In keeping with the suggestion, the landowners submitted a revised proposal for 264 units. In late 1983, however, the planning commission again denied the application. The commission once more requested a reduction in the scale of the development, this time saying a plan for 224 units would be received with favor. The landowners returned to the drawing board and prepared a proposal for 224 units, which, its previous statements notwithstanding, the planning commission denied in 1984. The landowners appealed to the city council, which overruled the planning commission’s denial and referred the project back to the commission, with instructions to consider a proposal for 190 units.
The landowners once again reduced the scope of velopment proposal to comply with the city’s request, and submitted four specific, detailed site plans, each for a total of 190 units for the whole parcel. Even so, the planning commission rejected the landowners’ proposal later in 1984. Once more the landowners appealed to the city council. The council again overruled the commission, finding the proposal conceptually satisfactory and in conformance with the city’s previous decisions regarding, inter alia, density, number of units, location on the property, and access. The council then approved one of the site plans, subject to various specific conditions, and granted an 18-month conditional use permit for the proposed development.
The landowners spent proposal and taking other steps to fulfill the city’s conditions. Their final plan, submitted in 1985, devoted 17.9 of the 37.6 acres to public open space (including a public beach and areas for the restoration and preservation of the buckwheat habitat), 7.9 acres to open, landscaped areas, and 6.7 acres to public and private streets (including public parking and access to the beach). Only 5.1 acres were allocated to buildings and patios. The plan was designed, in accordance with the city’s demands, to provide the public with a beach, a buffer zone between the development and the adjoining state park, and view corridors so the buildings would not be visible to motorists on the nearby highway; the proposal also called for restoring and preserving as much of the sand dune structure and buckwheat habitat as possible consistent with development and the city’s requirements.
After detailed review of the proposed buildings, roads, and parking facilities, the city’s architectural review committee approved the plan. Following hearings before the planning commission, the commission’s professional staff found the final plan addressed and substantially satisfied the city’s conditions. It proposed the planning commission make specific findings to this effect and recommended the plan be approved.
In January/1986, less than two months before the landowners’ conditional use permit was to expire, the planning commission rejected the recommendation of its staff and denied the development plan. The landowners appealed to the city council, also requesting a 12-month extension of their permit to allow them time to attempt to comply with any additional requirements the council might impose. The permit was extended until a hearing could be held before the city council in June 1986. After the hearing, the city council denied the final plan, not only declining to specify measures the landowners could take to satisfy the concerns raised by the council but also refusing to extend the conditional use permit to allow time to address those concerns. The council’s decision, moreover, came at a time when a sewer moratorium issued by another agency would have prevented or at least delayed development based on'a new plan.
The council did not base its decision on the landowners’ failure to meet any of the specific conditions earlier prescribed by the city. Rather, the council made general findings that the landowners had not provided adequate aecess for the development (even though the landowners had twice changed the specific access plans to eomply with the city’s demands and maintained they could satisfy the city’s new objections if granted an extension), that the plan’s layout would damage the environment (even though the location of the development on the property was necessitated by the city’s demands for a public beach, view corridors, and a buffer zone next to the state park), and that the plan would disrupt the habitat of the Smith’s Blue Butterfly (even though the plan would remove the encroaching ice plant and preserve or restore buckwheat habitat on almost half of the property, and even though only one larva had ever been found cn the property).
C
After five years, five formal decisions, and 19 different site plans, 10 Tr. 1294-1295 (Feb. 9, 1994), Del Monte Dunes decided the city would not permit development of the property under any circumstances. Del Monte Dunes commenced suit against the city in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that denial of the final development proposal was a violation of the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and an uncompensated, and so unconstitutional, regulatory taking.
The District Court dismissed as Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), on the grounds that Del Monte Dunes had neither obtained a definitive decision as to the development the city would allow nor sought just compensation in state court. The Court of Appeals reversed. 920 F. 2d 1496 (CA9 1990). After reviewing at some length the history of attempts to develop the property, the court found that to require additional proposals would implicate the concerns about repetitive and unfair procedures expressed in MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U. S. 340, 350, n. 7 (1986), and that the city’s decision was sufficiently final to render Del Monte Dunes’ claim ripe for review. 920 F. 2d, at 1501-1506. The court also found that because the State of California had not provided a compensatory remedy for temporary regulatory takings when the city issued its final denial, see First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304 (1987), Del Monte Dunes was not required to pursue relief in state court as a precondition to federal relief. See 920 F. 2d, at 1506-1507.
On remand, the District Court determined, over the city’s objections, to submit Del Monte Dunes’ takings and equal protection claims to a jury but to reserve the substantive due process claim for decision by the court. Del Monte Dunes argued to the jury that, although the city had a right to regulate its property, the combined effect of the city’s various demands — that the development be invisible from the highway, that a buffer be provided between the development and the state park, and that the public be provided with a beach — was to force development into the “bowl” area of the parcel. As a result, Del Monte Dunes argued, the city’s subsequent decision that the bowl contained sensitive buckwheat habitat which could not be disturbed blocked the development of any portion of the property. See 10 Tr. 1288-1294, 1299-1302, 1317 (Feb. 9,1994). While conceding the legitimacy of the city’s stated regulatory purposes, Del Monte Dunes emphasized the tortuous and protracted history of attempts to develop the property, as well as the shifting and sometimes inconsistent positions taken by the city throughout the process, and argued that it had been treated in an unfair and irrational manner. Del Monte Dunes also submitted evidence designed to undermine the validity of the asserted factual premises for the city’s denial of the final proposal and to suggest that the city had considered buying, or inducing the State to buy, the property for public use as early as 1979, reserving some money for this purpose but delaying or abandoning its plans for financial reasons. See id., at 1308-1306. The State of California’s purchase of the property during the pendency of the litigation may have bolstered the credibility of Del Monte Dunes’
At the close of argument, the District Court jury it should find for Del Monte Dunes if it found either that Del Monte Dunes had been denied all economically viable use of its property or that “the city’s decision to reject the plaintiffs 190 unit development proposal did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose.” App. 303. With respect to the first inquiry, the jury was instructed, in relevant part, as follows:
“For the purpose of a taking claim, you will find that the plaintiff has been denied all economically viable use of its property, if, as the result of the city’s regulatory decision there remains no permissible or beneficial use for that property. In proving whether the plaintiff has been denied all economically viable use of its property, it is not enough that the plaintiff show that after the challenged action by the city the property diminished in value or that it would suffer a serious economic loss as the result of the city’s actions.” Ibid.
With respect to the second inquiry, the jury received the following instruction:
“Public bodies, such as the city, have the authority to take actions which substantially advance legitimate public interest[s] and legitimate public interest[s] can include protecting the environment, preserving open space agriculture, protecting the health and safety of its citizens, and regulating the quality of the community by looking at development. So one of your jobs as jurors is to decide if the city’s decision here substantially advanced any such legitimate public purpose.
“The regulatory actions of the city or any agency substantially advane[e] a legitimate public purpose if the action bears a reasonable relationship to that objective.
establishes that there was no reasonable relationship between the city’s denial of the... proposal and legitimate public purpose, you should find in favor of the plaintiff. If you find that there existed a reasonable relationship between the city’s decision and a legitimate public purpose, you should find in favor of the city. As long as the regulatory action by the city substantially advances their legitimate public purpose,... its underlying motives and reasons are not to be inquired into.” Id., at 304.
The essence of these instructions was proposed by the city. See Tr. 11 (June 17,1994).
jury delivered a general verdict for Del Monte Dunes on its takings claim, a separate verdict for Del Monte Dunes on its equal protection claim, and a damages award of $1.45 million. Tr. 2 (Feb. 17,1994). After the jury’s verdict, the District Court ruled for the city on the substantive due process claim, stating that its ruling was not inconsistent with the jury’s verdict on the equal protection or the takings claim. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-39. The court later denied the city’s motions for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 95 F. 3d 1422 (CA9 1996). The court first ruled that the District Court did not err in allowing Del Monte Dunes’ regulatory takings claim to be tried to a jury, id., at 1428, because Del Monte Dunes had a right to a jury trial under §1983, id., at 1426-1427, and whether Del Monte Dunes had been denied all economically viable use of the property and whether the city’s denial of the final proposal substantially advanced legitimate public interests were, on the facts of this case, questions suitable for the jury, id., at 1430. The court ruled that sufficient evidence had been presented to the jury from which it reasonably could have decided each of these questions in Del Monte Dunes' favor. Id., at 1430-1434. Because upholding the verdict on the regulatory takings claim was sufficient to support the award of damages, the court did not address the equal protection claim. Id., at 1426.
The questions presented were (1) whether issues of liability were properly submitted to the jury on Del Monte Dunes’ regulatory takings claim, (2) whether the Court of Appeals impermissibly based its decision on a standard that allowed the jury to reweigh the reasonableness of the city’s land-use decision, and (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in assuming that the rough-proportionality standard of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994), applied to this ease. We granted certio-rari, 523 U. S. 1045 (1998), and now address these questions in reverse order.
II
In the course of holding a reasonable jury could have found the city’s denial of the final proposal not substantially related to legitimate public interests, the Court of Appeals stated: “Even if the City had a legitimate interest in denying Del Monte’s development application, its action must be ‘roughly proportional’ to furthering that interest.... That is, the City’s denial must be related ‘both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.’ ” 95 F. 3d, at 1430, quoting Dolan, supra, at 391.
a animate the Takings Clause, see Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960) (“The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee... was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole”), we have not extended the rough-proportionality test of Dolan beyond the special context of exactions — land-use decisions conditioning approval of development on the dedication of property to public use. See Dolan, supra, at 385; Nollan v. Cali fornia Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825, 841 (1987). The rule applied in Dolan considers whether dedications demanded as conditions of development are proportional to the development’s anticipated impacts. It was not designed to address, and is not readily applicable to, the much different questions arising where, as here, the landowner’s challenge is based not on excessive exactions but on denial of development. We believe, accordingly, that the rough-proportionality test of Dolan is inapposite to a ease such as this one.
to jury, however, did not mention proportionality, let alone require it to find for Del Monte Dunes unless the city’s actions were roughly proportional to its asserted interests. The Court of Appeals’ discussion of rough proportionality, we conclude, was unnecessary to its decision to sustain the jury’s verdict. Although the court stated that “[significant evidence supports Del Monte’s claim that the City’s actions were disproportional to both the nature and extent of the impact of the proposed development,” 95 F. 3d, at 1432, it did so only after holding that
“Del Monte provided evidence sufficient to rebut each of these reasons [for denying the final proposal]. Taken together, Del Monte argued that the City’s reasons for denying their application were invalid and that it unfairly intended to forestall any reasonable development of the Dunes. In light of the evidence proffered by Del Monte, the City has incorrectly argued that no rational juror could conclude that the City’s denial of Del Monte’s application lacked a sufficient nexus with its stated objectives.” Id., at 1431-1432.
Given this holding, it was unnecessary for the Court of Appeals to discuss rough proportionality. That it did so is irrelevant to our disposition of the case.
I — I H — <
'The city challenges the Court of Appeals’ holding that the jury could have found the city’s denial of the final development plan not reasonably related to legitimate public interests. Although somewhat obscure, the city’s argument is not cast as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence; rather, the city maintains that the Court of Appeals adopted a legal standard for regulatory takings liability that allows juries to second-guess public land-use policy.
As the city given to the jury, it cannot now contend that the instructions did not provide an accurate statement of the law. In any event, although this Court has provided neither a definitive statement of the elements of a claim for a temporary regulatory taking nor a thorough explanation of the nature or applicability of the requirement that a regulation substantially advance legitimate public interests outside the context of required dedications or exactions, ef., e. g., Nollan, supra, at 834-885, n. 3, we note that the trial court’s instructions are consistent with our previous general discussions of regulatory takings liability. See Dolan, supra, at 385; Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1016 (1992); Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 534 (1992); Nollan, supra, at 834; Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470, 485 (1987); United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121, 126 (1985); Agins v. City of Ti-buron, 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980). The city did not challenge below the applicability or continued viability of the general test for regulatory takings liability recited by these authorities and upon which the jury instructions appear to have been modeled. Given the posture of the case before us, we decline the suggestions of amici to revisit these precedents.
To the extent the city contends the Court of Appeals was based upon a jury determination of the reasonableness of its general zoning laws or land-use policies, its argument can be squared with neither the instructions given to the jury nor the theory on which the case was tried. The instructions did not ask the jury whether the city’s zoning ordinances or policies were unreasonable but only whether “the city’s decision to reject the plaintiff’s 190 unit development proposal did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose,” App. 303, that is, whether “there was no reasonable relationship between the city’s denial of the... proposal and legitimate public purpose,” id., at 304. Furthermore, Del Monte Dunes’ lawyers were explicit in conceding that “[t]his case is not about the right of a city, in this case the city of Monterey, to regulate land.” 10 Tr. 1286 (Feb. 9, 1994). See also id., at 1287 (proposals were made “keeping in mind various regulations and requirements, heights, setbacks, and densities and all that. That’s not what this case is about”); id., at 1287-1288 (“They have the right to set height limits. They have the right to talk about where they want access. That’s not what this ease is about. We all accept that in today’s society, cities and counties can tell a land owner what to do to some reasonable extent with their property”). Though not presented for review, Del Monte Dunes’ equal protection argument that it had received treatment inconsistent with zoning decisions made in favor of owners of similar properties, and the jury’s verdict for Del Monte Dunes on this claim, confirm the understanding of the jury and Del Monte Dunes that the complaint was not about general laws or ordinances but about a particular zoning decision.
The instructions regarding the city’s decision also did not allow the jury to consider the reasonableness, per se, of the customized, ad hoc conditions imposed on the property’s development, and Del Monte Dunes did not suggest otherwise. On the contrary, Del Monte Dunes disclaimed this theory of the case in express terms: “Del Monte Dunes partnership did not file this lawsuit because they were complaining about giving the public the beach, keeping it [the development] out of the view shed, devoting and [giving] to the State all this habitat area. One-third [of the] property is going to be given away for the public use forever. That’s not what we filed the lawsuit about.” Id., at 1288; see also id., at 1288-1289 (conceding that the city may “ask an owner to give away a third of the property without getting a dime in compensation for it and providing parking lots for the public and habitats for the butterfly, and boardwalks”).
Rather, the jury was city’s denial of the final proposal was reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose. Even with regard to this issue, however, the jury was not given free rein to second-guess the city’s land-use policies. Rather, the jury was instructed, in unmistakable terms, that the various purposes asserted by the city were legitimate public interests. See App. 304.
The jury, furthermore, was decision in isolation but rather in context, and, in particular, in light of the tortuous and protracted history of attempts to develop the property. See, e. g., 10 Tr. 1294-1295 (Feb. 9, 1994). Although Del Monte Dunes was allowed to introduce evidence challenging the asserted factual bases for the city's decision, it also highlighted the shifting nature of the city’s demands and the inconsistency of its decision with the recommendation of its professional staff, as well as with its previous decisions. See, e. g., id., at 1300. Del Monte Dunes also introduced evidence of the city’s longstanding interest in acquiring the property for public use. See, e. g., id., at 1303-1306.
In short, the question submitted to the jury on was confined to whether, in light of all the history and the context of the case, the city’s particular decision to deny Del Monte Dunes’ final development proposal was reasonably related to the city’s proffered justifications. This question was couched, moreover, in an instruction that had been proposed in essence by the city, and as to which the city made no objection.
Thus, despite clear that the Court of Appeals did not adopt a rule of takings law allowing wholesale interference by judge or jury with municipal land-use policies, laws, or routine regulatory decisions. To the extent the city argues that, as a matter of law, its land-use decisions are immune from judicial scrutiny under all circumstances, its position is contrary to settled regulatory takings principles. We reject this claim of error.
> l — (
We next address whether it was proper for the District Court to submit the question of liability on Del Monte Dunes’ regulatory takings claim to the jury. (Before the District Court, the city agreed it was proper for the jury to assess damages. See Supplemental Memorandum of Petitioner Re: Court/Jury Trial Issues in No. C86-5042 (ND Cal.), p. 2, Record, Doc. No. 111.) As the Court of Appeals recognized, the answer depends on whether Del Monte Dunes had a statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial, and, if it did, the nature and extent of the right. Del Monte Dunes asserts the right to a jury trial is conferred by § 1983 and by the Seventh Amendment.
Under our precedents, “[b]efore inquiring into the applicability of the Seventh Amendment, we must ‘first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.’ ” Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 528 U. S. 340, 345 (1998) (quoting Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417, n. 3 (1987)); accord, Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 192, n. 6 (1974).
The character of § 1983 is vital to our Seventh Amendment analysis, but the statute does not itself confer the jury right. See Feltner, supra, at 345 (“[W]e cannot discern ‘any congressional intent to grant... the right to a jury trial’ ” (quoting Tull, supra, at 417, n. 3)). Section 1983 authorizes a party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief through “an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Del Monte Dunes contends that the phrase “action at law” is a term of art implying a right to a jury trial. We disagree, for this is not a necessary implication.
In Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 588 we statutory right to a jury trial in part because the statute authorized “legal... relief.” Our decision, however, did not rest solely on the statute’s use of the phrase but relied as well on the statute’s explicit incorporation of the procedures of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which had been interpreted to guarantee trial by jury in private actions. Id., at 580. We decline, accordingly, to find a statutory jury right under § 1983 based solely on the authorization of “an action at law.”
As a consequence, we must tion. 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....” Consistent with the textual mandate that the jury right be preserved, our interpretation of the Amendment has been guided by historical analysis comprising two principal inquiries. “[W]e ask, first, whether we are dealing with a cause of action that either was tried at law at the time of the founding or is at least analogous to one that was.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370, 376 (1996). “If the action in question belongs in the law category, we then ask whether the particular trial decision must fall to the jury in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791.” Ibid.
A
With respect to the first inquiry, we have recognized that “suits at common law” include “not merely suits, which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but [also] suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447 (1830). The Seventh Amendment thus applies not only to common-law causes of action but also to statutory causes of action “'analogous to common-law causes of action ordinarily decided in English law courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily heard by courts of equity or admiralty.’” Feltner, supra, at 848 (quoting Granfinanciera, S. A v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989)); accord, Curtis, supra, at 193.
1
Del Monte Dunes brought this suit pursuant to § 1983 to vindicate its constitutional rights. We hold that a § 1983 suit seeking legal relief is an action at law within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment. Justice Scalia’s opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment presents a comprehensive and convincing analysis of the historical and constitutional reasons for this conclusion. We agree with his analysis and conclusion.
It is undisputed that when the Seventh Amendment was adopted there was no action equivalent to § 1983, framed in specific terms for vindicating constitutional rights. It is settled law, however, that the Seventh Amendment jury guarantee extends to statutory claims unknown to the common law, so long as the claims can be said to “soun[d] basically in tort,” and seek legal relief. Curtis, supra, at 195-196.
there can be no doubt that claims brought pursuant to § 1983 sound in tort. Just as common-law tort actions provide redress for interference with protected personal or property interests, § 1983 provides relief for invasions of rights protected under federal law. Recognizing the essential character of the statute, “ ‘[w]e have repeatedly noted that 42 U. S. C. § 1983 creates a species of tort liability,’ ” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 483 (1994) (quoting Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S. 299, 305 (1986)), and have interpreted the statute in light of the “background of tort liability,” Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187 (1961) (overruled on other grounds, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658 (1978)); accord, Heck, supra, at 488. Our settled understanding of § 1988 and the Seventh Amendment thus compel the conclusion that a suit for legal relief brought under the statute is an action at law.
Here to proceed in federal court under § 1983 because, at the time of the city’s actions, the State of California did not provide a compensatory remedy for temporary regulatory takings. See First English, 482 U. S., at 308-311. The constitutional injury alleged, therefore, is not that property was taken but that it was taken without just compensation. Had the city paid for the property or had an adequate postdeprivation remedy been available, Del Monte Dunes would have suffered no constitutional injury from the taking alone. See Williamson, 473 U. S., at 194-195. Because its statutory action did not accrue until it was denied just compensation, in a strict sense Del Monte Dunes sought not just compensation per se but rather damages for the unconstitutional denial of such compensation. Damages for a constitutional violation are a legal remedy. See, e. g., Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U. S. 558, 570 (1990) (“Generally, an action for money damages was ‘the traditional form of relief offered in the courts of law ”) (quoting Curtis, 415 U. S., at 196).
Even when viewed as a we believe Del Monte Dunes’ action sought essentially legal relief. “We have recognized the ‘general rule’ that monetary relief is legal.” Feltner, 523 U. S., at 352 (quoting Teamsters v. Terry, supra, at 570). Just compensation, moreover, differs from equitable restitution and other monetary remedies available in equity, for in determining just compensation, “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 (1910). As its name suggests, then, just compensation is, like ordinary money damages, a compensatory remedy. The Court has recognized that compensation is a purpose “traditionally associated with legal relief.” Feltner, supra, at 352. Because Del Monte Dunes’ statutory suit sounded in tort and sought legal relief, it was an action at law.
2
In an attempt to avoid the force of this conclusion, the city urges us to look not to the statutory basis of Del Monte Dunes’ claim but rather to the underlying constitutional right asserted. At the very least, the city asks us to create an exception to the general Seventh Amendment rule governing §1983 actions for claims alleging violations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F. 3d 1084 (CA11 1996) (finding, in tension with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case, that there is no right to a jury trial on a takings claim brought under § 1988). Because the jury’s role in estimating just compensation in condemnation proceedings was inconsistent and unclear at the time the Seventh Amendment was adopted, this Court has said “that there is no constitutional right to a jury in eminent domain proceedings.” United States v. Reynolds, 397 U. S. 14, 18 (1970); accord, Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 593 (1897). The city submits that the analogy to formal condemnation proceedings is controlling, so that thére is no jury right here.
Scalia notes, see post, at 724-726, we have declined in other contexts to classify §1983 actions based on the nature of the underlying right asserted, and the city provides no persuasive justification for adopting a different rule for Seventh Amendment purposes. Even when analyzed not as a § 1983 action simpliciter, however, but as
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, operating milk processing plants in Pennsylvania, challenge the validity of certain “compensatory payment” provisions included in milk marketing orders affecting the New York-New Jersey area, which were promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority granted him by § 8c of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U. S. C. § 608c. That section permits the Secretary to issue regional regulations governing, in various enumerated respects, the marketing of certain agricultural commodities, among which is milk. This provision in question requires those who buy milk elsewhere and bring it into the region for sale as fluid milk to pay to the farmers who supply the region a fixed amount as a “compensatory payment.” This amount is measured by the difference between the minimum price set by the Market Administrator for fluid milk and the minimum price for surplus milk. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 287 F. 2d 726, upholding the validity of the “compensatory payment” provision here under attack, conflicted with an earlier decision rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Kass v. Brannan, 196 F. 2d 791. To resolve this conflict we granted certiorari. 366 U. S. 957.
I.
The General Scheme of Milk Regulation.
The order around which the present controversy centers, now titled Milk Marketing Order No. 2, 7 CFR §§ 1002.1 et seq., though somewhat more complex than others, is in its general outline representative of the pattern of regulation established by the Secretary for the promotion of orderly marketing conditions in the milk industry and the preservation of minimum prices for farmers. Pursuant to the authority granted by § 8c (5) (A), the Order classifies milk that is sold within the New York-New Jersey marketing area “in accordance with the form in which or the purpose for which it is used.” Milk that contains 3% to 5% butterfat — the usual proportion in ordinary liquid milk — and is sold for fluid consumption is assigned to Class I. Milk that is used for cream (sweet and sour), half and half, or milk drinks containing less than 3% or more than 5% butterfat is classified in Class II. The remainder — milk that is to be stored for a substantial period and used for dairy products such as butter and cheese — is grouped in Class III. 7 CFR § 1002.37.
This classification reflects the relative prices usually commanded by the different forms of milk. Thus, highest prices are paid for milk used for fluid consumption, and the lowest for milk which is to be processed into butter and cheese. Since the supply of milk is always greater than the demands of the fluid-milk market, the excess must be channeled to the less desirable, lower-priced outlets. It is in order to avoid destructive competition among milk producers for the premium outlets that the statute authorizes the Secretary to devise a method whereby uniform prices are paid by milk handlers to producers for all milk received, regardless of the form in which it leaves the plant and its ultimate use. Adjustments are then made among the handlers so that each eventually pays out-of-pocket an amount equal to the actual utilization value of the milk he has bought.
Under the Marketing Order here in question it is primarily the handlers whose plants are located within the marketing area and who regularly supply that area with fluid milk who are regulated. All handlers who receive or distribute milk within the area are required to submit monthly reports to the Market Administrator, listing the quantity of milk they have handled and the use for which it was sold. But only the handlers operating “pool plants” — i. e., plants which meet certain standards set out in 7 CFR §§ 1002.25-1002.29 — must pay the producers from whom they buy the uniform price set by the Administrator. This price is calculated each month on the basis of the reports that are submitted. After determining the minimum prices for each use classification pursuant to formulas set out in 7 CFR § 1002.40, the Administrator computes an average price for the “pool” milk handled during that month. This figure is reached by first multiplying the “pool” milk disposed of in each class by the established minimum price for that class, and then adding the products to the “compensatory payments” made for nonpool milk. After certain minor adjustments are made, this sum is divided by the total quantity of “pool” milk sold in the market during the month. The quotient is a “blend price.” With some adjustments to reflect transportation expenses, this uniform price must be paid to producers by all handlers maintaining “pool” plants. 7 CFR § 1002.66.
Adjustments among handlers are made by way of a “Producer Settlement Fund,” into which each handler contributes the excess of his “use value” over the uniform price paid by him to his producer. Handlers whose “use value” of the milk they purchase is less than the “blend price” they are required to pay may withdraw the difference from the fund. The net effect is that each handler pays for his milk at the price he would have paid had it been earmarked at the outset for the use to which it was ultimately put. But the farmer who produces the milk is protected from the effects of competition for premium outlets since he is automatically allotted a proportional share of each of the different “use” markets.
HH PH
The CompensatoRy Payment Provision.
It will thus be seen that this system of regulation contemplates economic controls only over “pool-handler” plants since only such handlers are required to pay the “blend price” to their producers and to account to the Producer Settlement Fund. If limited to the provisions recounted above, the regulatory scheme would not affect milk brought into the New York-New Jersey marketing area by handlers who are primarily engaged in supplying some other market and whose producers are not located within the New York-New Jersey area. Some of the regional orders now in effect do not undertake any economic regulation of “outside” or “other source” milk. But it is quite obvious that under certain circumstances some regulation of such milk may be necessary. Accordingly, § 8c (7) (D) of the Act, 7 IT. S. C. § 608c (7)(D), authorizes the Secretary to include in his regulating orders conditions that are incidental to terms expressly authorized by the statute, and that are “necessary to effectuate the other provisions of such order.”
A handler who brings outside milk into a marketing area may disrupt the regulatory scheme in at least two respects:
(1) Pool handlers in the marketing area who are required to pay the minimum class prices for their milk may find their selling prices undercut by those of nonpool handlers dealing in outside milk purchased at an unregulated price.
(2) Producers in the marketing area, whose “blend price” depends on how much of the relatively constant fluid-milk demand they supply in a given month, may find the outside milk occupying a portion of the premium market, thus displacing the “pool” milk and forcing it into the less rewarding surplus uses, with the ultimate effect of diminishing the “blend price” payable to producers.
In an effort to cope with these disruptive economic forces, the Secretary devised his “compensatory payment” plan. In essence the plan imposes special monetary exactions on handlers introducing “outside” milk for fluid consumption into a marketing area in months when there is a substantial surplus of milk on the market.
Of the 68 regional milk orders which establish market-wide pools, 64 contain “compensatory payment” provisions of one kind or another. The Order now before us is typical of 23 of these orders. The Order provides that a handler who brings “outside” milk into the New York-New Jersey area and sells it for fluid use must pay to the pool’s producers, through the Producer Settlement Fund, an amount equal to the difference between the minimum prices for the highest and for the lowest use classifications prevailing in that area. In other words, for each hundredweight of nonpool milk sold for Class I use in the New York-New Jersey area, a payment equal to the difference between Class I and Class III prices must be made by the seller to the Producer Settlement Fund.
III.
The Purpose and Effect of the Compensatory Payment.
After the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had held the compensatory payment requirement in the New York-Newr Jersey Milk Marketing Order (then Order No. 27) to be a “penalty,” Kass v. Brannan, 196 F. 2d 791, 795, the Secretary of Agriculture conducted extensive hearings to determine whether it should be retained. His findings, which appear at 18 Fed. Reg. 8444-8454, explain this requirement as the most satisfactory means of imposing "a suitable charge on such unpriced milk in an amount sufficient to neutralize, compensate for and eliminate the artificial economic advantage for non-pool milk which necessarily is created by the classified pricing and pooling of pool milk under the order.” Id,., at 8448. There seems little doubt that an assessment equal to the Class I-Class III differential would, in all but rare instances, nullify any competitive advantage that non-pool milk could have: only if the sum of the purchase price of the outside milk and the cost of its transportation to market were less than the Class III price would a handler find it profitable to bring such milk into the marketing area. But it must be obvious that this payment is wholly or partially “compensatory” — i. e., puts pool and nonpool milk “on substantially similar competitive positions at source” (ibid.) — only if the milk has been purchased at not more than the Class III price. If the purchase price of the nonpool milk exceeds the Class III price within the area, the effect of the fixed compensatory payment is to make it economically unfeasible for a handler to bring such milk into the marketing area.
The Secretary of Agriculture’s determination that the Class I-Class III differential was the most suitable compensatory figure rested upon what was, in effect, an irrebuttable presumption that the nonpool milk was purchased at a rate commensurate with the value of “surplus” (Class III) milk. See 18 Fed. Reg., at 8448. That presumption was based in turn on the supposition that the nonpool milk could not have been worth more than the Class III price where purchased since it could not be shipped elsewhere for Class I use. But it must be apparent that it is only if the milk is denied access to other marketing areas or if a prohibitive payment is assessed on its use elsewhere that it will depreciate in value to Class III levels. For if the milk can be freely shipped elsewhere for fluid use or if it is purchased in an area where prices paid to producers are regulated, it will command a higher price.
Indeed, the facts of the case now before us demonstrate the shortcomings of the Secretary’s reasoning. One of the petitioners, Suncrest Farms, Inc., purchases its milk in Pennsylvania under regulations established by the Pennsylvania Milk Control Commission. In September 1957, which was one of the months during which it sought to sell its milk in the New York-New Jersey Marketing Area, Suncrest was required to pay $6.40 per cwt. for the milk it purchased from dairy farmers in Pennsylvania. The Class I-Class III differential in the New York-New Jersey Marketing Area during that month was $2.78 per cwt. Thus, if the “compensatory payment” were assessed, Suncrest would actually be forced to pay $9.18 per cwt. for fluid milk sold in the area, while the handlers maintaining pool plants in the area would pay only the Class I price, which was $6.23 in August 1957,
If competitive parity among handlers of pool and nonpool milk were the only objective of the Secretary’s “compensatory” regulation, other marketing orders of the Secretary show that this result has been achieved without imposing unnecessary hardships, virtually “trade barriers” as in the instance just given, on the nonpool milk.
It is in considering the effect of the present compensatory payment provision on the pool producers, however, that the principal concern of the Secretary becomes quite apparent. As has been noted (p. 82, supra), the sale for fluid use of nonpoól milk in the marketing area displaces pool milk that might otherwise be used for this premium outlet. Since the market area’s “blend price” is computed only with reference to the pool milk, the effect of the entry of nonpool milk is to drive down the price that is paid to producers in the area. A close examination of the workings of the present compensatory payment provision reveals that its effect is to preserve for the benefit of the area’s producers the blend price that they would receive if all outside milk were physically excluded and they alone would supply the fluid-milk needs of the area. For every cwt. of pool milk that is forced into “surplus” use by the entry of nonpool milk, the handler introducing the outside milk is required to pay for the benefit of the area’s producers the difference between the value the pool milk would have had if the nonpool milk had never entered and the value it has once the nonpool milk is sold for fluid use. In effect, therefore, the nonpool milk is forced to subsidize the pool milk and insulate the pool milk from the competitive impact caused by the entry of outside milk. This was recognized by the Court of Appeals which held that such a compensatory payment was "designed to compensate the pool for the loss of the Class I fluid milk utilization and... protect the uniform blend price in the marketing area.” 287 F. 2d, at 730. It is only if the Secretary has been authorized by the statute to impose such economic trade barriers on the entry of milk into an area so as to protect the prices received by the pool producers that the present compensatory payment plan can be sustained as “necessary to effectuate” the expressly authorized provisions of this Order.
IV.
Section 8c (5) (G).
Section 8c (5)(G) of the Act, however, taken in light of its legislative history, indicates that the regulation here imposed by the Secretary was of the sort that Congress intended to forbid. Section 8c (5) (G) provides:
“No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products in any marketing area shall prohibit or in any manner limit, in the case of the products of milk, the marketing in that area of any milk or product thereof produced in any production area in the United States.”
This provision was first enacted into law as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 750, amending the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 31. It was re-enacted as part of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 246, which reaffirmed the marketing order provisions of the 1935 Act after the processing tax had been struck down as unconstitutional in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1.
Along with enumerating the powers granted to the Secretary of Agriculture so as to avoid the “delegation” problems brought to light by the then recent decision in Schechter v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, the Congress sought in 1935 to limit the Secretary’s powers so as to prevent him from establishing “trade barriers.” Midwestern legislators were particularly concerned over this possibility. When the reported bill which contained no provision like the present § 8c (5)(G) came to the floor of the House of Representatives, Representative Andre-sen of Minnesota suggested that the Secretary might use his powers to “stop the free flow in commerce... of dairy products.” He received an assurance from Representative Jones, the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, that the Secretary was not authorized to require anything more of milk coming into a marketing area than that it “comply with the same conditions which the farmers and distributors comply with in that region.” 79 Cong. Rec. 9462. An amendment to the bill clarifying this position was then offered by Representative Sauthoff of Wisconsin, 79 Cong. Rec. 9493, but no action Avas taken on that proposal.
On the next day, Representative Andresen proposed from the floor of the House the forerunner to the present § 8c (5) (G). 79 Cong. Rec. 9572. His amendment took the folloAving form:
“(g) No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products in any marketing area shall prohibit the marketing in that area of any milk or product thereof produced in any production area in the United States.”
There. Avas no objection to the addition of this language, Representative Jones remarking that “[i]t is simply clarifying.” Ibid. But Avhen Representative Sauthoff sought to change the amendment by substituting the Avords “limit or tend to limit” for “prohibit,” Representative Jones objected on the ground that necessary milk classification and minimum pricing for the protection of outside milk producers regularly supplying their OAvn marketing area Avould “tend to limit” the introduction of their milk into other areas. Ibid.
The House bill, with the language added by Representative Andresen’s amendment, went to the Senate. Accompanying the bill to the floor was S. Rep. No. 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., which stated, at p. 11:
“To prevent assaults upon the price structure by the sporadic importation of milk from new producing areas, while permitting the orderly and natural expansion of the area supplying any market by the introduction of new producers or new producing areas, orders may provide that for the first 3 months of regular delivery, payments shall be made to producers not theretofore selling milk in the area covered by the order at the price fixed for the lowest use classification. This is the only limitation upon the entry of new producers — wherever located — into a market, and it can remain effective only for the specified 8-month period.” (Emphasis added.)
In the Senate §8c(5)(G) was amended, without objection, 79 Cong. Rec. 11655, to read:
“(G) No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products in any marketing area shall prohibit or in any manner limit, except as provided for milk only in subsection (d), the marketing in that area of any milk or product thereof produced in any production area in the United States.”
Section 8c (5)(G) emerged from conference in its present form. The conference report explained how the differences between the House and Senate versions were resolved (H. R. Rep. No. 1757, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 21):
“... The conference agreement retains the House provision with respect to prohibitions on marketing of both milk and products of milk. The conference agreement also denies the authority to limit in any manner the marketing in any area of milk products (butter, cheese, cream, etc.) produced anywhere in the United States. The language adopted by the conference agreement does not refer to milk, and so does not negative the applicability to milk, for use in fluid form or for manufacturing purposes, of the provisions of the bill relating to milk, such as the provisions on price fixing, price adjustment, payments for milk, etc.”
When the conference agreement came to the floor of the House, Representative Jones again explained what §8c(5)(G), when taken together with §8c(5)(D), meant (79 Cong. Rec. 13022):
“Mr. SNELL.... I do not understand exactly what this means, 'No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products/ and so forth.
“Mr. JONES. That simply applies to fluid milk. You cannot make any limitation at all on the amount of butter or cheese or milk products that are shipped from any one area to another, and the limitation that may be applied on milk is only such limitation as puts each area on an equality with the other areas after a certain period of about 2-1/2 months.
“Mr. SNELL. How does that change the situation from the present law?
“Mr. JONES. The provisions of this particular bill would enable that area to be protected from being swamped with fluid milk from the outside, bought at any old price. For instance, if you do not have the protection of this bill they would run into the same trouble they ran into in the New York milk cases, where they went into New Hampshire and bought milk at a lower price and came in and broke down your milk agreements. Under the provisions of this bill if a price were fixed in this particular area in New York, then if anyone bought milk from an outside area and brought it in he would be compelled to pay the producer the same price that was being paid the producers within the area and comply with all regulations and requirements of that area. For the first 2 months he would be required to take the manufacturer’s price.” (Emphasis added.)
This history discloses that rather than being confined, as Judge Learned Hand suggested in Kass v. Brannan, 196 F. 2d, at 800, to practices aimed at the exclusion of cheese and other milk products from eastern markets, § 8c (5)(G) was compendiously intended to prevent the Secretary from setting up, under the guise of price-fixing regulation, any kind of economic trade barriers, whether relating to milk or its products. Whenever there was an attempt to broaden the language of subsection (G) to encompass “limitations” as well as “prohibitions,” those opposing it pointed only to the fact that “limit” might be read as including the type of price fixing covered by subsection (D) — i. e., allowing new pool producers only manufacturing-use prices for a limited period — or other attempts to put outside milk on an equal footing with pool milk. Although the words of § 8c (5)(G), “in any manner limit,” must be taken, in the context of their legislative history, as referring only to milk products, that history likewise makes it clear that as regards milk the word “prohibit” refers not merely to absolute or quota physical restrictions, but also encompasses economic trade barriers of the kind effected by the subsidies called for by this “compensatory payment” provision.
V.
The Invalidity op the PRESENT Compensatory Payment Provision.
In light of the legislative history of § 8c (5)(G) we conclude that the compensatory payment provision of the New York-New Jersey Milk Marketing Order must fall as inconsistent with the policy expressed by Congress in that section. Because it conflicts with § 8c (5) (G), the payment provision cannot be justified under the general terms of § 8c (7) (D), which prevents the inclusion of conditions that are inconsistent with express statutory provisions. Nor is the compensatory payment clause saved by the circumstance that in some instances it may also fortuitously operate to put the handlers of pool and non-pool milk on a competitive par. As has been pointed out (note 13, supra), there are other means available to the Secretary for achieving this result, while affording protection to pool producers, without imposing almost insuperable trade restrictions on the entry of nonpooi milk into a marketing area.
The Government contends that the effect of § 8c (5) (G) may not be considered by this Court since that provision was not cited by the petitioners in the administrative proceeding in the Department of Agriculture. But even on the Government’s premise that an unauthorized regulation should be upheld by this Court merely because the provision prohibiting it was not cited in the administrative proceeding in which it was attacked, this case presents no such instance. The administrative petition filed with the Department of Agriculture alleged that the effect of the compensatory payment clause amounted “to establishing tariffs or barriers interfering with the free flow of milk across state lines,” an obvious reference to the prohibition of § 8c (5)(G).
In addition, the Government contends that the petitioners had the choice of joining the market-wide pool, in which case they would not have been subject to the compensatory payment provisions. Their election to stay out of the pool, it is argued, bars any attack on the consequences of their choice. However, such an “election” is surely illusory. The consequences of joining the pool would have been that petitioners would have been forced to pay the “blend price” to all their producers wherever located and account to the Producer Settlement Fund for all milk wherever sold. In these circumstances the election was not voluntary as in Booth Fisheries v. Industrial Comm’n, 271 U. S. 208, 211. It was coercive and, indeed, no election at all.
Whether full regulation of the petitioners would be permissible under the Act is a question which we need not reach in this case. If the Secretary chooses to impose such regulation as a consequence of a handler’s introducing any milk into a marketing area, the validity of such a provision would involve considerations different from those now before us. With respect to these petitioners, however, and with regard to the regulation here in issue, we conclude that the action of the Secretary of Agriculture exceeded the powers entrusted to him by Congress.
The Secretary of course remains free to protect, in any manner consistent with the provisions of the statute, the “blend price” in this or any other marketing area against economic consequences resulting from the introduction of outside milk. We do not now decide whether or not any new regulation directed to that end could be made to apply retrospectively, or whether, if it could be validly so applied, the presently impounded funds could be resorted to pro tanto in its effectuation. Cf. United States v. Morgan, 307 U. S. 183. “What further proceedings the Secretary may see fit to take in the light of our decision, or what determinations may be made by the District Court in relation to any such proceedings, are not matters which we should attempt to forecast or hypothetically to decide.” Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1, 23, 26.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The petitioners instituted this action challenging the validity of the compensatory payment provision by filing administrative petitions with the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to § 8c (15) (A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U. S. C. § 608c (15) (A). The Hearing Examiner sustained the petitioners’ contentions on the authority of Kass v. Brannan, 196 F. 2d 791, but the Judicial Officer, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture, dismissed the petitions.
Petitioners then sought review of the Secretary's ruling in the District Court under § 8c (15) (B) of the Act. The review proceedings were consolidated with enforcement actions brought by the Government pursuant to § 8a (6) of the Act. The District Court, relying on Kass v. Brannan, supra, held that the payment provision was invalid. 183 F. Supp. 80. It was this decision that was reversed by the Court of Appeals. 287 F. 2d 726.
A general reorganization of Chapter IX of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations during the past year has resulted in redesignation of most of the milk marketing orders. The New York-New Jersey Order had previously been designated as Milk Marketing Order No. 27 and had been found at 7 CFR § 927. The section references and the contents of the regulations as quoted throughout this opinion are as they were in effect on January 1, 1962.
Section 8c (5) (A), provides:
“(5) Milk and its products; terms and conditions of orders.
“In the case of milk and its products, orders issued pursuant to this section shall contain one or more of the following terms and conditions, and (except as provided in subsection (7) of this section) no others:
“(A) Classifying milk in accordance with the form in which or the purpose for which it is used, and fixing, or providing a method for fixing, minimum prices for each such use classification which all handlers shall pay, and the time when payments shall be made, for milk purchased from producers or associations of producers. Such prices shall be uniform as to all handlers, subject only to adjustments for (1) volume, market, and production differentials customarily applied by the handlers subject to such order, (2) the grade or quality of the milk purchased, and (3) the locations at which delivery of such milk, or any use classification thereof, is made to such handlers.” 7 U. S. C. § 608c (5) (A).
These provisions establish certain performance requirements aimed at insuring that the plant continues to provide fluid milk to the marketing area even in periods of short supply. Thus, it is primarily the handlers whose main concern is the marketing area who qualify for the “pool.”
“Use value” is the price the handler would have had to pay, at prevailing minimum rates, had he purchased his milk at a price reflecting its ultimate disposition.
See 7 CFR §§ 1034 (Dayton-Springfield), 1037 (North Central Ohio), 1038 (Rockford-Freeport), 1074 (Southwest Kansas).
The payment provision of 7 CFR § 1002.83 applies only in those months when the volume of milk sold for Class III use exceeds 15% of the total pool milk reported in the marketing area.
The Act authorizes the establishment of either marketwide pools or individual handler pools. Since the latter require only that each handler pay uniform prices to all the producers from which he buys, but does not impose a uniformity requirement among the various handlers, there is no need for adjustments among handlers. Consequently, no compensatory payment provision is included in orders establishing individual handler pools. See 7 CFR §§ 1004 (Philadelphia), 1005 (Tri-State), 1010 (Wilmington), 1039 (Milwaukee), 1041 (Toledo), 1044 (Michigan Upper Peninsula), 1078 (North Central Iowa), 1096 (Northern Louisiana), 1097 (Memphis), 1102 (Fort Smith), 1129 (Austin-Waco), 1130 (Corpus Christi), 1134 (Western Colorado).
Compare 7 CFR §§ 1001.65 (Greater Boston), 1003.62 (Washington, D. C.), 1006.65 (Springfield, Mass.), 1007.65 (Worcester), 1008.54 (Wheeling), 1009.54 (Clarksburg, W. Va.), 1011.62 (Appalachian), 1014.46 (Southeastern New England), 1015.46 (Connecticut), 1016.62 (Upper Chesapeake Bay), 1030.61 (Chicago), 1031.70 (b) (South Bend-La Porte-Elkhart), 1036.84 (b) (Northeastern Ohio), 1048.54 (Greater Youngstown-Warren), 1061.54 (St. Joseph), 1068.70 (b) (Minneapolis-St. Paul), 1071.62 (b) (Neosho Valley), 1072.55 (Sioux Falls-Mitchell), 1106.55 (Oklahoma), 1125.70 (Puget Sound), 1126.70 (d) (North Texas), 1133.70 (b) (Inland Empire).
“As stated earlier herein, all milk which is established to be primarily associated with the New York milk marketing area under the standards prescribed by the order is included in the New York pool. Conversely, the non-pool milk which enters the marketing area for fluid use originates from plants which are not sufficiently associated with the New York market to have their milk in the pool. Such plants have their primary interests in other fluid markets or specialized manufacturing uses and frequently have more milk than is required for these primary purposes. It is this surplus milk at non-pool plants which can be 'dumped' into the New York market for fluid use, provided only that the plant and the milk [have] marketing area health approval. The operator of such a non-pool plant has a choice of using the excess milk for surplus uses (ordinarily in the manufacture of various milk products) or of sending it to the New York marketing area for fluid uses. In making this decision he will compare the respective net returns to him for this surplus milk and will naturally select the fluid alternative, for it will yield the greater return. In the absence of classified pricing, his cost, at source, for the excess milk remains exaetty the same whether he uses it for surplus disposition or for fluid use. The pool plant operator on the other hand has no such advantage for he pays a higher classified price, at source, if he sells the milk in the market area for fluid use (Class I-A or II) than if he disposes of it for surplus manufacturing uses (Class III).
“If this artificial advantage in favor of surplus non-pool milk at the plant of origin is to be effectively removed, as it must be, the milk must be treated and evaluated for what it actually is, namely surplus milk in the milkshed. If New York marketing area disposition were not available for this surplus, the non-pool handler could derive from it only its surplus value. This surplus value is its true value or 'opportunity cost’ and such surplus value should be used as the subtrahend in the formula for compensation payments on non-pool milk from plants not subject to a Federal order.
“The Class III price under the New York order is the class price which is payable, at source, for pool milk under the New York order when used for most surplus uses. It is expressly designed to fix a proper classified value, at source, for surplus milk. The Class III price closely approximates the amount paid in the Northeast to farmers not under the New York order for so much of their milk as is used for general manufacture.
“It is therefore a dependable indicator of the value of surplus milk at source. If a non-pool handler, for his own reasons, chooses to pay more than its true market value, at source, for surplus milk which he sends to the New York area, the pool should not underwrite this unnecessary cost, particularly since the premium can be used to outbid pool handlers for milk, as previously shown.”
The fact that petitioners were paying more for their milk than the Class I price in the New York-New Jersey Marketing Area leaves no room for any suggestion that they will be receiving a “windfall” if it is ultimately adjudged that they are entitled to have returned the full amount of their compensatory payments.
The total amount of the compensatory payments involved in this litigation, embracing a period of approximately four years, was some $617,000 as to Lehigh Valley and $108,000 as to Suncrest.
Several of the marketing orders make the compensatory payment, equal the difference between the Class I price in the marketing area and the actual cost of the nonpool milk. See 7 CFR §§ 1042.60 (Muskegon), 1128.62 (b) (Central West Texas). In some marketing areas the handler who deals in nonpool milk is permitted to elect each month between paying the fluid milk-surplus use differential and paying the difference between his actual cost and the minimum regional price for Class I milk. See 7 CFR §§ 1013.62 (Southeastern Florida), 1033.61 (Greater Cincinnati), 1035.63 (Columbus, Ohio), 1040.66 (Southern Michigan), 1043.84 (Upstate Michigan), 1045.83 (Northeastern Wisconsin), 1047.62 (Fort Wayne), 1064.61 (Greater Kansas City), 1065.62 (Nebraska-Western Iowa), 1067.61 (Ozarks), 1069.62 (Duluth-Superior), 1073.62 (Wichita), 1094.62 (New Orleans), 1098.92
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Sixth Amendment provides in part that:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Two years ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, we held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of right to counsel obligatory upon the States. The question we find necessary to decide in this case is whether the Amendment’s guarantee of a defendant’s right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” which has been held to include the right to cross-examine those witnesses, is also made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The petitioner Pointer and one Dillard were arrested in Texas and taken before a state judge for a preliminary hearing (in Texas called the “examining trial”) on a charge of having robbed Kenneth W. Phillips of $375 “by assault, or violence, or by putting in fear of life or bodily injury,” in violation of Texas Penal Code Art. 1408. At this hearing an Assistant District Attorney conducted the prosecution and examined witnesses, but neither of the defendants, both of whom were laymen, had a lawyer. Phillips as chief witness for the State gave his version of the alleged robbery in detail, identifying petitioner as the man who had robbed him at gunpoint. Apparently Dillard tried to cross-examine Phillips but Pointer did not, although Pointer was said to have tried to cross-examine some other witnesses at the hearing. Petitioner was subsequently indicted on a charge of having committed the robbery. Some time before the trial was held, Phillips moved to California. After putting in evidence to show that Phillips had moved and did not intend to return to Texas, the State at the trial offered the transcript of Phillips’ testimony given at the preliminary hearing as evidence against petitioner. Petitioner’s counsel immediately objected to introduction of the transcript, stating, “Your Honor, we will object to that, as it is a denial of the confrontment of the witnesses against the Defendant.” Similar objections were repeatedly made by petitioner’s counsel but were overruled by the trial judge, apparently in part because, as the judge viewed it, petitioner had been present at the preliminary hearing and therefore had been “accorded the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses there against him.” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest state court to which the case could be taken, affirmed petitioner’s conviction, rejecting his contention that use of the transcript to convict him denied him rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 375 á. W. 2d 293. We granted certiorari to consider the important constitutional question the case involves. 379 U. S. 815.
In this Court we do not find it necessary to decide one aspect of the question petitioner raises, that is, whether failure to appoint counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing unconstitutionally denied him the assistance of counsel within the meaning of Gideon v. Wainwright, supra. In making that argument petitioner relies mainly on White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59, in which this Court reversed a conviction based in part upon evidence that the defendant had pleaded guilty to the crime at a preliminary hearing where he was without counsel. Since the preliminary hearing there, as in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, was one in which pleas to the charge could be made, we held in White as in Hamilton that a preliminary proceeding of that nature was so critical a stage in the prosecution that a defendant at that point was entitled to counsel. But the State informs us that at a Texas preliminary hearing, such as is involved here, pleas of guilty or not guilty are not accepted and that the judge decides only whether the accused should be bound over to the grand jury and if so whether he should be admitted to bail. Because of these significant differences in the procedures of the respective States, we cannot say that the White case is necessarily controlling as to the right to counsel. Whether there might be other circumstances making this Texas preliminary hearing so critical to the defendant as to call for appointment of counsel at that stage we need not decide on this record, and that question we reserve. In this case the objections and arguments in the trial court as well as the arguments in the Court of Criminal Appeals and before us make it clear that petitioner’s objection is based not so much on the fact that he had no lawyer when Phillips made his statement at the preliminary hearing, as on the fact that use of the transcript of that statement at the trial denied petitioner any opportunity to have the benefit of counsel’s cross-examination of the principal witness against him. It is that latter question which we decide here.
I.
The Sixth Amendment is a part of what is called our Bill of Rights. In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, in which this Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s right to the assistance of counsel is obligatory upon the States, we did so on the ground that “a provision of the Bill of Rights which is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial’ is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 372 U. S., at 342. And last Term in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, in holding that the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination was made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, we reiterated the holding of Gideon that the Sixth Amendment’s right-to-counsel guarantee is “ 'a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,’ ” and “thus was made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 378 U. S., at 6. See also Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52. We hold today that the Sixth Amendment’s right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
It cannot seriously be doubted at this late date that the right of cross-examination is included in the right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him. And probably no one, certainly no one experienced in the trial of lawsuits, would deny the value of cross-examination in exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth in the trial of a criminal case. See, e. g., 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (3d ed. 1940). The fact that this right appears in the Sixth Amendment of our Bill of Rights reflects the belief of the Framers of those liberties and safeguards that confrontation was a fundamental right essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution. Moreover, the decisions of this Court and other courts throughout the years have constantly emphasized the necessity for cross-examination as a protection for defendants in criminal cases. This Court in Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 55, 56, referred to the right of confrontation as “[o]ne of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty,” and “a right long deemed so essential for the due protection of life and liberty that it is guarded against legislative and judicial action by provisions in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of most if not of all the States composing the Union.” Mr. Justice Stone, writing for the Court in Alford v. United States, 282 U. S. 687, 692, declared that the right of cross-examination is “one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial.” And in speaking of confrontation and cross-examination this Court said in Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474:
“They have ancient roots. They find expression in the Sixth Amendment which provides that in all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right ‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion.” 360 U. S., at 496-497 (footnote omitted).
There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal. Indeed, we have expressly declared that to deprive an accused of the right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law. In In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, this Court said:
“A person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense — a right to his day in court — are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.” 333 U. S., at 273 (footnote omitted).
And earlier this Term in Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466, 472-473, we held:
“In the constitutional sense, trial by jury in a criminal case necessarily implies at the very least that the ‘evidence developed’ against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant’s right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel.”
Compare Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U. S. 96, 103-104.
We are aware that some cases, particularly West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258, 264, have stated that the Sixth Amendment’s right of confrontation does not apply to trials in state courts, on the ground that the entire Sixth Amendment does not so apply. See also Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 195-196. But of course since Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, it no longer can broadly be said that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to state courts. And as this Court said in Malloy v. Hogan, supra, “The Court has not hesitated to re-examine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme.” 378 U. S., at 5. In the light of Gideon, Malloy, and other cases cited in those opinions holding various provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the statements made in West and similar cases generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the States can no longer be regarded as the law. We hold that petitioner was entitled to be tried in accordance with the protection of the confrontation guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, and that that guarantee, like the right against compelled self-incrimination, is “to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.” Malloy v. Hogan, supra, 378 U. S., at 10.
II.
Under this Court’s prior decisions, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of confrontation and cross-examination was unquestionably denied petitioner in this case. As has been pointed out, a major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation rule is to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. See, e. g., Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 330; Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 474; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 55-56; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242-243. Cf. Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 581; Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cranch 290, 295. This Court has recognized the admissibility against an accused of dying declarations, Mattox v. United States, 146 U. S. 140, 151, and of testimony of a deceased witness who has testified at a former' trial, Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 240-244. See also Dowdell v. United States, supra, 221 U. S., at 330; Kirby v. United States, supra, 174 U. S., at 61. Nothing we hold here is to the contrary. The case before us would be quite a different one had Phillips’ statement been taken at a full-fledged hearing at which petitioner had been represented by counsel who had been given a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine. Compare Motes v. United States, supra, 178 U. S., at 474. There are other analogous situations which might not fall within the scope of the constitutional rule requiring confrontation of witnesses. The case before us, however, does not present any situation like those mentioned above or others analogous to them. Because the transcript of Phillips’ statement offered against petitioner at his trial had not been taken at a time and under circumstances affording petitioner through counsel an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Phillips, its introduction in a federal court in a criminal case against Pointer would have amounted to denial of the privilege of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Since we hold that the right of an accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him must be determined by the same standards whether the right is denied in a federal or state proceeding, it follows that use of the transcript to convict petitioner denied him a constitutional right, and that his conviction must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
See state and English cases collected in 5 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1367, 1395 (3d ed. 1940). State constitutional and statutory provisions similar to the Sixth Amendment are collected in 5 Wigmore, supra, § 1397, n. 1.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 case involves an attempt to serve process on a foreign corporation by serving its domestic subsidiary which, under state law, is the foreign corporation’s involuntary agent for service of process. We must decide whether such service is compatible with the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965 (Hague Service Convention), [1969] 20 U. S. T. 361, T. I. A. S. No. 6638.
i — I
The parents of respondent Herwig Schlunk were killed in an automobile accident in 1983. Schlunk filed a wrongful death action on their behalf in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Schlunk alleged that Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWoA), had designed and sold the automobile that his parents were driving, and that defects in the automobile caused or contributed to their deaths. Schlunk also alleged that the driver of the other automobile involved in the collision was negligent; Schlunk has since obtained a default judgment against that person, who is no longer a party to this lawsuit. Schlunk successfully served his complaint on VWoA, and VWoA filed an answer denying that it had designed or assembled the automobile in question. Schlunk then amended the complaint to add as a defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG), which is the petitioner here. VWAG, a corporation established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, has its place of business in that country. VWoA is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG. Schlunk attempted to serve his amended complaint on VWAG by serving VWoA as VWAG’s agent.
VWAG filed a special and limited appearance for the purpose of quashing service. VWAG asserted that it could be served only in accordance with the Hague Service Convention, and that Schlunk had not complied with the Convention’s requirements. The Circuit Court denied VWAG’s motion. It first observed that VWoA is registered to do business in Illinois and has a registered agent for receipt of process in Illinois. The court then reasoned that VWoA and VWAG are so closely related that VWoA is VWAG’s agent for service of process as a matter of law, notwithstanding VWAG’s failure or refusal to appoint VWoA formally as an agent. The court relied on the facts that VWoA is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG, that a majority of the members of the board of directors of VWoA are members of the board of VWAG, and that VWoA is by contract the exclusive importer and distributor of VWAG products sold in the United States. The court concluded that, because service was accomplished within the United States, the Hague Service Convention did not apply.
The Circuit Court certified two questions to the Appellate Court of Illinois. For reasons similar to those given by the Circuit Court, the Appellate Court determined that VWoA is VWAG’s agent for service of process under Illinois law, and that the service of process in this case did not violate the Hague Service Convention. 145 Ill. App. 3d 594, 503 N. E. 2d 1045 (1986). After the Supreme Court of Illinois denied VWAG leave to appeal, 112 Ill. 2d 595 (1986), VWAG petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Appellate Court’s interpretation of the Hague Service Convention. We granted certiorari to address this issue, 484 U. S. 895 (1987), which has given rise to disagreement among the lower courts. Compare Ex parte Volkswagenwerk A. G., 443 So. 2d 880, 881 (Ala. 1983) (holding that the Hague Service Convention does not apply if a foreign national is served properly through its. agent in this country); Zisman v. Sieger, 106 F. R. D. 194, 199-200 (ND Ill. 1985) (same); Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk A. G., 104 F. R. D. 95, 97 (SD Fla. 1985) (same); McHugh v. International Components Corp., 118 Misc. 2d 489, 491-492, 461 N. Y. S. 2d 166, 167-168 (1983) (same), with Cippolla v. Picard Porsche Audi, Inc., 496 A. 2d 130, 131-132 (R. I. 1985) (holding that the Hague Service Convention is the exclusive means of serving a foreign corporation); Wingert v. Volkswagenwerk A. G., Civ. Action Nos. 3:86-2994-16 and 3:86-2995-16 (S. C. May 19, 1987), slip op., at 3-4 (same).
II
The Hague Service Convention is a multilateral treaty that was formulated in 1964 by the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference of Private International Law. The Convention revised parts of the Hague Conventions on Civil Procedure of 1905 and 1954. The revision was intended to provide a simpler way to serve process abroad, to assure that defendants sued in foreign jurisdictions would receive actual and timely notice of suit, and to facilitate proof of service abroad. 3 1964 Conférence de la Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes et Documents de la Dixieme Session (Notification) 75-77, 363 (1965) (3 Actes et Documents); 1 B. Ristau, International Judicial Assistance (Civil and Commercial) §4-1 (1984 and 1 Supp. 1986) (1 Ristau). Representatives of all 23 countries that were members of the Conference approved the Convention without reservation. Thirty-two countries, including the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, have ratified or acceded to the Convention. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2, n. 2 (filed Sep. 12, 1987).
The primary innovation of the Convention is that it requires each state to establish a central authority to receive requests for service of documents from other countries. 20 U. S. T. 362, T. I. A. S. 6638, Art. 2. Once a central authority receives a request in the proper form, it must serve the documents by a method prescribed by the internal law of the receiving state or by a method designated by the requester and compatible with that law. Art. 5. The central authority must then provide a certificate of service that conforms to a specified model. Art. 6. A state also may consent to methods of service within its boundaries other than a request to its central authority. Arts. 8-11, 19. The remaining provisions of the Convention that are relevant here limit the circumstances in which a default judgment may be entered against a defendant who had to be served abroad and did not appear, and provide some means for relief from such a judgment. Arts. 15, 16.
Article 1 defines the scope of the Convention, which is the subject of controversy in this case. It says: “The present Convention shall apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.” 20 U. S. T., at 362. The equally authentic French version says, “La présente Convention est applicable, en matiére civile ou commerciale, dans tous les cas oü un acte judiciaire ou extrajudiciaire doit étre transmis á l’étranger pour y étre signifié ou notifié.” Ibid. This language is mandatory, as we acknowledged last Term in Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U. S. 522, 534, n. 15 (1987). By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, the Convention pre-empts inconsistent methods of service prescribed by state law in all cases to which it applies. Schlunk does not purport to have served his complaint on VWAG in accordance with the Convention. Therefore, if service of process in this case falls within Article 1 of the Convention, the trial court should have granted VWAG’s motion to quash.
When interpreting a treaty, we “begin ‘with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written words are used.’ ” Société Nationale, supra, at 534 (quoting Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 397 (1985)). Other general rules of construction may be brought to bear on,, difficult or ambiguous passages. “ ‘Treaties are construed more liberally than private agreements, and to ascertain their meaning we may look beyond the written words to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the parties.”’ Air France v. Saks, supra, at 396 (quoting Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U. S. 423, 431-432 (1943)).
The Convention does not specify the circumstances in which there is “occasion to transmit” a complaint “for service abroad.” But at least the term “service of process” has a well-established technical meaning. Service of process refers to a formal delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of a pending action. 1 Ristau § 4-5(2), p. 123 (interpreting the Convention); Black’s Law Dictionary 1227 (5th ed. 1979); see 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1063, p. 225 (2d ed. 1987). The legal sufficiency of a formal delivery of documents must be measured against some standard. The Convention does not prescribe a standard, so we almost necessarily must refer to the internal law of the forum state. If the internal law of the forum state defines the applicable method of serving process as requiring the transmittal of documents abroad, then the Hague Service Convention applies.
The negotiating history supports our view that Article 1 refers to service of process in the technical sense. The committee that prepared the preliminary draft deliberately used a form of the term “notification” (formal notice), instead of the more neutral term “remise” (delivery), when it drafted Article 1. 3 Actes et Documents, at 78-79. Then, in the course of the debates, the negotiators made the language even more exact. The preliminary draft of Article 1 said that the present Convention shall apply in all cases in which there are grounds to transmit or to give formal notice of a judicial or extrajudicial document in a civil or commercial matter to a person staying abroad. Id., at 65 (“La pré-sente Convention est applicable dans tous les cas oü il y a lieu de transmettre ou de notifier un acte judiciaire ou extra-judiciaire en matiére civile ou commerciale á une personne se trouvant á l’étranger”) (emphasis added). To be more precise, the delegates decided to add a form of the juridical term “signification” (service), which has a narrower meaning than “notification” in some countries, such as France, and the identical meaning in others, such as the United States. Id., at 152-153, 155, 159, 366. The delegates also criticized the language of the preliminary draft because it suggested that the Convention could apply to transmissions abroad that do not culminate in service. Id., at 165-167. The final text of Article 1, supra, eliminates this possibility and applies only to documents transmitted for service abroad. The final report (Rapport Explicatif) confirms that the Convention does not use more general terms, such as delivery or transmission, to define its scope because it applies only when there is both transmission of a document from the requesting state to the receiving state, and service upon the person for whom it is intended. Id., at 366.
The negotiating history of the Convention also indicates that whether there is service abroad must be determined by reference to the law of the forum state. The preliminary draft said that the Convention would apply “where there are grounds” to transmit a judicial document to a person staying abroad. The committee that prepared the preliminary draft realized that this implied that the forum’s internal law would govern whether service implicated the Convention. Id., at 80-81. The reporter expressed regret about this solution because it would decrease the obligatory force of the Convention. Id., at 81. Nevertheless, the delegates did not change the meaning of Article 1 in this respect.
The Yugoslavian delegate offered a proposal to amend Article 1 to make explicit that service abroad is defined according to the law of the state that is requesting service of process. Id., at 167. The delegate from the Netherlands supported him. Ibid. The German delegate approved of the proposal in principle, although he thought it would require a corresponding reference to the significance of the law of the state receiving the service of process, and that this full explanation would be too complicated. Id., at 168. The President opined that there was a choice to be made between the phrase used by the preliminary draft, “where grounds exist,” and the Yugoslavian proposal to modify it with the phrase, “according to the law of the requesting state.” Ibid. This prompted the Yugoslavian delegate to declare that the difference was immaterial, because the phrase “where grounds exist” necessarily refers to the law of the forum. Ibid. The French delegate added that, in his view, the law of the forum in turn is equivalent to the law of the requesting state. Id., at 169. At that point, the President recommended entrusting the problem to the drafting committee.
The drafting committee then composed the version of Article 1 that ultimately was adopted, which says that the Convention applies “where there is occasion” to transmit a judicial document for service abroad. Id., at 211. After this revision, the reporter again explained that one must leave to the requesting state the task of defining when a document must be served abroad; that this solution was a consequence of the unavailability of an objective test; and that while it decreases the obligatory force of the Convention, it does provide clarity. Id., at 254. The inference we draw from this history is that the Yugoslavian proposal was rejected because it was superfluous, not because it was inaccurate, and that “service abroad” has the same meaning in the final version of the Convention as it had in the preliminary draft.
VWAG protests that it is inconsistent with the purpose of the Convention to interpret it as applying, only when the internal law of the forum requires service abroad. One of the two stated objectives of the Convention is “to create appropriate means to ensure that judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the notice of the addressee in sufficient time.” 20 U. S. T., at 362. The Convention cannot assure adequate notice, VWAG argues, if the forum’s internal law determines whether it applies. VWAG warns that countries could circumvent the Convention by defining methods of service of process that do not require transmission of documents abroad. Indeed, VWAG contends that one such method of service already exists and that it troubled the Conference: notification au ;parquet.
Notification au parquet permits service of process on a foreign defendant by the deposit of documents with a designated local official. Although the official generally is supposed to transmit the documents abroad to the defendant, the statute of limitations begins to run from the time that the official receives the documents, and there allegedly is no sanction for failure to transmit them. 3 Actes et Documents, at 167-169; S. Exec. Rep. No. 6, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 12 (1967) (statement of Philip Amram, member of the United States delegation); 1 Ristau §4-33, p. 172. At the time of the 10th Conference, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, and Italy utilized some type of notification au parquet. 3 Actes et Documents, at 75.
There is no question but that the Conference wanted to eliminate notification au parquet. Id., at 75-77. It included in the Convention two provisions that address the problem. Article 15 says that a judgment may not be entered unless a foreign defendant received adequate and timely notice of the lawsuit. Article 16 provides means whereby a defendant who did not receive such notice may seek relief from a judgment that has become final. 20 U. S. T., at 364-365. Like Article 1, however, Articles 15 and 16 apply only when documents must be transmitted abroad for the purpose of service. 3 Actes et Documents, at 168-169. VWAG argues that, if this determination is made according to the internal law of the forum state, the Convention will fail to eliminate variants of notification au parquet that do not expressly require transmittal of documents to foreign defendants. Yet such methods of service of process are the least likely to provide a defendant with actual notice.
The parties make conflicting representations about whether foreign laws authorizing notification au parquet command the transmittal of documents for service abroad within the meaning of the Convention. The final report is itself somewhat equivocal. It says that, although the strict language of Article 1 might raise a question as to whether the Convention regulates notification au parquet, the understanding of the drafting Commission, based on the debates, is that the Convention would apply. Id., at 367. Although this statement might affect our decision as to whether the Convention applies to notification au parquet, an issue we do not resolve today, there is no comparable evidence in the negotiating history that the Convention was meant to apply to substituted service on a subsidiary like VWoA, which clearly does not require service abroad under the forum’s internal law. Hence neither the language of the Convention nor the negotiating history contradicts our interpretation of the Convention, according to which the internal law of the forum is presumed to determine whether there is occasion for service abroad.
Nor are we persuaded that the general purposes of the Convention require a different conclusion. One important objective of the Convention is to provide means to facilitate service of process abroad. Thus the first stated purpose of the Convention is “to create” appropriate means for service abroad, and the second stated purpose is “to improve the organisation of mutual judicial assistance for that purpose by simplifying and expediting the procedure.” 20 U. S. T., at 362. By requiring each state to establish a central authority to assist in the service of process, the Convention implements this enabling function. Nothing in our decision today interferes with this requirement.
VWAG correctly maintains that the Convention also aims to ensure that there will be adequate notice in cases in which there is occasion to serve process abroad. Thus compliance with the Convention is mandatory in all cases to which it applies, see supra, 700-701, and Articles 15 and 16 provide an indirect sanction against those who ignore it, see 3 Actes et Documents, at 92, 363. Our interpretation of the Convention does not necessarily advance this particular objective, inasmuch as it makes recourse to the Convention’s means of service dependent on the forum’s internal law. But we do not think that this country, or any other country, -will draft its internal laws deliberately so as to circumvent the Convention in cases in which it would be appropriate to transmit judicial documents for service abroad. . For example, there has been no question in this country of excepting foreign nationals from the protection of our Due Process Clause. Under that Clause, foreign nationals are assured of either personal service, which typically will require service abroad and trigger the Convention, or substituted service that provides “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950).
Furthermore, nothing that we say today prevents compliance with the Convention even when the internal law of the forum does not so require. The Convention provides simple and certain means by which to serve process on a foreign national. Those who eschew its procedures risk discovering that the forum’s internal law required transmittal of documents for service abroad, and that the Convention therefore provided the exclusive means of valid service. In addition, parties that comply with the Convention ultimately may find it easier to enforce their judgments abroad. See Westin, Enforcing Foreign Commercial Judgments and Arbitral Awards in the United States, West Germany, and England, Law & Policy Int’l Bus. 325, 340-341 (1987). For these reasons, we anticipate that parties may resort to the Convention voluntarily, even in cases that fall outside the scope of its mandatory application.
Ill
In this case, the Illinois long-arm statute authorized Schlunk to serve VWAG by substituted service on VWoA, without sending documents to Germany. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, ¶2-209(a)(1) (1985). VWAG has not petitioned for review of the Illinois Appellate Court’s holding that service was proper as a matter of Illinois law. VWAG contends, however, that service on VWAG was not complete until VWoA transmitted the complaint to VWAG in Germany. According to VWAG, this transmission constituted service abroad under the Hague Service Convention.
VWAG explains that, as a practical matter, VWoA was certain to transmit the complaint to Germany to notify VWAG of the litigation. Indeed, as a legal matter, the Due Process Clause requires every method of service to provide “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., supra, at 314. VWAG argues that, because of this notice requirement, every case involving service on a foreign national will present an “occasion to transmit a judicial. . . document for service abroad” within the meaning of Article 1. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. VWAG emphasizes that in this case, the Appellate Court upheld service only after determining that “the relationship between VWAG and VWoA is so close that it is certain that VWAG ‘was fully apprised of the pendency of the action’ by delivery of the summons to VWoA.” 145 Ill. App. 3d, at 606, 503 N. E. 2d, at 1053 (quoting Maunder v. DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 102 Ill. 2d 342, 353, 466 N. E. 2d 217, 223, cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1036 (1984)).
We reject this argument. Where service on a domestic agent is valid and complete under both state law and the Due Process Clause, our inquiry ends and the Convention has no further implications. Whatever internal, private communications take place between the agent and a foreign principal are beyond the concerns of this case. The only transmittal to which the Convention applies is a transmittal abroad that is required as a necessary part of service. And, contrary to VWAG’s assertion, the Due Process Clause does not require an official transmittal of documents abroad every time there is service on a foreign national. Applying this analysis, we conclude that this case does not present an occasion to transmit a judicial document for service abroad within the meaning of Article 1. Therefore the Hague Service Convention does not apply, and service was proper. The judgment of the Appellate Court is
Affirmed.
The concurrence believes that our interpretation does not adequately guarantee timely notice, which it denominates the “primary” purpose of the Convention, albeit without authority. Post, at 711. The concurrence instead proposes to impute a substantive standard to the words, “service abroad.” Post, at 708. Evidently, a method of service would not be deemed to be “service abroad” within the meaning of Article 1 unless it provides notice to the recipient “in due time.” Post, at 712, 714. This due process notion cannot be squared with the plain meaning of the words, “service abroad.” The contours of the concurrence’s substantive standard are not defined, and we note that it would create some uncertainty even on the facts of this ease. If the substantive standard tracks the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is not self-evident that substituted service on a subsidiary is sufficient with respect to the parent. In the only eases in which it has considered the question, this Court held that the activities of a subsidiary are not necessarily enough to render a parent subject to a court’s jurisdiction, for service of process or otherwise. Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U. S. 333, 336-337 (1925); Consolidated Textile Corp. v. Gregory, 289 U. S. 85, 88 (1933); see 18A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of Law of Private Corporations § 8773 pp. 250-254 (rev. ed. 1988). Although the particular relationship between VWAG and VWoA might have made substituted service valid in this case, a question that we do not decide, the faetbound character of the necessary inquiry makes us doubt whether the standard suggested by the concurrence would in fact be “remarkably easy” to apply, see post, at 715.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Florida Stat. §794.03 (1987) makes it unlawful to “print, publish, or broadcast... in any instrument of mass communication” the name of the victim of a sexual offense. Pursuant to this statute, appellant The Florida Star was found civilly liable for publishing the name of a rape victim which it had obtained from a publicly released police report. The issue presented here is whether this result comports with the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.
I
The Florida Star is a weekly newspaper which serves the community of Jacksonville, Florida, and which has an average circulation of approximately 18,000 copies. A regular feature of the newspaper is its “Police Reports” section. That section, typically two to three pages in length, contains brief articles describing local criminal incidents under police investigation.
On October 20, 1983, appellee B. J. F. reported to the Duval County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department (Department) that she had been robbed and sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant. The Department prepared a report on the incident which identified B. J. F. by her full name. The Department then placed the report in its pressroom. The Department does not restrict access either to the pressroom or to the reports made available therein.
A Florida Star reporter-trainee sent to the pressroom copied the police report verbatim, including B. J. F.’s full name, on a blank duplicate of the Department’s forms. A Florida Star reporter then prepared a one-paragraph article about the crime, derived entirely from the trainee’s copy of the police report. The article included B. J. F.’s full name. It appeared in the “Robberies” subsection of the “Police Reports” section on October 29, 1983, one of 54 police blotter stories in that day’s edition. The article read: In printing B. J. F.’s full name, The Florida Star violated its internal policy of not publishing the names of sexual offense victims.
“[B. J. F.] reported on Thursday, October 20, she was crossing Brentwood Park, which is in the 500 block of Golfair Boulevard, enroute to her bus stop, when an unknown black man ran up behind the lady and placed a knife to her neck and told her not to yell. The suspect then undressed the lady and had sexual intercourse with her before fleeing the scene with her 60 cents, Timex watch and gold necklace. Patrol efforts have been suspended concerning this incident because of a lack of evidence.”
On September 26, 1984, B. J. F. filed suit in the Circuit Court of Duval County against the Department and The Florida Star, alleging that these parties negligently violated §794.03. See n. 1, supra. Before trial, the Department settled with B. J. F. for $2,500. The Florida Star moved to dismiss, claiming, inter alia, that imposing civil sanctions on the newspaper pursuant to §794.03 violated the First Amendment. The trial judge rejected the motion. App. 4.
At the ensuing daylong trial, B. J. F. testified that she had suffered emotional distress from the publication of her name. She stated that she had heard about the article from fellow workers and acquaintances; that her mother had received several threatening phone calls from a man who stated that he would rape B. J. F. again; and that these events had forced B. J. F. to change her phone number and residence, to seek police protection, and to obtain mental health counseling. In defense, The Florida Star put forth evidence indicating that the newspaper had learned B. J. F.’s name from the incident report released by the Department, and that the newspaper’s violation of its internal rule against publishing the names of sexual offense victims was inadvertent.
At the close of B. J. F.’s case, and again at the close of its defense, The Florida Star moved for a directed verdict. On both occasions, the trial judge denied these motions. He ruled from the bench that § 794.03 was constitutional because it reflected a proper balance between the First Amendment and privacy rights, as it applied only to a narrow set of “rather sensitive . . . criminal offenses.” App. 18-19 (rejecting first motion); see id., at 32-33 (rejecting second motion). At the close of the newspaper’s defense, the judge granted B. J. F.’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence, finding the newspaper per se negligent based upon its violation of § 794.08. Id., at 33. This ruling left the jury to consider only the questions of causation and damages. The judge instructed the jury that it could award B. J. F. punitive damages if it found that the newspaper had “acted with reckless indifference to the rights of others.” Id., at 35. The jury awarded B. J. F. $75,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages. Against the actual damages award, the judge set off B. J. F.’s settlement with the Department.
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed in a three-paragraph per curiam opinion. 499 So. 2d 883 (1986). In the paragraph devoted to The Florida Star’s First Amendment claim, the court stated that the directed verdict for B. J. F. had been properly entered because, under §794.03, a rape victim’s name is “of a private nature and not to be published as a matter of law.” Id., at 884, citing Doe v. Sarasota-Bradenton Florida Television Co., 436 So. 2d 328, 330 (Fla. App. 1983) (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court of Florida denied discretionary review.
The Florida Star appealed to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction, 488 U. S. 887 (1988), and now reverse.
II
The tension between the right which the First Amendment accords to a free press, on the one hand, and the protections which various statutes and common-law doctrines accord to personal privacy against the publication of truthful information, on the other, is a subject we have addressed several times in recent years. Our decisions in cases involving government attempts to sanction the accurate dissemination of information as invasive of privacy, have not, however, exhaustively considered this conflict. On the contrary, although our decisions have without exception upheld the press’ right to publish, we have emphasized each time that we were resolving this conflict only as it arose in a discrete factual context.
The parties to this case frame their contentions in light of a trilogy of cases which have presented, in different contexts, the conflict between truthful reporting and state-protected privacy interests. In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), we found unconstitutional a civil damages award entered against a television station for broadcasting the name of a rape-murder victim which the station had obtained from courthouse records. In Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma County District Court, 430 U. S. 308 (1977), we found unconstitutional a state court’s pretrial order enjoining the media from publishing the name or photograph of an 11-year-old boy in connection with a juvenile proceeding involving that child which reporters had attended. Finally, in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U. S. 97 (1979), we found unconstitutional the indictment of two newspapers for violating a state statute forbidding newspapers to publish, without written approval of the juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender. The papers had learned about a shooting by monitoring a police band radio frequency and had obtained the name of the alleged juvenile assailant from witnesses, the police, and a local prosecutor.
Appellant takes the position that this case is indistinguishable from Cox Broadcasting. Brief for Appellant 8. Alternatively, it urges that our decisions in the above trilogy, and in other cases in which we have held that the right of the press to publish truth overcame asserted interests other than personal privacy can be distilled to yield a broader First Amendment principle that the press may never be punished, civilly or criminally, for publishing the truth. Id., at 19. Appellee counters that the privacy trilogy is inapposite, because in each case the private information already appeared on a “public record,” Brief for Appellee 12, 24, 25, and because the privacy interests at stake were far less profound than in the present case. See, e. g., id., at 34. In the alternative, appellee urges that Cox Broadcasting be overruled and replaced with a categorical rule that publication of the name of a rape victim never enjoys constitutional protection. Tr. of Oral Arg. 44.
We conclude that imposing damages on appellant for publishing B. J. F.’s name violates the First Amendment, although not for either of the reasons appellant urges. Despite the strong resemblance this case bears to Cox Broadcasting, that case cannot fairly be read as controlling here. The name of the rape victim in that case was obtained from courthouse records that were open to public inspection, a fact which Justice White’s opinion for the Court repeatedly noted. 420 U. S., at 492 (noting “special protected nature of accurate reports of judicial proceedings”) (emphasis added); see also id., at 493, 496. Significantly, one of the reasons we gave in Cox Broadcasting for invalidating the challenged damages award was the important role the press plays in subjecting trials to public scrutiny and thereby helping guarantee their fairness. Id., at 492-493. That role is not directly compromised where, as here, the information in question comes from a police report prepared and disseminated at a time at which not only had no adversarial criminal proceedings begun, but no suspect had been identified.
Nor need we accept appellant’s invitation to hold broadly that truthful publication may never be punished consistent with the First Amendment. Our cases have carefully eschewed reaching this ultimate question, mindful that the future may bring scenarios which prudence counsels our not resolving anticipatorily. See, e. g., Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 716 (1931) (hypothesizing “publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops”); see also Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 72, n. 8, 74 (1964) (endorsing absolute defense of truth “where discussion of public affairs is concerned,” but leaving unsettled the constitutional implications of truthfulness “in the discrete area of purely private libels”); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829, 838 (1978); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 383, n. 7 (1967). Indeed, in Cox Broadcasting, we pointedly refused to answer even the less sweeping question “whether truthful publications may ever be subjected to civil or criminal liability” for invading “an area of privacy” defined by the State. 420 U. S., at 491. Respecting the fact that press freedom and privacy rights are both “plainly rooted in the traditions and significant concerns of our society,” we instead focused on the less sweeping issue “whether the State may impose sanctions on the accurate publication of the name of a rape victim obtained from public records — more specifically, from judicial records which are maintained in connection with a public prosecution and which themselves are open to public inspection.” Ibid. We continue to believe that the sensitivity and significance of the interests presented in clashes between First Amendment and privacy rights counsel relying on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case.
In our view, this case is appropriately analyzed with reference to such a limited First Amendment principle. It is the one, in fact, which we articulated in Daily Mail in our synthesis of prior cases involving attempts to punish truthful publication: “[I]f a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order.” 443 U. S., at 103. According the press the ample protection provided by that principle is supported by at least three separate considerations, in addition to, of course, the overarching “‘public interest, secured by the Constitution, in the dissemination of truth.’” Cox Broad casting, supra, at 491, quoting Garrison, supra, at 73 (footnote omitted). The cases on which the Daily Mail synthesis relied demonstrate these considerations.
First, because the Daily Mail formulation only protects the publication of information which a newspaper has “lawfully obtain[ed],” 443 U. S., at 103, the government retains ample means of safeguarding significant interests upon which publication may impinge, including protecting a rape victim’s anonymity. To the extent sensitive information rests in private hands, the government may under some circumstances forbid its nonconsensual acquisition, thereby bringing outside of the Daily Mail principle the publication of any information so acquired. To the extent sensitive information is in the government’s custody, it has even greater power to forestall or mitigate the injury caused by its release. The government may classify certain information, establish and enforce procedures ensuring its redacted release, and extend a damages remedy against the government or its officials where the government’s mishandling of sensitive information leads to its dissemination. Where information is entrusted to the government, a less drastic means than punishing truthful publication almost always exists for guarding against the dissemination of private facts. See, e. g., Landmark Communications, supra, at 845 (“[M]uch of the risk [from disclosure of sensitive information regarding judicial disciplinary proceedings] can be eliminated through careful internal procedures to protect the confidentiality of Commission proceedings”); Oklahoma Publishing, 430 U. S., at 311 (noting trial judge’s failure to avail himself of the opportunity, provided by a state statute, to close juvenile hearing to the public, including members of the press, who later- broadcast juvenile defendant’s name); Cox Broadcasting, supra, at 496 (“If there are privacy interests to be protected in judicial proceedings, the States must respond by means which avoid public documentation or other exposure of private information”).
A second consideration undergirding the Daily Mail principle is the fact that punishing the press for its dissemination of information which is already publicly available is relatively unlikely to advance the interests in the service of which the State seeks to act. It is not, of course, always the case that information lawfully acquired by the press is known, or accessible, to others. But where the government has made certain information publicly available, it is highly anomalous to sanction persons other than the source of its release. We noted this anomaly in Cox Broadcasting: “By placing the information in the public domain on official court records, the State must be presumed to have concluded that the public interest was thereby being served.” 420 U. S., at 495. The Daily Mail formulation reflects the fact that it is a limited set of cases indeed where, despite the accessibility of the public to certain information, a meaningful public interest is served by restricting its further release by other entities, like the press. As Daily Mail observed in its summary of Oklahoma Publishing, “once the truthful information was ‘publicly revealed’ or ‘in the public domain’ the court could not constitutionally restrain its dissemination.” 443 U. S., at 103.
A third and final consideration is the “timidity and self-censorship” which may result from allowing the media to be punished for publishing certain truthful information. Cox Broadcasting, supra, at 496. Cox Broadcasting noted this concern with overdeterrence in the context of information made public through official court records, but the fear of excessive media self-suppression is applicable as well to other information released, without qualification, by the government. A contrary rule, depriving protection to those who rely on the government’s implied representations of the lawfulness of dissemination, would force upon the media the onerous obligation of sifting through government press releases, reports, and pronouncements to prune out material arguably unlawful for publication. This situation could inhere even where the newspaper’s sole object was to reproduce, with no substantial change, the government’s rendition of the event in question.
Applied to the instant case, the Daily Mail principle clearly commands reversal. The first inquiry is whether the newspaper “lawfully obtained] truthful information about a matter of public significance.” 443 U. S., at 103. It is undisputed that the news article describing the assault on B. J. F. was accurate. In addition, appellant lawfully obtained B. J. F.’s name. Appellee’s argument to the contrary is based on the fact that under Florida law, police reports which reveal the identity of the victim of a sexual offense are not among the matters of “public record” which the public, by law, is entitled to inspect. Brief for Appellee 17-18, citing Fla. Stat. § 119.07(3)(h) (1983). But the fact that state officials are not required to disclose such reports does not make it unlawful for a newspaper to receive them when furnished by the government. Nor does the fact that the Department apparently failed to fulfill its obligation under §794.03 not to “cause or allow to be . . . published” the name of a sexual offense victim make the newspaper’s ensuing receipt of this information unlawful. Even assuming the Constitution permitted a State to proscribe receipt of information, Florida has not taken this step. It is, clear, furthermore, that the news article concerned “a matter of public significance,” 443 U. S., at 103, in the sense in which the Daily Mail synthesis of prior cases used that term. That is, the article generally, as opposed to the specific identity contained within it, involved a matter of paramount public import: the commission, and investigation, of a violent crime which had been reported to authorities. See Cox Broadcasting, supra (article identifying victim of rape-murder); Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma County District Court, 430 U. S. 308 (1977) (article identifying juvenile alleged to have committed murder); Daily Mail, supra (same); cf. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978) (article identifying judges whose conduct was being investigated).
The second inquiry is whether imposing liability on appellant pursuant to § 794.03 serves “a need to further a state interest of the highest order.” Daily Mail, 443 U. S., at 103. Appellee argues that a rule punishing publication furthers three closely related interests: the privacy of victims of sexual offenses; the physical safety of such victims, who may be targeted for retaliation if their names become known to their assailants; and the goal of encouraging victims of such crimes to report these offenses without fear of exposure. Brief for Appellee 29-30.
At a time in which we are daily reminded of the tragic reality of rape, it is undeniable that these are highly significant interests, a fact underscored by the Florida Legislature’s explicit attempt to protect these interests by enacting a criminal statute prohibiting much dissemination of victim identities. We accordingly do not rule out the possibility that, in a proper case, imposing civil sanctions for publication of the name of a rape victim might be so overwhelmingly necessary to advance these interests as to satisfy the Daily Mail standard. For three independent reasons, however, imposing liability for publication under the circumstances of this case is too precipitous a means of advancing these interests to convince us that there is a “need” within the meaning of the Daily Mail formulation for Florida to take this extreme step. Cf. Landmark Communications, supra (invalidating penalty on publication despite State’s expressed interest in non-dissemination, reflected in statute prohibiting unauthorized divulging of names of judges under investigation).
First is the manner in which appellant obtained the identifying information in question. As we have noted, where the government itself provides information to the media, it is most appropriate to assume that the government had, but failed to utilize, far more limited means of guarding against dissemination than the extreme step of punishing truthful speech. That assumption is richly borne out in this case. B. J. F.’s identity would never have come to light were it not for the erroneous, if inadvertent, inclusion by the Department of her full name in an incident report made available in a pressroom open to the public. Florida’s policy against disclosure of rape victims’ identities, reflected in §794.03, was undercut by the Department’s failure to abide by this policy. Where, as here, the government has failed to police itself in disseminating information, it is clear under Cox Broadcasting, Oklahoma Publishing, and Landmark Communications that the imposition of damages against the press for its subsequent publication can hardly be said to be a narrowly tailored means of safeguarding anonymity. See supra, at 534-535. Once the government has placed such information in the public domain, “reliance must rest upon the judgment of those who decide what to publish or broadcast,” Cox Broadcasting, 420 U. S., at 496, and hopes for restitution must rest upon the willingness of the government to compensate victims for their loss of privacy and to protect them from the other consequences of its mishandling of the information which these victims provided in confidence.
That appellant gained access to the information in question through a government news release makes it especially likely that, if liability were to be imposed, self-censorship would result. Reliance on a news release is a paradigmatically “routine newspaper reporting techniqu[e].” Daily Mail, supra, at 103. The government’s issuance of such a release, without qualification, can only convey to recipients that the government considered dissemination lawful, and indeed expected the recipients to disseminate the information further. Had appellant merely reproduced the news release prepared and released by the Department, imposing civil damages would surely violate the First Amendment. The fact that appellant converted the police report into a news story by adding the linguistic connecting tissue necessary to transform the report’s facts into full sentences cannot change this result.
A second problem with Florida’s imposition of liability for publication is the broad sweep of the negligence per se standard applied under the civil cause of action implied from § 794.03. Unlike claims based on the common-law tort of invasion of privacy, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977), civil actions based on §794.03 require no case-by-case findings that the disclosure of a fact about a person’s private life was one that a reasonable person would find highly offensive. On the contrary, under the per se theory of negligence adopted by the courts below, liability follows automatically from publication. This is so regardless of whether the identity of the victim is already known throughout the community; whether the victim has voluntarily called public attention to the offense; or whether the identity of the victim has otherwise become a reasonable subject of public concern — because, perhaps, questions have arisen whether the victim fabricated an assault by a particular person. Nor is there a scienter requirement of any kind under § 794.03, engendering the perverse result that truthful publications challenged pursuant to this cause of action are less protected by the First Amendment than even the least protected defamatory falsehoods: those involving purely private figures, where liability is evaluated under a standard, usually applied by a jury, of ordinary negligence. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974). We have previously noted the impermissi-bility of categorical prohibitions upon media access where important First Amendment interests are at stake. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court of Norfolk County, 457 U. S. 596, 608 (1982) (invalidating state statute providing for the categorical exclusion of the public from trials of sexual offenses involving juvenile victims). More individualized adjudication is no less indispensable where the State, seeking to safeguard the anonymity of crime victims, sets its face against publication of their names.
Third, and finally, the facial underinclusiveness of §794.03 raises serious doubts about whether Florida is, in fact, serving, with this statute, the significant interests which appellee invokes in support of affirmance. Section 794.03 prohibits the publication of identifying information only if this information appears in an “instrument of mass communication,” a term the statute does not define. Section 794.03 does not prohibit the spread by other means of the identities of victims of sexual offenses. An individual who maliciously spreads word of the identity of a rape victim is thus not covered, despite the fact that the communication of such information to persons who live near, or work with, the victim may have consequences as devastating as the exposure of her name to large numbers of strangers. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 49-50 (appellee acknowledges that §794.03 would not apply to “the backyard gossip who tells 50 people that don’t have to know”).
When a State attempts the extraordinary measure of punishing truthful publication in the name of privacy, it must demonstrate its commitment to advancing this interest by applying its prohibition evenhandedly, to the smalltime dissem-inator as well as the media giant. Where important First Amendment interests are at stake, the mass scope of disclosure is not an acceptable surrogate for injury. A ban on disclosures effected by “instruments] of mass communication” simply cannot be defended on the ground that partial prohibitions may effect partial relief. See Daily Mail, 443 U. S., at 104-105 (statute is insufficiently tailored to interest in protecting anonymity where it restricted only newspapers, not the electronic media or other forms of publication, from identifying juvenile defendants); id., at 110 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment) (same); cf. Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 229 (1987); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575, 585 (1983). Without more careful and inclusive precautions against alternative forms of dissemination, we cannot conclude that Florida’s selective ban on publication by the mass media satisfactorily accomplishes its stated purpose.
Ill
Our holding today is limited. We do not hold that truthful publication is automatically constitutionally protected, or that there is no zone of personal privacy within which the State may protect the individual from intrusion by the press, or even that a State may never punish publication of the name of a victim of a sexual offense. We hold only that where a newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order, and that no such interest is satisfactorily served by imposing liability under § 794.03 to appellant under the facts of this case. The decision below is therefore
Reversed.
The statute provides in its entirety:
“Unlawful to publish or broadcast information identifying sexual offense victim. — No person shall print, publish, or broadcast, or cause or allow to be printed, published, or broadcast, in any instrument of mass communication the name, address, or other identifying fact or information of the victim of any sexual offense within this chapter. An offense under this section shall constitute a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084.” Fla. Stat. § 794.03 (1987).
In filing this lawsuit, appellee used her full name in the caption of the case. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal sua sponte revised the caption, stating that it would refer to the appellee by her initials, “in order to preserve [her] privacy interests.” 499 So. 2d 883, 883, n. (1986). Respecting those interests, we, too, refer to appellee by her initials, both in the caption and in our discussion.
In Doe v. Sarasota-Bradenton Florida Television Co., 436 So. 2d, at 329, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on First Amendment grounds of a rape victim’s damages claim against a Florida television station which had broadcast portions of her testimony at her assailant’s trial. The court reasoned that, as in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), the information in question “was readily available to the public, through the vehicle of a public trial.” 436 So. 2d, at 330. The court stated, however, that §794.03 could constitutionally be applied to punish publication of a sexual offense victim’s name or other identifying information where it had not yet become “part of an open public record” by virtue of being revealed in “open, public judicial proceedings.” Ibid., citing Fla. Op. Atty. Gen. 075-203 (1975).
Before noting probable jurisdiction, we certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether it had possessed jurisdiction when it declined to hear the newspaper’s case. 484 U. S. 984 (1987). The State Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. 530 So. 2d 286, 287 (1988).
The somewhat uncharted state of the law in this area thus contrasts markedly with the well-mapped area of defamatory falsehoods, where a long line of decisions has produced relatively detailed legal standards governing the multifarious situations in which individuals aggrieved by the dissemination of damaging untruths seek redress. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964); Henry v. Collins, 380 U. S. 356 (1965); Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75 (1966); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265 (1971); Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U. S. 279 (1971); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U. S. 29 (1971); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U. S. 153 (1979); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U. S. Ill (1979); Dun & Bradstreet, hie. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749 (1985); Philadelphia Neivspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242 (1986).
See, e. g., Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978) (interest in confidentiality of judicial disciplinary proceedings); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977) (interest in maintaining professionalism of attorneys); Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976) (interest in accused’s right to fair trial); Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 (1976) (interest in maintaining professionalism of licensed pharmacists); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (interest in national security); Garrison, supra (interest in public figure’s reputation).
We also recognized that privacy interests fade once information already appears on the public record, 420 U. S., at 494-495, and that making public records generally available to the media while allowing their publication to be punished if offensive would invite “self-censorship and very likely lead to the suppression of many items that. . . should be made available to the public.” Id.., at 496.
The Daily Mail principle does not settle the issue whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well. This issue was raised but not definitively resolved in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971), and reserved in Landmark Communications, 435 U. S., at 837. We have no occasion to address it here.
Having concluded that imposing liability on appellant pursuant to § 794.03 violates the First Amendment, we have no occasion to address appellant’s subsidiary arguments that the imposition of punitive damages for publication independently violated the First Amendment, or that §794.03 functions as an impermissible prior restraint. See Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U. S. 97, 101-102 (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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-C, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Souter join.
This case presents the question whether Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings, unconstitutionally abridges the right of accused members of the military to present a defense. We hold that it does not.
I
In March 1992, respondent Edward Scheffer, an airman stationed at March Air Force Base in California, volunteered to work as an informant on drug investigations for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI). His OSI supervisors advised him that, from time to time during the course of his undercover work, they would ask him to submit to drug testing and polygraph examinations. In early April, one of the OSI agents supervising respondent requested that he submit to a urine test. Shortly after providing the urine sample, but before the results of the test were known, respondent agreed to take a polygraph test administered by an OSI examiner. In the opinion of the examiner, the test “indicated no deception” when respondent denied using drugs since joining the Air Force.
On April 30, respondent unaccountably failed to appear for work and could not be found on the base. He was absent without leave until May 13, when an Iowa state patrolman arrested him following a routine traffic stop and held him for return to the base. OSI agents later learned that respondent’s urinalysis revealed the presence of methamphetamine.
Respondent was tried by general court-martial on charges of using methamphetamine, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, wrongfully absenting himself from the base for 13 days, and, with respect to an unrelated matter, uttering 17 insufficient funds checks. He testified at trial on his own behalf, relying upon an “innocent ingestion” theory and denying that he had knowingly used drugs while working for OSI. On cross-examination, the prosecution attempted to impeach respondent with inconsistencies between his trial testimony and earlier statements he had made to OSI.
Respondent sought to introduce the polygraph evidence in support of his testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs. The military judge’ denied the motion, relying on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which provides, in relevant part:
“(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence.”
The military judge determined that Rule 707 was constitutional because “the President may, through the Rules of Evidence, determine that credibility is not an area in which a fact finder needs help, and the polygraph is not a process that has sufficient scientific acceptability to be relevant.” App. 28. He further reasoned that the factfinder might give undue weight to the polygraph examiner’s testimony, and that collateral arguments about such evidence could consume “an inordinate amount of time and expense.” Ibid.
Respondent was convicted on all counts and was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 80 months, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in all material respects, explaining that Rule 707 “does not arbitrarily limit the accused’s ability to present reliable evidence.” 41 M. J. 683, 691 (1995) (en banc).
By a 3-to-2 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed. 44 M. J. 442 (1996). Without pointing to any particular language in the Sixth Amendment, the Court of Appeals held that “[a] per se exclusion of polygraph evidence offered by an accused to rebut an attack on his credibility . . . violates his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.” Id., at 445. Judge Crawford, dissenting, stressed that a defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not absolute, that relevant evidence can be excluded for valid reasons, and that Rule 707 was supported by a number of valid justifications. Id., at 449-451. We granted cer-tiorari, 520 U. S. 1227 (1997), and we now reverse.
II
A defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions. See Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 410 (1988); Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U. S. 44, 55 (1987); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284, 295 (1973). A defendant’s interest in presenting such evidence may thus “ ‘bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.’ ” Rock, supra, at 55 (quoting Chambers, supra, at 295); accord, Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U. S. 145, 149 (1991). As a result, state and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials. Such rules do not abridge an accused’s right to present a defense so long as they are not “arbitrary” or “disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” Rock, supra, at 56; accord, Lucas, supra, at 151. Moreover, we have found the exclusion of evidence to be unconstitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate only where it has infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused. See Rock, supra, at 58; Chambers, supra, at 302; Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 22-23 (1967).
Rule 707 serves several legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. These interests include ensuring that only reliable evidence is introduced at trial, preserving the court members’ role in determining credibility, and avoiding litigation that is collateral to the primary purpose of the trial. The Rule is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate in promoting these ends. Nor does it implicate a sufficiently weighty interest of the defendant to raise a constitutional concern under our precedents.
A
State and Federal Governments unquestionably have a legitimate interest in ensuring that reliable evidence is presented to the trier of fact in a criminal trial. Indeed, the exclusion of unreliable evidence is a principal objective of many evidentiary rules. See, e. g., Fed. Rules Evid. 702, 802, 901; see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579, 589 (1993).
The contentions of respondent and the dissent notwithstanding, there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable. To this day, the scientific community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques. 1 D. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. Saks, & J. Sanders, Modern Scientific Evidence 565, n. †, § 14-2.0 to §14-7.0 (1997); see also 1 P. Giannelli & E. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence § 8-2(C), pp. 225-227 (2d ed. 1993) (hereinafter Giannelli & Imwinkelried); 1 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 206, p. 909 (4th ed. 1992) (hereinafter McCormick). Some studies have concluded that polygraph tests overall are accurate and reliable. See, e.g., S. Abrams, The Complete Polygraph Handbook 190-191 (1989) (reporting the overall accuracy rate from laboratory studies involving the common “control question technique” polygraph to be “in the range of 87 percent”). Others have found that polygraph tests assess truthfulness significantly less accurately — that scientific field studies suggest the accuracy rate of the “control question technique” polygraph is “little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin,” that is, 50 percent. See lacono & Lykken, The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests, in 1 Modern Scientific Evidence, supra, § 14-5.3, at 629 (hereinafter lacono & Lykken).
This lack of scientific consensus is reflected in the disagreement among state and federal courts concerning both the admissibility and the reliability of polygraph evidence. Although some Federal Courts of Appeals have abandoned the per se rule excluding polygraph evidence, leaving its admission or exclusion to the discretion of district courts under Daubert, see, e. g., United States v. Posado, 57 F. 3d 428, 434 (CA5 1995); United States v. Cordoba, 104 F. 3d 225, 228 (CA9 1997), at least one Federal Circuit has recently reaffirmed its per se ban, see United States v. Sanchez, 118 F. 3d 192, 197 (CA4 1997), and another recently noted that it has “not decided whether polygraphy has reached a sufficient state of reliability to be admissible.” United States v. Messina, 131 F. 3d 36, 42 (CA2 1997). Most States maintain per se rules excluding polygraph evidence. See, e. g., State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 92-95, 698 A. 2d 739, 758-759 (1997); People v. Gard, 158 Ill. 2d 191, 202-204, 632 N. E. 2d 1026, 1032 (1994); In re Odell, 672 A. 2d 457, 459 (RI 1996) (per curiam); Perkins v. State, 902 S. W. 2d 88, 94-95 (Ct. App. Tex. 1995). New Mexico is unique in making polygraph evidence generally admissible without the prior stipulation of the parties and without significant restriction. See N. M. Rule Evid. § 11-707. Whatever their approach, state and federal courts continue to express doubt about whether such evidence is reliable. See, e.g., United States v. Messina, supra, at 42; United States v. Posado, supra, at 434; State v. Porter, supra, at 126-127, 698 A. 2d, at 774; Perkins v. State, supra, at 94; People v. Gard, supra, at 202-204, 632 N. E. 2d, at 1032; In re Odell, supra, at 459.
The approach taken by the President in adopting Rule 707 — excluding polygraph evidence in all military trials — is a rational and proportional means of advancing the legitimate interest in barring unreliable evidence. Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner’s conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams. Individual jurisdictions therefore may reasonably reach differing conclusions as to whether polygraph evidence should be admitted. We cannot say, then, that presented with such widespread uncertainty, the President acted arbitrarily or disproportionately in promulgating a per se rule excluding all polygraph evidence.
B
It is equally clear that Rule 707 serves a second legitimate governmental interest: Preserving the court members’ core function of making credibility determinations in criminal trials. A fundamental premise of our criminal trial system is that “the jury is the lie detector.” United States v. Barnard, 490 F. 2d 907, 912 (CA9 1973) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 959 (1974). Determining the weight and credibility of witness testimony, therefore, has long been held to be the “part of every case [that] belongs to the jury, who are presumed to be fittéd for it by their natural intelligence and their practical knowledge of men and the ways of men.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140 U. S. 76, 88 (1891).
By its very nature, polygraph evidence may diminish the jury’s role in making credibility determinations. The common form of polygraph test measures a variety of physiological responses to a set of questions asked by the examiner, who then interprets these physiological correlates of anxiety and offers an opinion to the jury about whether the witness — often, as in this case, the accused — was deceptive in answering questions about the very matters at issue in the trial. See 1 McCormick §206. Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors’ knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion, in addition to its own, about whether the witness was telling the truth. Jurisdictions, in promulgating rules of evidence, may legitimately be concerned about the risk that juries will give excessive weight to the opinions of a polygrapher, clothed as they are in scientific expertise and at times offering, as in respondent’s case, a conclusion about the ultimate issue in the trial. Such jurisdictions may legitimately determine that the aura of infallibility attending polygraph evidence can lead jurors to abandon them duty to assess credibility and guilt. Those jurisdictions may also take into account the fact that a judge cannot determine, when ruling on a motion to admit polygraph evidence, whether a particular polygraph expert is likely to influence the jury unduly. For these reasons, the President is within his constitutional prerogative to promulgate a per se rule that simply excludes all such evidence.
C
A third legitimate interest served by Rule 707 is avoiding litigation over issues other than the guilt or innocence of the accused. Such collateral litigation prolongs criminal trials and threatens to distract the jury from its central function of determining guilt or innocence. Allowing proffers of polygraph evidence would inevitably entail assessments of such issues as whether the test and control questions were appropriate, whether a particular polygraph examiner was qualified and had properly interpreted the physiological responses, and whether other factors such as countermeasures employed by the examinee had distorted the exam results. Such assessments would be required in each and every case. It thus offends no constitutional principle for the President to conclude that a per se rule excluding all polygraph evidence is appropriate. Because litigation over the admissibility of polygraph evidence is by its very nature collateral, a per se rule prohibiting its admission is not an arbitrary or disproportionate means of avoiding it.
D
The three of our precedents upon which the Court of Appeals principally relied, Rock v. Arkansas, Washington v. Texas, and Chambers v. Mississippi, do not support a right to introduce polygraph evidence, even in very narrow circumstances. The exclusions of evidence that we declared unconstitutional in those eases significantly undermined fundamental elements of the defendant’s defense. Such is not the ease here.
In Rock, the defendant, accused of a killing to which she was the only eyewitness, was allegedly able to remember the facts of the killing only after having her memory hypnotically refreshed. See Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U. S., at 46. Because Arkansas excluded all hypnotically refreshed testimony, the defendant was unable to testify about certain relevant facts, including whether the killing had been accidental. See id., at 47-49. In holding that the exclusion of this evidence violated the defendant’s “right to present a defense,” we noted that the rule deprived the jury of the testimony of the only witness who was at the scene and had firsthand knowledge of the facts. See id., at 57. Moreover, the rule infringed upon the defendant’s interest in testifying in her own defense — an interest that we deemed particularly significant, as it is the defendant who is the target of any criminal prosecution. See id., at 52. For this reason, we stated that a defendant ought to be allowed “to present his own version of events in his own words.” Ibid.
In Washington, the statutes involved prevented co-defendants or coparticipants in a crime from testifying for one another and thus precluded the defendant from introducing his accomplice’s testimony that the accomplice had in fact committed the crime. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S., at 16-17. In reversing Washington’s conviction, we held that the Sixth Amendment was violated because “the State arbitrarily denied [the defendant] the right to put on the stand a witness who was physically and mentally capable of testifying to events that he had personally observed.” Id., at 23.
In Chambers, we found a due process violation in the combined application of Mississippi’s common-law “voucher rule,” which prevented a party from impeaching his own witness, and its hearsay rule that excluded the testimony of three persons to whom that witness had confessed. See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S., at 302. Chambers specifically confined its holding to the “facts and circumstances” presented in that case; we thus stressed that the ruling did not “signal any diminution in the respect traditionally accorded to the States in the establishment and implementation of their own criminal trial rules and procedures.” Id., at 302-303. Chambers therefore does not stand for the proposition that the defendant is denied a fair opportunity to defend himself whenever a state or federal rule excludes favorable evidence.
Rock, Washington, and Chambers do not require that Rule 707 be invalidated, because, unlike the evidentiary rules at issue in those cases, Rule 707 does not implicate any significant interest of the accused. Here, the court members heard all the relevant details of the charged offense from the perspective of the accused, and the Rule did not preclude him from introducing any factual evidence. Rather, respondent was barred merely from introducing expert opinion testimony to bolster his own credibility. Moreover, in contrast to the rule at issue in Rock, Rule 707 did not prohibit respondent from testifying on his own behalf; he freely exercised his choice to convey his version of the facts to the court-martial members. We therefore cannot conclude that respondent’s defense was significantly impaired by the exclusion of polygraph evidence. Rule 707 is thus constitutional under our precedents.
•I'
For the foregoing reasons, Military Rule of Evidence 707 does not unconstitutionally abridge the right to present a defense. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The OSI examiner asked three relevant questions: (1) “Since you’ve been in the [Air Force], have you used any illegal drugs?”; (2) “Have you lied about any of the drug information you’ve given OSI?”; and (3) “Besides your parents, have you told anyone you’re assisting OSI?” Respondent answered “no” to each question. App. 12.
Article 36 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice authorizes the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, see U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, to promulgate rules of evidence for military courts: “Pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including modes of proof,... may he prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.” 10 U. S. C. § 836(a).
In this Court, respondent cites the Sixth Amendment’s Compulsory Process Clause as the specific constitutional provision supporting his claim. He also briefly contends that the “combined effect” of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments confers upon him the right to a “‘meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense,’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 683, 690 (1986) (citations omitted), and that this light in turn encompasses a constitutional right to present polygraph evidence to holster his credibility.
The words “defendant” and “jury” are used throughout in reference to general principles of law and in discussing nonmilitary precedents. In reference to this ease or to the military specifically, the terms “court,” “court members,” or “court-martial” are used throughout, as is the military term “accused,” rather than the civilian term “defendant.”
These interests, among others, were recognized hy the drafters of Rule 707, who justified the Rule on the following grounds: the risk that court members would be misled by polygraph evidence; the risk that the traditional responsibility of court members to ascertain the facts and adjudge guilt or innocence would be usurped; the danger that confusion of the issues “‘could result in the court-martial degenerating into a trial of the polygraph machine;’ ” the likely waste of time on collateral issues; and the fact that the ‘“reliability of polygraph evidence has not been sufficiently established.’” See 41 M. J. 683, 686 (USAR Ct. Crim. App. 1995) (citing Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Analysis of the Military Rules of Evidence, App. 22, p. A22-46 (1994 ed.)).
The United States notes that in 1983 Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment evaluated all available studies on the reliability of polygraphs and concluded that “'[ojverall, the cumulative research evidence suggests that when used in criminal investigations, the polygraph test detects deception better than chance, but with error rates that could be considered significant.’ ” Brief for United States 21 (quoting U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation — A Technical Memorandum 5 (OTA-TM-H-15, Nov. 1983)). Respondent, however, contends current research shows polygraph testing is reliable more than 90 percent of the time. Brief for Respondent 22, and n. 19 (citing J. Matte, Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph 121-129 (1996)). Even if the basic debate about the reliability of polygraph technology itself were resolved, however, there would still be controversy over the efficacy of countermeasures, or deliberately adopted strategies that a polygraph examinee can employ to provoke physiological responses that will obscure accurate readings and thus “fool” the polygraph machine and the examiner. See, e.g., lacono & Lykken §14-3.0.
Until quite recently, federal and state courts were uniform in categorically ruling polygraph evidence inadmissible under the test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (CADO 1923), which held that scientific evidence must gain the general acceptance of the relevant expert community to be admissible. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), we held that Frye had been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence and that expert testimony could be admitted if the district court deemed it both relevant and reliable.
Prior to Daubert, neither federal nor state courts found any Sixth Amendment obstacle to the categorical rule. See, e. g., Bashor v. Risley, 730 F. 2d 1228, 1238 (CA9), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 838 (1984); People v. Price, 1 Cal. 4th 324, 419-420, 821 P. 2d 610, 663 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 851 (1992). Nothing in Daubert foreclosed, as a constitutional matter, per se exclusionary rules for certain types of expert or scientific evidence. It would be an odd inversion of our hierarchy of laws if altering or interpreting a rule of evidence worked a corresponding change in the meaning of the Constitution.
Respondent argues that because the Government — and in particular the Department of Defense — routinely uses polygraph testing, the Government must consider polygraphs reliable. Governmental use of polygraph tests, however, is primarily in the field of personnel screening, and to a lesser extent as a tool in criminal and intelligence investigations, but not as evidence at trials. See Brief for United States 34, n. 17; Barland, The Polygraph Test in the USA and Elsewhere, in The Polygraph Test 76 (A. Gale ed. 1988). Such limited, out of court uses of polygraph techniques obviously differ in character from, and carry less severe consequences than, the use of polygraphs as evidence in a criminal trial. They do not establish the reliability of polygraphs as trial evidence, and they do not invalidate reliability as a valid concern supporting Rule 707’s categorical ban.
The examiner interprets various physiological responses of the exami-nee, including blood pressure, perspiration, and respiration, while asking a series of questions, commonly in three categories: direct accusatory questions concerning the matter under investigation, irrelevant or neutral questions, and more general “control” questions concerning wrongdoing by the subject in general. The examiner forms an opinion of the subject’s truthfulness by comparing the physiological reactions to each set of questions. See generally Giannelli & Imwinkelried 219-222; Honts & Quick, The Polygraph in 1995: Progress in Science and the Law, 71 N. L. L. Rev. 987, 990-992 (1995).
Although some of this litigation could take place outside the presence of the jury, at the very least a foundation must be laid for the jury to assess the qualifications and skill of the polygrapher and the validity of the exam, and significant cross-examination could occur on these issues.
Although the Court of Appeals stated that it had "merely remove[d] the obstacle of the per se rule against admissibility” of polygraph evidence in cases where the accused wishes to proffer an exculpatory polygraph to rebut an attack on his credibility, 44 M. J. 442, 446 (1996), and respondent thus implicitly argues that the Constitution would require collateral litigation only in such cases, we cannot see a principled justification whereby a right derived from the Constitution could be so narrowly contained.
In addition, we noted that the State of Texas could advance no legitimate interests in support of the evidentiary rules at issue, and those rules burdened only the defense and not the prosecution. See 388 U. S., at 22-23. Rule 707 suffers from neither of these defects.
The dissent suggests, post, at 331, that polygraph results constitute “factual evidence.” The raw results of a polygraph exam — the subject’s pulse, respiration, and perspiration rates — may be factual data, but these are not introduced at trial, and even if they were, they would not be “facts” about the alleged crime at hand. Rather, the evidence introduced is the expert opinion testimony of the polygrapher about whether the subject was truthful or deceptive in answering questions about the alleged crime. A per se rule excluding polygraph results therefore does not prevent an accused — just as it did not prevent respondent here — from introducing factual evidence or testimony about the crime itself, such as alibi witness testimony, see ibid. For the same reasons, an expert poly-grapher’s interpretation of polygraph results is not evidence of “‘the accused’s whole conduct,’ ” see post, at 336, to which Dean Wigmore referred. It is not evidence of the “‘accused’s ... conduct’” at all, much less “conduct” concerning the actual crime at issue. It is merely the opinion of a witness with no knowledge about any of the facts surrounding the alleged crime, concerning whether the defendant spoke truthfully or deceptively on another occasion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioners were convicted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Fla., of publishing certain comic strips and pictures in violation of the Florida obscenity statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed. In April 1975, we granted certiorari and summarily reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, citing Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153 (1974), and Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U. S. 229 (1972).
The Supreme Court of Florida sent the case to the trial court “for further proceedings in which the standards established in Miller v. California can be applied.” Petitioners thereupon applied to us for a writ of mandamus directing respondents “to vacate and expunge from the record” the opinion and mandate on remand of the Supreme Court of Florida. They complained that, in subjecting them to a second trial, the state court ignored this Court’s determination that the published materials were not obscene.
On November 4, 1975, while petitioners’ request for mandamus was pending before us, the State Attorney of Palm Beach County, at the. direction of the State’s Attorney General, nolle prossed the charges. Florida follows the common law with respect to nolle prosequi and vests in its Attorney General exclusive discretion to determine that the State is “unwilling to prosecute.” See 9 Fla. Jur., Criminal Law §378 (1972). Nolle prosequi, if entered before jeopardy attaches, neither operates as an acquittal nor prevents further prosecution of the offense. See id., § 438; Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203 (1939). We are informed by the Florida Attorney General that, in the instant case, Florida’s speedy-trial rule precludes renewed prosecution of petitioners. Therefore, the threatened injury which impelled petitioners to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction would appear to be obviated. But, petitioners take the position that the entry of the nolle prosequi does not eliminate the necessity that we act to insure that the Supreme Court of Florida will conform its decision to the determination reached in this Court.
Petitioners further contend that in these circumstances the prosecutor’s exercise of discretionary authority to forgo further prosecution serves to deprive them of the exoneration to which this Court’s reversal otherwise entitles them. They find support for this claim in the language of the nolle prosequi itself, which is, presumably, now a part of the permanent trial court record in this case. That document erroneously suggests that further proceedings applying Miller standards were ordered by this Court. It also suggests that the State had become unwilling to prosecute solely as a result of the passage of time. We agree with petitioners that nothing in the state-court record, as it now stands, recognizes that the State was foreclosed by this Court’s decision from seeking to convict petitioners of obscenity violations. We are unable to dismiss as insignificant petitioners’ plaint that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, as it now stands, obscures this Court’s favorable adjudication on the merits — an adjudication which requires full recognition by the state courts in order effectively to dispel any opprobrium resulting from the accusation of obscenity.
Observation of the disposition of this case following our summary reversal reveals that the Supreme Court of Florida has attributed to this Court a decision which it never made. Further proceedings pursuant to the information charging petitioners with violating Florida’s obscenity statute were clearly foreclosed. In that circumstance, the state court’s failure to give effect to that judgment was not cured by the intervening exercise of prose-cutorial discretion. Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Supreme Court of Florida to conform its decision to our mandate is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Florida will conform to the disposition we now make, we do not now issue the writ of mandamus. Deen v. Hickman, 358 U. S. 57 (1958).
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 847.011 (Supp. 1975).
Bucolo v. State, 303 So. 2d 329 (1974).
Bucolo v. Florida, 421 U. S. 927.
4 413 U. S. 15 (1973).
Bucolo v. State, 316 So. 2d 551 (1975).
In his response to petitioners’ request for mandamus, the Attorney General of Florida concedes that “there is no question but that this Court in reversing [petitioners’ conviction on April 21, 1975, by referring to [Jenkins and Kois], conclusively determined that the materials disseminated by petitioners were not obscene as a matter of law.” He urges us, however, to deny relief on other grounds.
Petitioners direct our attention to the document filed by the prosecutor in support of his decision to nolle prosse the charges. It contains the following notation:
“SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- REMANDED THIS CASE UNDER GUIDELINES OF MILLER V. CALIFORNIA. THIS CASE NOLLE PROSSED USING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION REGARDING ITS AGE AND LOCATION OF WITNESSES.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Stevens, and Justice Breyer join.
In this case we consider whether the Commonwealth of Virginia’s statute banning cross burning with “an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons” violates the First Amendment. Va. Code Ann. §18.2-423 (1996). We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form.
I
Respondents Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and Jonathan O’Mara were convicted separately of violating Virginia’s cross-burning statute, § 18.2-423. That statute provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
“Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.”
On August 22, 1998, Barry Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally in Carroll County, Virginia. Twenty-five to thirty people attended this gathering, which occurred on private property with the permission of the owner, who was in attendance. The property was located on an open field just off Brushy Fork Road (State Highway 690) in Cana, Virginia.
When the sheriff of Carroll County learned that a Klan rally was occurring in his county, he went to observe it from the side of the road. During the approximately one hour that the sheriff was present, about 40 to 50 cars passed the site, a “few” of which stopped to ask the sheriff what was happening on the property. App. 71. Eight to ten houses were located in the vicinity of the rally. Rebecca Seehrist, who was related to the owner of the property where the rally took place, “sat and watched to see wha[t] [was] going on” from the lawn of her in-laws’ house. She looked on as the Klan prepared for the gathering and subsequently conducted the rally itself. Id., at 103.
During the rally, Seehrist heard Klan members speak about “what they were” and “what they believed in.” Id., at 106. The speakers “talked real bad about the blacks and the Mexicans.” Id., at 109. One speaker told the assembled gathering that “he would love to take a.30/.30 and just random[ly] shoot the blacks.” Ibid. The speakers also talked about “President Clinton and Hillary Clinton,” and about how their tax money “goes to... the black people.” Ibid. Sechrist testified that this language made her “very... scared.” Id., at 110.
At the conclusion of the rally, the crowd circled around a 25- to 30-foot cross. The cross was between 300 and 350 yards away from the road. According to the sheriff, the cross “then all of a sudden... went up in a flame.” Id., at 71. As the cross burned, the Klan played Amazing Grace over the loudspeakers. Sechrist stated that the cross burning made her feel “awful” and “terrible.” Id., at 110.
When the sheriff observed the cross burning, he informed his deputy that they needed to “find out who’s responsible and explain to them that they cannot do this in the State of Virginia.” Id., at 72. The sheriff then went down the driveway, entered the rally, and asked “who was responsible for burning the cross.” Id., at 74. Black responded, “I guess I am because I’m the head of the rally.” Ibid. The sheriff then told Black, “[Tjhere’s a law in the State of Virginia that you cannot burn a cross and I’ll have to place you under arrest for this.” Ibid.
Black was charged with burning a cross with the intent of intimidating a person or group of persons, in violation of § 18.2-423. At his trial, the jury was instructed that “intent to intimidate means the motivation to intentionally put a person or a group of persons in fear of bodily harm. Such fear must arise from the willful conduct of the accused rather than from some mere temperamental timidity of the victim.” Id., at 146. The trial court also instructed the jury that “the burning of a cross by itself is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent.” Ibid. When Black objected to this last instruction on First Amendment grounds, the prosecutor responded that the instruction was “taken straight out of the [Virginia] Model Instructions.” Id., at 134. The jury found Black guilty, and fined him $2,500. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed Black’s conviction. Rec. No. 1581-99-3 (Va. App., Dec. 19, 2000), App. 201.
On May 2,1998, respondents Richard Elliott and Jonathan O’Mara, as well as a third individual, attempted to burn a cross on the yard of James Jubilee. Jubilee, an African-American, was Elliott’s next-door neighbor in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Four months prior to the incident, Jubilee and his family had moved from California to Virginia Beach. Before the cross burning, Jubilee spoke to Elliott’s mother to inquire about shots being fired from behind the Elliott home. Elliott’s mother explained to Jubilee that her son shot firearms as a hobby, and that he used the backyard as a firing range.
On the night of May 2, respondents drove a truck onto Jubilee’s property, planted a cross, and set it on fire. Their apparent motive was to “get back” at Jubilee for complaining about the shooting in the backyard. Id., at 241. Respondents were not affiliated with the Klan. The next morning, as Jubilee was pulling his car out of the driveway, he noticed the partially burned cross approximately 20 feet from his house. After seeing the cross, Jubilee was “very nervous” because he “didn’t know what would be the next phase,” and because “a cross burned in your yard... tells you that it’s just the first round.” Id., at 231.
Elliott and O’Mara were charged with attempted cross burning and conspiracy to commit cross burning. O’Mara pleaded guilty to both counts, reserving the right to challenge the constitutionality of the cross-burning statute. The judge sentenced O’Mara to 90 days in jail and fined him $2,500. The judge also suspended 45 days of the sentence and $1,000 of the fine.
At Elliott’s trial, the judge originally ruled that the jury would be instructed “that the burning of a cross by itself is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent.” Id., at 221-222. At trial, however, the court instructed the jury that the Commonwealth must prove that “the defendant intended to commit cross burning,” that “the defendant did a direct act toward the commission of the cross burning,” and that “the defendant had the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons.” Id., at 250. The court did not instruct the jury on the meaning of the word “intimidate,” nor on the prima facie evidence provision of § 18.2-423. The jury found Elliott guilty of attempted cross burning and acquitted him of conspiracy to commit cross burning. It sentenced Elliott to 90 days in jail and a $2,500 fine. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions of both Elliott and O’Mara. O’Mara v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 525, 535 S. E. 2d 175 (2000).
Each respondent appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, arguing that §18.2-423 is facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Virginia consolidated all three cases, and held that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. 262 Va. 764, 553 S. E. 2d 738 (2001). It held that the Virginia cross-burning statute “is analytically indistinguishable from the ordinance found unconstitutional in R. A. V. [v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377 (1992)].” Id., at 772, 553 S. E. 2d, at 742. The Virginia statute, the court held, discriminates on the basis of content since it “selectively chooses only cross burning because of its distinctive message.” Id., at 774, 553 S. E. 2d, at 744. The court also held that the prima facie evidence provision renders the statute overbroad because “[t]he enhanced probability of prosecution under the statute chills the expression of protected speech.” Id., at 777, 553 S. E. 2d, at 746.
Three justices dissented, concluding that the Virginia cross-burning statute passes constitutional muster because it proscribes only conduct that constitutes a true threat. The justices noted that unlike the ordinance found unconstitutional in R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377 (1992), the Virginia statute does not just target cross burning “on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” 262 Va., at 791, 553 S. E. 2d, at 753. Rather, “the Virginia statute applies to any individual who burns a cross for any reason provided the cross is burned with the intent to intimidate.” Ibid. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority’s analysis of the prima facie provision because the inference alone “is clearly insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant burned a cross with the intent to intimidate.” Id., at 795, 553 S. E. 2d, at 756. The dissent noted that the burden of proof still remains on the Commonwealth to prove intent to intimidate. We granted certiorari. 535 U. S. 1094 (2002).
II
Cross burning originated in the 14th century as a means for. Scottish tribes to signal each other. See M. Newton & J. Newton, The Ku Klux Klan: An Encyclopedia 145 (1991). Sir Walter Scott used cross burnings for dramatic effect in The Lady of the Lake, where the burning cross signified both a summons and a call to arms. See W. Scott, The Lady of The Lake, canto third. Cross burning in this country, however, long ago became unmoored from its Scottish ancestry. Burning a cross in the United States is inextricably intertwined with the history of the Ku Klux Klan.
The first Ku Klux Klan began in Pulaski, Tennessee, in the spring of 1866. Although the Ku Klux Klan started as a social club, it soon changed into something far different. The Klan fought Reconstruction and the corresponding drive to allow freed blacks to participate in the political process. Soon the Klan imposed “a veritable reign of terror” throughout the South. S. Kennedy, Southern Exposure 31 (1991) (hereinafter Kennedy). The Klan employed tactics such as whipping, threatening to burn people at the stake, and murder. W. Wade, The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America 48-49 (1987) (hereinafter Wade). The Klan’s victims included blacks, southern whites who disagreed with the Klan, and “carpetbagger” northern whites.
The activities of the Ku Klux Klan prompted legislative action at the national level. In 1871, “President Grant sent a message to Congress indicating that the Klaris reign of terror in the Southern States had rendered life and property insecure.” Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 491 U. S. 701, 722 (1989) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). In response, Congress passed what is now known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. See “An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes,” 17 Stat. 13 (now codified at 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986). President Grant used these new powers to suppress the Klan in South Carolina, the effect of which severely curtailed the Klan in other States as well. By the end of Reconstruction in 1877, the first Klan no longer existed.
The genesis of the second Klan began in 1905, with the publication of Thomas Dixon’s The Clansmen: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan. Dixon’s book was a sympathetic portrait of the first Klan, depicting the Klan as a group of heroes “saving” the South from blacks and the “horrors” of Reconstruction. Although the first Klan never actually practiced cross burning, Dixon’s book depicted the Klan burning crosses to celebrate the execution of former slaves. Id., at 324-326; see also Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 770-771 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring). Cross burning thereby became associated with the first Ku Klux Klan. When D. W. Griffith turned Dixon’s book into the movie The Birth of a Nation in 1915, the association between cross burning and the Klan became indelible. In addition to the cross burnings in the movie, a poster advertising the film displayed a hooded Klansman riding a hooded horse, with his left hand holding the reins of the horse and his right hand holding a burning cross above his head. Wade 127. Soon thereafter, in November 1915, the second Klan began.
From the inception of the second Klan, cross burnings have been used to communicate both threats of violence and messages of shared ideology. The first initiation ceremony occurred on Stone Mountain near Atlanta, Georgia. While a 40-foot cross burned on the mountain, the Klan members took their oaths of loyalty. See Kennedy 163. This cross burning was the second recorded instance in the United States. The first known cross burning in the country had occurred a little over one month before the Klan initiation, when a Georgia mob celebrated the lynching of Leo Frank by burning a “gigantic cross” on Stone Mountain that was “visible throughout” Atlanta. Wade 144 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The new Klan’s ideology did not differ much from that of the first Klan. As one Klan publication emphasized, “We avow the distinction between [the] races,... and we shall ever be true to the faithful maintenance of White Supremacy and will strenuously oppose any compromise thereof in any and all things.” Id., at 147-148 (internal quotation marks omitted). Violence was also an elemental part of this new Klan. By September 1921, the New York World newspaper documented 152 acts of Klan violence, including 4 murders, 41 floggings, and 27 tar-and-featherings. Wade 160.
Often, the Klan used cross burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence. For example, in 1939 and 1940, the Klan burned crosses in front of synagogues and churches. See Kennedy 175. After one cross burning at a synagogue, a Klan member noted that if the cross burning did not “shut the Jews up, we’ll cut a few throats and see what happens.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). In Miami in 1941, the Klan burned four crosses in front of a proposed housing project, declaring, “We are here to keep niggers out of your town.... When the law fails you, call on us.” Id., at 176 (internal quotation marks omitted). And in Alabama in 1942, in “a whirlwind climax to weeks of flogging and terror,” the Klan burned crosses in front of a union hall and in front of a union leader’s home on the eve of a labor election. Id., at 180. These cross burnings embodied threats to people whom the Klan deemed antithetical to its goals. And these threats had special force given the long history of Klan violence.
The Klan continued to use cross burnings to intimidate after World War II. In one incident, an African-American “school teacher who recently moved his family into a block formerly occupied only by whites asked the protection of city police... after the burning of a cross in his front yard.” Richmond News Leader, Jan. 21,1949, p. 19, App. 312. And after a cross burning in Suffolk, Virginia, during the late 1940’s, the Virginia Governor stated that he would “not allow any of our people of any race to be subjected to terrorism or intimidation in any form by the Klan or any other organization.” D. Chalmers, Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan 333 (1980) (hereinafter Chalmers). These incidents of cross burning, among others, helped prompt Virginia to enact its first version of the cross-burning statute in 1950.
The decision of this Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), along with the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, sparked another outbreak of Klan violence. These acts of violence included bombings, beatings, shootings, stabbings, and mutilations. See, e. g., Chalmers 349-350; Wade 302-303. Members of the Klan burned crosses on the lawns of those associated with the civil rights movement, assaulted the Freedom Riders, bombed churches, and murdered blacks as well as whites whom the Klan viewed as sympathetic toward the civil rights movement.
Throughout the history of the Klan, cross burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology. The burning cross became a symbol of the Klan itself and a central feature of Klan gatherings. According to the Klan constitution (called the kloran), the “fiery cross” was the “emblem of that sincere, unselfish devotedness of all klansmen to the sacred purpose and principles we have espoused.” The Ku Klux Klan Hearings before the House Committee on Rules, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 114, Exh. G (1921); see also Wade 419. And the Klan has often published its newsletters and magazines under the name The Fiery Cross. See id., at 226, 489.
At Klan gatherings across the country, cross burning became the climax of the rally or the initiation. Posters advertising an upcoming Klan rally often featured a Klan member holding a cross. See N. MacLean, Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan 142-143 (1994). Typically, a cross burning would start with a prayer by the “Klavern” minister, followed by the singing of Onward Christian Soldiers. The Klan would then light the cross on fire, as the members raised their left arm toward the burning cross and sang The Old Rugged Cross. Wade 185. Throughout the Klan’s history, the Klan continued to use the burning cross in their ritual ceremonies.
For its own members, the cross was a sign of celebration and ceremony. During a joint Nazi-Klan rally in 1940, the proceeding concluded with the wedding of two Klan members who “were married in full Klan regalia beneath a blazing cross.” Id., at 271. In response to antimasking bills introduced in state legislatures after World War II, the Klan burned crosses in protest. See Chalmers 340. On March 26, 1960, the Klan engaged in rallies and cross burnings throughout the South in an attempt to recruit 10 million members. See Wade 305. Later in 1960, the Klan became an issue in the third debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, with both candidates renouncing the Klan. After this debate, the Klan reiterated its support for Nixon by burning crosses. See id., at 309. And cross burnings featured prominently in Klan rallies when the Klan attempted to move toward more nonviolent tactics to stop integration. See id., at 323; cf. Chalmers 368-369, 371-372, 380, 384. In short, a burning cross has remained a symbol of Klan ideology and of Klan unity.
To this day, regardless of whether the message is a political one or whether the message is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a “symbol of hate.” Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S., at 771 (Thomas, J., concurring). And while cross burning sometimes carries no intimidating message, at other times the intimidating message is the only message conveyed. For example, when a cross burning is directed at a particular person not affiliated with the Klan, the burning cross often serves as a message of intimidation, designed to inspire in the victim a fear of bodily harm. Moreover, the history of violence associated with the Klan shows that the possibility of injury or death is not just hypothetical. The person who burns a cross directed at a particular person often is making a serious threat, meant to coerce the victim to comply with the Klan’s wishes unless the victim is willing to risk the wrath of the Klan. Indeed, as the cases of respondents Elliott and O’Mara indicate, individuals without Klan affiliation who wish to threaten or menace another person sometimes use cross burning because of this association between a burning cross and violence.
In sum, while a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful.
III
A
The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.” The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow “free trade in ideas” — even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting. Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); see also Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989) (“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”). Thus, the First Amendment “ordinarily” denies a State “the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 374 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). The First Amendment affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct as well as to actual speech. See, e. g., R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U. S., at 382; Texas v. Johnson, supra, at 405-406; United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1968); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 505 (1969).
The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e. g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942) (“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”). The First Amendment permits “restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are ‘of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.’ ” R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 382-383 (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572).
Thus, for example, a State may punish those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572; see also R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 383 (listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech). We have consequently held that fighting words — “those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction” — are generally proscribable under the First Amendment. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572. Furthermore, “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam). And the First Amendment also permits a State to ban a “true threat.” Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (1969) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord, R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 388 (“[T]hreats of violence are outside the First Amendment”); Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753, 774 (1994); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U. S. 357, 373 (1997).
“True threats” encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. See Watts v. United States, supra, at 708 (“political hyberbole” is not a true threat); R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U. S., at 388. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats “protects] individuals from the fear of violence” and “from the disruption that fear engenders,” in addition to protecting people “from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.” Ibid. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so. As noted in Part II, supra, the history of cross burning in this country shows that cross burning is often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence.
B
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that in light of R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, even if it is constitutional to ban cross burning in a content-neutral manner, the Virginia cross-burning statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint. 262 Va., at 771-776, 553 S. E. 2d, at 742-745. It is true, as the Supreme Court of Virginia held, that the burning of a cross is symbolic expression. The reason why the Klan burns a cross at its rallies, or individuals place a burning cross on someone else’s lawn, is that the burning cross represents the message that the speaker wishes to communicate. Individuals burn crosses as opposed to other means of communication because cross burning carries a message in an effective and dramatic manner.
The fact that cross burning is symbolic expression, however, does not resolve the constitutional question. The Supreme Court of Virginia relied upon R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, to conclude that once a statute discriminates on the basis of this type of content, the law is unconstitutional. We disagree.
In R. A. V., we held that a local ordinance that banned certain symbolic conduct, including cross burning, when done with the knowledge that such conduct would “ ‘arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender’ ” was unconstitutional. Id., at 380 (quoting the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code §292.02 (1990)). We held that the ordinance did not pass constitutional muster because it discriminated on the basis of content by targeting only those individuals who “provoke violence” on a basis specified in the law. 505 U. S., at 391. The ordinance did not cover “[t]hose who wish to use ‘fighting words’ in connection with other ideas — to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality.” Ibid. This content-based discrimination was unconstitutional because it allowed the city “to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.” Ibid.
We did not hold in R. A. V. that the First Amendment prohibits all forms of content-based discrimination within a proscribable area of speech. Rather, we specifically stated that some types of content discrimination did not violate the First Amendment:
“When the basis for the content discrimination consists entirely of the very reason the entire class of speech at issue is proscribable, no significant danger of idea or viewpoint discrimination exists. Such a reason, having been adjudged neutral enough to support exclusion of the entire class of speech from First Amendment protection, is also neutral enough to form the basis of distinction within the class.” Id., at 388.
Indeed, we noted that it would be constitutional to ban only a particular type of threat: “[T]he Federal Government can criminalize only those threats of violence that are directed against the President... since the reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment... have special force when applied to the person of the President.” Ibid. And a State may “choose to prohibit only that obscenity which is the most patently offensive in its 'prurience — i. e., that which involves the most lascivious displays of sexual activity.” Ibid, (emphasis in original). Consequently, while the holding of R. A. V. does not permit a State to ban only obscenity based on “offensive political messages,” ibid., or “only those threats against the President that mention his policy on aid to inner cities,” ibid., the First Amendment permits content discrimination “based on the very reasons why the particular class of speech at issue... is proscribable,” id., at 393.
Similarly, Virginia’s statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment insofar as it bans cross burning with intent to intimidate. Unlike the statute at issue in R. A. V., the Virginia statute does not single out for opprobrium only that speech directed toward “one of the specified disfavored topics.” Id., at 391. It does not matter whether an individual burns a cross with intent to intimidate because of the victim’s race, gender, or religion, or because of the victim’s “political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality.” Ibid. Moreover, as a factual matter it is not true that cross burners direct their intimidating conduct solely to racial or religious minorities. See, e. g., supra, at 355 (noting the instances of cross burnings directed at union members); State v. Miller, 6 Kan. App. 2d 432, 629 P. 2d 748 (1981) (describing the ease of a defendant who burned a cross in the yard of the lawyer who had previously represented him and who was currently prosecuting him). Indeed, in the case of Elliott and O’Mara, it is at least unclear whether the respondents burned a cross due to racial animus. See 262 Va., at 791, 553 S. E. 2d, at 753 (Hassell, J., dissenting) (noting that “these defendants burned a cross because they were angry that their neighbor had complained about the presence of a firearm shooting range in the Elliott’s yard, not because of any racial animus”).
The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burning’s long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Thus, just as a State may regulate only that obscenity which is the most obscene due to its prurient content, so too may a State choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm. A ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is fully consistent with our holding in R. A. V. and is proscribable under the First Amendment.
>
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled in the alternative that Virginia’s cross-burning statute was unconstitutionally overbroad due to its provision stating that “[a]ny such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.” Va. Code Ann. §18.2-423 (1996). The Commonwealth added the prima facie provision to the statute in 1968. The court below did not reach whether this provision is severable from the rest of the cross-burning statute under Virginia law. See § 1-17.1 (“The provisions of all statutes are severable unless... it is apparent that two or more statutes or provisions must operate in accord with one another”). In this Court, as in the Supreme Court of Virginia, respondents do not argue that the prima facie evidence provision is unconstitutional as applied to any one of them. Rather, they contend that the provision is unconstitutional on its face.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has not ruled on the mean-' ing of the prima facie evidence provision. It has, however, stated that “the act of burning a cross alone, with no evidence of intent to intimidate, will nonetheless suffice for arrest and prosecution and will insulate the Commonwealth from- a motion to strike the evidence at the end of its case-in-chief.” 262 Va., at 778, 553 S. E. 2d, at 746. The jury in the case of Richard Elliott did not receive any instruction on the prima facie evidence provision, and the provision was not an issue in the case of Jonathan O’Mara because he pleaded guilty. The court in Barry Black’s case, however, instructed the jury that the provision means: “The burning of a cross, by itself, is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent.” App. 196. This jury instruction is the same as the Model Jury Instruction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. See Virginia Model Jury Instructions, Criminal, Instruction No. 10.250 (1998 and Supp. 2001).
The prima facie evidence provision, as interpreted by the jury instruction, renders the statute unconstitutional. Because this jury instruction is the Model Jury Instruction, and because the Supreme Court of Virginia had the opportunity to expressly disavow the jury instruction, the jury instruction’s construction of the prima facie provision “is a ruling on a question of state law that is as binding on us as though the precise words had been written into” the statute. E. g., Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949) (striking down an ambiguous
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Robert Williams was convicted in a Connecticut state court of illegal possession of a handgun found during a “stop and frisk,” as well as of possession of heroin that was found during a full search incident to his weapons arrest. After respondent’s conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, 157 Conn. 114, 249 A. 2d 245 (1968), this Court denied certiorari. 395 U. S. 927 (1969). Williams’ petition for federal habeas corpus relief was denied by the District Court and by a divided panel of the Second Circuit, 436 F. 2d 30 (1970), but on rehearing en banc the Court of Appeals granted relief. 441 F. 2d 394 (1971). That court held that evidence introduced at Williams> trial had been obtained by an unlawful search of his person and car, and thus the state court judgments of conviction should be set aside. Since we conclude that the policeman’s actions here conformed to the, standards this Court laid down in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), we reverse.
Police Sgt. John Connolly was alone early in the morning on car patrol duty in a high-crime area of Bridgeport, Connecticut. At approximately 2:15 a.m. a person known to Sgt. Connolly approached his cruiser and informed him that an individual seated, in a nearby vehicle was carrying narcotics and had a gun at his waist.
After calling for assistance on his car radio, Sgt. Connolly approached the vehicle to investigate the informant’s report. Connolly tapped on the car window and asked the occupant, Robert Williams, to open the door. When Williams rolled down the window instead, the sergeant reached into the car and removed a fully loaded revolver from Williams’ waistband. The gun had not been visible to Connolly from outside the car, but it was in precisely the place indicated by the informant. Williams was then arrested by Connolly for unlawful possession of the pistol. A search incident to that arrest was conducted after other officers arrived. They found substantial quantities of heroin on Williams’ person and in the car, and they found a machete and a second revolver hidden in the automobile.
Respondent contends that the initial seizure of his pistol,, upon which rested the later search and seizure of other weapons and narcotics, was not justified by the informant’s tip to Sgt. Connolly. He claims that absent a more reliable informant, or some corroboration of the tip, the policeman’s actions were unreasonable under the standards set forth in Terry v. Ohio, supra.
In Terry this Court recognized that “a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” Id., at 22. The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necéssary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. See id., at 23. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the' time. Id., at 21-22; see Gaines v. Craven, 448 F. 2d 1236 (CA9 1971); United States v. Unverzagt, 424 F. 2d 396 (CA8 1970).
The Court recognized in Terry that the policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect. “When an officer is justified in. believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others,” he may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. 392 U. S., at 24. The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dan-gérous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose. Id., at 30.
Applying' these principles to the present case, we believe that Sgt. Connolly acted justifiably in responding to his informant’s tip. The informant was known to him personally and had provided him with information in the past. This is a stronger case than obtains in the case of an anonymous telephone tip. The informant here came forward personally to give information that was immediately verifiable at the scene. Indeed, under Connecticut law, the informant might have been subject to immediate arrest for making a false complaint had Sgt. Connolly’s investigation proved the tip incorrect. Thus, while the Court’s decisions indicate that this informant’s unverified tip may have been insufficient for a narcotics arrest or search warrant, see, ,e. g., Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), the information carried enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer’s forcible stop of Williams.
In reaching this conclusion, we reject respondent’s argument that reasonable cause, for a stop and frisk can only be based on the officer’s personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person. Informants’ tips, like all other clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, may vary greatly in their value and reliability. One simple rule will not cover, every sitüation. Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized. But in some situations — for example, when the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police aid and gives a description of his assailant, or when a credible informant warns of a specific impending crime — the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response.
While properly investigating the activity of a person who was reported to be carrying narcotics and a concealed weapon and who was sitting alone in a.car in a high-crime area at 2:15 in the morning, Sgt. Connolly had ample reason to fear for his safety. When Williams rolled down his window, rather than complying with the policeman’s request to step out of the car so that his movements could more easily be seen, the revolver allegedly at Williams’ waist became an even greater threat. Under these circumstances the policeman’s action in reaching to the spot where the gun was thought to be hidden constituted a limited intrusion designed to insure his safety, and we conclude that it was reasonable. The loaded gun seized as a result of this intrusion was therefore admissible at Williams’ trial. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 30.
Once Sgt. Connolly had found the gun precisely where the informant had predicted, probable cause existed to arrest Williams for unlawful possession of the weapon. Probable cause to arrest depends “upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made . . . the facts and circumstances within [the arresting officers’]- knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing-that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (1964). In the present case the policeman found Williams in possession of a gun in precisely the place predicted by the informant. This tended to corroborate the reliability of the informant’s further report of narcotics and, together with the surrounding' circumstances, certainly suggested no lawful explanation for possession of the gun. Probable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction. See Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307, 311-312 (1959). Rather, the court will evaluate generally the circumstances at the time of the arrest to decide if the officer had probable cause for his action:
“In dealing with probable cause, however, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175 (1949).
See also id., at 177. Under the circumstances surrounding Williams’ possession of the gun seized by Sgt. Connolly, the arrest on the weapons charge was supported by probable cause, and the search of his person and of the car incident to that arrest was lawful. See Brinegar v. United States, supra; Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925). The fruits of the search were therefore properly admitted at Williams’ trial, and the Court of Appeals erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.
Reversed.
Petitioner does not contend that Williams acted voluntarily in rolling down the window of his car.
Section 53-168 of the Connecticut General Statutes, in force at the time of these events, provided that a “person who knowingly makes to any police officer ... a false report or a false complaint alleging that a crime or crimes have been committed” is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Figures reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate that 125 policemen were murdered in 1971, with all but five of them having been killed by gunshot wounds. Federal Bureau of Investigation .Law Enforcement Bulletin, Feb. 1972, p. 33. According to one study, approximately 30% of police shootings ' occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated' in an automobile. Bristow, Police Officer Shootings — A Tactical Evaluation, 54 J. Crim. L. C. & P. S. 93. (1963).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner is in custody of the State of Michigan under a sentence of life imprisonment for first-degree murder, confirmed upon collateral attack by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan, here challenged. He claims that he was deprived of his right to counsel to the extent that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment secures that right. The generalizations that are relevant to such a claim no longer call for elaboration. They have been set forth in a series of recent opinions. It is now settled that, as to its administration of criminal justice, a State’s duty to provide counsel, so far as the United States Constitution imposes it, is but one aspect of the comprehending guaranty of the Due Process Clause of a fair hearing on an accusation, including adequate opportunity to meet it. And so we turn to the facts of this case.
By information filed in the Circuit Court for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, on July 16, 1937, Charles Quicksall, the petitioner, was charged with the murder of one Grace Parker. She was a married woman, and Quicksall was her paramour. Petitioner had been a hospital patient, under police guard, between the time of Mrs. Parker’s death on July 2 and July 15, when he was taken before the Municipal Justice Court where, after waiving examination, he was bound over for trial. On arraignment the next day before the Kalamazoo Circuit Court he pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. There is no evidence that at the time of his plea petitioner requested counsel or that appointed counsel was offered him. The circumstances attending the plea were thus formally stated by the judge who received it:
“The record may show that this respondent [petitioner] has just offered to plead guilty and has pleaded guilty to a charge of murder; that after a full statement by the respondent in response to numerous questions by the Court in open Court and after a private interview with respondent at chambers, in both of which he has freely and frankly discussed the details of this homicide as claimed by him, the Court being clearly satisfied that the plea of guilty is made freely, understandingly and voluntarily, an order has been entered accepting such plea of guilty.”
As required by the local law, the court then proceeded to inquire into the degree of crime. Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.550 (Henderson 1938). The course of this inquiry is shown by a summary of what developed. Quicksall, who was forty-four years old at the time, had been married and divorced twice. He had served penitentiary-terms in Ohio and Michigan. He had lived with the Parkers in Ohio and in Kalamazoo, and he had become “intimate” with Mrs. Parker. She and Quicksall had made an agreement that if they “ever got caught” in their “unlawful intimate relationship” they “would die together.” About a week before Mrs. Parker’s death on July 2, petitioner was asked by her husband to leave his house, but on that day, at Mrs. Parker’s request, he returned to see her. She told him that her husband had threatened to leave and divorce her, and she asked Quicksall to keep their agreement to die together. Thereupon she produced a revolver, and petitioner shot her and then himself. Neighbors who reached the Parker house shortly thereafter saw Mrs. Parker, very near death, lying on a bed, with a revolver near her. On being asked who shot her, she replied, “Charley did.” Petitioner was lying on the floor, unconscious, next to the bed. A deputy sheriff who searched the premises found a note on the dresser in the bedroom reading: “July 2, 1937. I am dying, Grace and I together, because we cannot live apart. Charles Quicksall.”
At the conclusion of these proceedings the court stated:
“In this case, the respondent [petitioner] having been arraigned on the information charging him with murder, and having pleaded guilty thereto and said plea of guilty having been accepted by the Court, after an exhaustive interview with the respondent both in open Court and at chambers, and the Court having proceeded with an examination of witnesses to determine the degree of the crime, after hearing the testimony of the witnesses Horace Cobb, Jessie Pierce, Cora Ketter and Charles Conner, and the testimony of the respondent, himself, unsworn, regarding the circumstances of this crime, and it appearing from the testimony of such witnesses and from the statement of the respondent that the killing was deliberate and premeditated, and under the testimony of the respondent himself that it was in pursuance of a suicide pact, so-called, the Court finds and determines that respondent is guilty of murder in the first degree, and it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that respondent be and he is guilty of murder in the first degree.”
Michigan, as is well known, having long ago abolished capital punishment, Quicksall was sentenced to solitary confinement at hard labor for life. Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.548 (Henderson 1938).
Almost ten years after his sentence, on April 18, 1947, the petitioner asked the Circuit Court for Kalamazoo County to vacate it and to grant him a new trial. He claimed the sentence had a constitutional infirmity in that he did not have the assistance of counsel and was prevented from communicating with counsel of his choice while he was hospitalized. He also claimed that his plea of guilty had been induced by misrepresentations on the part of the prosecuting attorney and the sheriff who, he asserted, had told him that the charge against him was manslaughter for which his sentence would be from two to fifteen years.
The motion to vacate the sentence was heard before the same judge who had received his plea of guilty and sentenced him. Petitioner was asked whether he desired to have a lawyer in this proceeding, and he replied that he did not: “Well, your Honor, it took me a long time to prepare the motion, and I figure that I would be just as well qualified to present it myself.” In answering questions propounded by the judge, petitioner admitted that he knew he had been bound over on a murder charge. He also recalled that after the judge had informed him that his guilt had been determined to be of murder in the first degree he was given full opportunity to say what he had to say before sentence was imposed, but had nothing to say. Cf. Canizio v. New York, 327 U. S. 82. However, he professed not to be able to recall details of the proceedings because of illness at the time. A deputy sheriff who had guarded petitioner during his hospitalization after the shooting testified that on the following day petitioner had said to him: “How long will I have to lay here? I wish to Christ it had taken effect on me like it did on her. If I get over this it will mean life for me anyway.” Notes made contemporaneously supported this testimony. The prosecuting attorney at the time of sentencing was by reason of paralysis unavailable as a witness. The sheriff testified that neither he nor the prosecuting attorney, so far as he had knowledge, had refused petitioner permission to communicate with his family, friends, or a lawyer. Petitioner cross-examined the sheriff, but declined to question the deputy sheriff.
The trial judge took no stock in the reconstructing memory of the petitioner and denied his motion. The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed. 322 Mich. 351, 33 N. W. 2d 904. We brought the case here out of a zealous regard for due observance of the safeguards of the Fourteenth Amendment in the enforcement of a State’s penal code. 336 U. S. 916. The record exacts the holding that the petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of proving such a disregard of fundamental fairness in the imposition of punishment by the State as alone would justify this Court to invalidate the sentence by reason of the Due Process Clause.
Petitioner makes no claim that he did not know of his right to be assisted by counsel, see Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.854 (Henderson 1938), and in view of his “intelligence, his age, and his earlier experiences in court,” the Supreme Court of Michigan rejected the notion that he was not aware of his right to be represented by an attorney. 322 Mich, at 355, 33 N. W. 2d at 906. Cf. Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728, 730. Since the Michigan courts disbelieved petitioner’s allegations that he had not been allowed to communicate with his family, his friends or a lawyer, and no request was made by him for legal aid, the only question is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the failure of the record to show that he was offered counsel offends the Due Process Clause.
At least “when a crime subject to capital punishment is not involved, each case depends on its own facts.” Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 336 U. S. 437, 441; Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 462. To invalidate a plea of guilty the prisoner must establish that “for want of benefit of counsel an ingredient of unfairness actively operated in the process that resulted in his confinement.” Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134, 137; see Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U. S. 773, 781. Here petitioner’s claim that the consequences of his plea of guilty had been misrepresented was disbelieved by the tribunal especially qualified to sit in judgment upon its credibility. See Wade v. Mayo, 334 U. S. 672, 683-84. In the light of what emerged in this proceeding upon a scrutiny of what took place before the same judge ten years earlier, when petitioner’s plea of guilty was tendered and accepted, it would stultify the Due Process Clause to find that any right of the petitioner was infringed by the sentence which he incurred. Foster v. Illinois, supra at 138; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640, 670-74.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455; Canizio v. New York, 327 U. S. 82; Carter v. Illinois, 329 U. S. 173; De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U. S. 663; Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134; Gayes v. New York, 332 U. S. 145; Marino v. Ragen, 332 U. S. 561; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640; Wade v. Mayo, 334 U. S. 672; Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728; Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736; Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437; Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U. S. 773.
Mich. Stat. Ann. §28.1058 (Henderson 1938) provides: “Whenever any person shall plead guilty to an information filed against him in any court, it shall be the duty of the judge of such court, before pronouncing judgment or sentence upon such plea, to become satisfied after such investigation as he may deem necessary for that purpose respecting the nature of the case, and the circumstances of such plea, that said plea was made freely, with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation, and without undue influence. And whenever said judge shall have reason to doubt the truth of such plea of guilty, it shall be his duty to vacate the same, direct a plea of not guilty to be entered and order a trial of the issue thus formed.”
Assertions now made concerning irregularities in the hearing on the degree of the crime were not urged before the Michigan courts. They cannot be considered here for the first time, even as to their supposed bearing on the right to counsel.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we confront the question whether the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852 (codified, as amended, at 42 U. S. C. §§4321-4370f), and the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U. S. C. §§ 7401-7671q, require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to evaluate the environmental effects of cross-border operations of Mexican-domiciled motor carriers, where FMCSA’s promulgation of certain regulations would allow such cross-border operations to occur. Because FMCSA lacks discretion to prevent these cross-border operations, we conclude that these statutes impose no such requirement on FMCSA.
I
Due to the complex statutory and regulatory provisions implicated in this case, we begin with a brief overview of the relevant statutes. We then turn to the factual and procedural background.
A
1
Signed into law on January 1, 1970, NEPA establishes a “national policy [to] encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment,” and was intended to reduce or eliminate environmental damage and to promote “the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to” the United States. 42 U. S. C. §4321. “NEPA itself does not mandate particular results” in order to accomplish these ends. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U. S. 332, 350 (1989). Rather, NEPA imposes only procedural requirements on federal agencies with a particular focus on requiring agencies to undertake anal-yses of the environmental impact of their proposals and actions. See id., at 349-350. At the heart of NEPA is a requirement that federal agencies
“include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—
“(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, “(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
“(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
“(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
“(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” 42 U. S. C. § 4332(2)(C).
This detailed statement is called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), established by NEPA with authority to issue regulations interpreting it, has promulgated regulations to guide federal agencies in determining what actions are subject to that statutory requirement. See 40 CFR §1500.3 (2003). The CEQ regulations allow an agency to prepare a more limited document, an Environmental Assessment (EA), if the agency’s proposed action neither is categorically excluded from the requirement to produce an EIS nor would clearly require the production of an EIS. See §§ 1501.4(aMb). The EA is to be a “concise public document” that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an [EIS].” § 1508.9(a). If, pursuant to the EA, an agency determines that an EIS is not required under applicable CEQ regulations, it must issue a “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI), which briefly presents the reasons why the proposed agency action will not have a significant impact on the human environment. See §§ 1501.4(e), 1508.13.
2
What is known as the CAA became law in 1963, 77 Stat. 392. In 1970, Congress substantially amended the CAA into roughly its current form. 84 Stat. 1713. The 1970 amendments mandated national air quality standards and deadlines for their attainment, while leaving to the States the development of “implementation plan[s]” to comply with the federal standards. Ibid.
In 1977, Congress again amended the CAA, 91 Stat. 749, to prohibit the Federal Government and its agencies from “engaging] in, supporting] in any way or providing] financial assistance for, licensing] or permitting], or approving], any activity which does not conform to [a state] implementation plan.” 42 U. S. C. § 7506(c)(1). The definition of “conformity” includes restrictions on, for instance, “increasing] the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area,” or “delaying] timely attainment of any standard ... in any area.” § 7506(c)(1)(B). These safeguards prevent the Federal Government from interfering with the States’ abilities to comply with the CAA’s requirements.
3
FMCSA, an agency within the Department of Transportation (DOT), is responsible for motor carrier safety and registration. See 49 U. S. C. § 113(f). FMCSA has a variety of statutory mandates, including “ensuring]” safety, §31136, establishing minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers, §31139, and prescribing federal standards for safety inspections of commercial motor vehicles, §31142. Importantly, FMCSA has only limited discretion regarding motor vehicle carrier registration: It must grant registration to all domestic or foreign motor carriers that are “willing and able to comply with” the applicable safety, fitness, and financial-responsibility requirements. § 13902(a)(1). FMCSA has no statutory authority to impose or enforce emissions controls or to establish environmental requirements unrelated to motor carrier safety.
B
We now turn to the factual and procedural background of this case. Before 1982, motor carriers domiciled in Canada and Mexico could obtain certification to operate within the United States from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). In 1982, Congress, concerned about discriminatory treatment of United States motor carriers in Mexico and Canada, enacted a 2-year moratorium on new grants of operating authority. Congress authorized the President to extend the moratorium beyond the 2-year period if Canada or Mexico continued to interfere with United States motor carriers, and also authorized the President to lift or modify the moratorium if he determined that doing so was in the national interest. 49 U. S. C. § 10922(0 (1982 ed.). Although the moratorium on Canadian motor carriers was quickly lifted, the moratorium on Mexican motor carriers remained, and was extended by the President.
In December 1992, the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 32 I. L. M. 605 (1993). As part of NAFTA, the United States agreed to phase out the moratorium and permit Mexican motor carriers to obtain operating authority within the United States’ interior by January 2000. On NAFTA’s effective date (January 1, 1994), the President began to lift the trade moratorium by allowing the licensing of Mexican carriers to provide some bus services in the United States. The President, however, did not continue to ease the moratorium on the timetable specified by NAFTA, as concerns about the adequacy of Mexico’s regulation of motor carrier safety remained.
The Government of Mexico challenged the United States’ implementation of NAFTA’s motor carrier provisions under NAFTA’s dispute-resolution process, and in February 2001, an international arbitration panel determined that the United States’ “blanket refusal” of Mexican motor carrier applications breached the United States’ obligations under NAFTA. App. 279, ¶295. Shortly thereafter, the President made clear his intention to lift the moratorium on Mexican motor carrier certification following the preparation of new regulations governing grants of operating authority to Mexican motor carriers.
In May 2001, FMCSA published for comment proposed rules concerning safety regulation of Mexican motor carriers. One rule (the Application Rule) addressed the establishment of a new application form for Mexican motor carriers that seek authorization to operate within the United States. Another rule (the Safety Monitoring Rule) addressed the establishment of a safety-inspection regime for all Mexican motor carriers that would receive operating authority under the Application Rule.
In December 2001, Congress enacted the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, 115 Stat. 833. Section 350 of this Act, id., at 864, provided that no funds appropriated under the Act could be obligated or expended to review or to process any application by a Mexican motor carrier for authority to operate in the interior of the United States until FMCSA implemented specific application and safety-monitoring requirements for Mexican carriers. Some of these requirements went beyond those proposed by FMCSA in the Application and Safety Monitoring Rules. Congress extended the §350 conditions to appropriations for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004.
In January 2002, acting pursuant to NEPA’s mandates, FMCSA issued a programmatic EA for the proposed Application and Safety Monitoring Rules. FMCSA’s EA evaluated, the environmental impact associated with three separate scenarios: where the President did not lift the moratorium; where the President did but where (contrary to what was legally possible) FMCSA did not issue any new regulations; and the Proposed Action Alternative, where the President would modify the moratorium and where FMCSA would adopt the proposed regulations. The EA considered the environmental impact in the categories of traffic and congestion, public safety and health, air quality, noise, socioeconomic factors, and environmental justice. Vital to the EA’s analysis, however, was the assumption that there would be no change in trade volume between the United States and Mexico due to the issuance of the regulations. FMCSA did note that § 350’s restrictions made it impossible for Mexican motor carriers to operate in the interior of the United States before FMCSA’s issuance of the regulations. But, FMCSA determined that “this and any other associated effects in trade characteristics would be the result of the modification of the moratorium” by the President, not a result of FMCSA’s implementation of the proposed safety regulations. App. 60. Because FMCSA concluded that the entry of the Mexican trucks was not an “effect” of its regulations, it did not consider any environmental impact that might be caused by the increased presence of Mexican trucks within the United States.
The particular environmental effects on which the EA focused, then, were those likely to arise from the increase in the number of roadside inspections of Mexican trucks and buses due to the proposed regulations. The EA concluded that these effects (such as a slight increase in emissions, noise from the trucks, and possible danger to passing motorists) were minor and could be addressed and avoided in the inspections process itself. The EA also noted that the increase of inspection-related emissions would be at least partially offset by the fact that the safety requirements would reduce the number of Mexican trucks operating in the United States. Due to these calculations, the EA concluded that the issuance of the proposed regulations would have no significant impact on the environment, and hence FMCSA, on the same day as it released the EA, issued a FONSI.
On March 19, 2002, FMCSA issued the two interim rules, delaying their effective date until May 3, 2002, to allow public comment on provisions that FMCSA added to satisfy the requirements of §350. In the regulatory preambles, FMCSA relied on its EA and its FONSI to demonstrate compliance with NEPA. FMCSA also addressed the CAA in the preambles, determining that it did not need to perform a “conformity review” of the proposed regulations under 42 U. S. C. § 7506(c)(1) because the increase in emissions from these regulations would fall below the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) threshold levels needed to trigger such a review.
In November 2002, the President lifted the moratorium on qualified Mexican motor carriers. Before this action, however, respondents filed petitions for judicial review of the Application and Safety Monitoring Rules, arguing that the rules were promulgated in violation of NEPA and the CAA. The Court of Appeals agreed with respondents, granted the petitions, and set aside the rules. 316 F. 3d 1002 (CA9 2003).
The Court of Appeals concluded that the EA was deficient because it failed to give adequate consideration to the overall environmental impact of lifting the moratorium on the cross-border operation of Mexican motor carriers. According to the Court of Appeals, FMCSA was required to consider the environmental effects of the entry of Mexican trucks because “the President’s rescission of the moratorium was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ at the time the EA was prepared and the decision not to prepare an EIS was made.” Id., at 1022 (quoting 40 CFR §§1508.7, 1508.8(b) (2003)). Due to this perceived deficiency, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for preparation of a full EIS.
The Court of Appeals also directed FMCSA to prepare a full CAA conformity determination for the challenged regulations. It concluded that FMCSA’s determination that emissions attributable to the challenged rules would be below the threshold levels was not reliable because the agency’s CAA determination reflected the “illusory distinction between the effects of the regulations themselves and the effects of the presidential rescission of the moratorium on Mexican truck entry.” 316 F. 3d, at 1030.
We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1088 (2003), and now reverse.
II
An agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS can be set aside only upon a showing that it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). See also Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U. S. 360, 375-376 (1989); Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S. 390, 412 (1976). Here, FMCSA based its FONSI upon the analysis contained within its EA; respondents argue that the issuance of the FONSI was arbitrary and capricious because the EA’s analysis was flawed. In particular, respondents criticize the EA’s failure to take into account the various environmental effects caused by the increase in cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers.
Under NEPA, an agency is required to provide an EIS only if it will be undertaking a “major Federal actio[n],” which “significantly affect[s] the quality of the human environment.” 42 U. S. C. §4332(2)(C). Under applicable CEQ regulations, “[mjajor Federal action” is defined to “includ[ej actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility.” 40 CFR §1508.18 (2008). “Effects” is defined to “include: (a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place,” and “(b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” §1508.8. Thus, the relevant question is whether the increase in cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, with the correlative release of emissions by Mexican trucks, is an “effect” of FMCSA’s issuance of the Application and Safety Monitoring Rules; if not, FMCSA’s failure to address these effects in its EA did not violate NEPA, ánd so FMCSA’s issuance of a FONSI cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
A
To answer this question, we begin by explaining what this case does not involve. What is not properly before us, despite respondents’ argument to the contrary, see Brief for Respondents 38-41, is any challenge to the EA due to its failure properly to consider possible alternatives to the proposed action (i. e., the issuance of the challenged rules) that would mitigate the environmental impact of the authorization of cross-border operations by Mexican motor carriers. Persons challenging an agency’s compliance with -NEPA must “structure their participation so that it. . . alerts the agency to the [parties’] position and contentions,” in order to allow the agency to give the issue meaningful consideration. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 553 (1978). None of the respondents identified in their comments any rulemaking alternatives beyond those evaluated in the EA, and none urged FMCSA to consider alternatives. Because respondents did not raise these particular objections to the EA, FMCSA was not given the opportunity to examine any proposed alternatives to determine if they were reasonably available. Respondents have therefore forfeited any objeetion to the EA on the ground that it failed adequately to discuss potential alternatives to the proposed action.
Admittedly, the agency bears the primary responsibility to ensure that it complies with NEPA, see ibid., and an EA’s or an EIS’ flaws might be so obvious that there is no need for a commentator to point them out specifically in order to preserve its ability to challenge a proposed action. But that situation is not before us. With respect to FMCSA’s ability to mitigate, respondents can argue only that FMCSA could regulate emissions from Mexican trucks indirectly, through making the safety-registration process more onerous or by removing older, more polluting trucks through more effective enforcement of motor carrier safety standards. But respondents fail to identify any evidence that shows that any effect from these possible actions would be significant, or even noticeable, for air-quality purposes. The connection between enforcement of motor carrier safety and the environmental harms alleged in this case is also tenuous at best. Nor is it clear that FMCSA could, consistent with its limited statutory mandates, reasonably impose on Mexican carriers standards beyond those already required in its proposed regulations.
B
With this point aside, respondents have only one complaint with respect to the EA: It did not take into account the environmental effects of increased cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers. Respondents’ argument that FMCSA was required to consider these effects is simple. Under § 350, FMCSA is barred from expending any funds to process or review any applications by Mexican motor carriers until FMCSA implemented a variety of specific application and safety-monitoring requirements for Mexican carriers. This expenditure bar makes it impossible for any Mexican motor carrier to receive authorization to operate within the United States until FMCSA issued the regulations challenged here. The promulgation, of the regulations, the argument goes, would “caus[e]” the entry of Mexican trucks (and hence also cause any emissions such trucks would produce), and the entry of the trucks is “reasonably foreseeable.” 40 CFR § 1508.8 (2003). Thus, the argument concludes, under the relevant CEQ regulations, FMCSA must take these emissions into account in its E A when evaluating whether to produce an EIS.
Respondents’ argument, however, overlooks a critical feature of this case: FMCSA has no ability to countermand the President’s lifting of the moratorium or otherwise categorically to exclude Mexican motor carriers from operating within the United States. To be sure, §350 did restrict the ability of FMCSA to authorize cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, but Congress did not otherwise modify FMCSA’s statutory mandates. In particular, FMCSA remains subject to the mandate of 49 U. S. C. § 13902(a)(1), that FMCSA “shall register a person to provide transportation ... as a motor carrier if [it] finds that the person is willing and able to comply with” the safety and financial responsibility requirements established by DOT. (Emphasis added.) Under FMCSA’s entirely reasonable reading of this provision, it must certify any motor carrier that can show that it is willing and able to comply with the various substantive requirements for safety and financial responsibility contained in DOT regulations; only the moratorium prevented it from doing so for Mexican motor carriers before 2001. App. 51-55. Thus, upon the lifting of the moratorium, if FMCSA refused to authorize a Mexican motor carrier for cross-border services, where the Mexican motor carrier was willing and able to comply with the various substantive safety and financial responsibilities rules, it would violate § 13902(a)(1).
If it were truly impossible for FMCSA to comply with both § 350 and § 13902(a)(1), then we would be presented with an irreconcilable conflict of laws. As the later enacted provision, § 350 would quite possibly win out. See Posadas v. Na tional City Bank, 296 U. S. 497, 503 (1936). But FMCSA ocan easily satisfy both mandates: It can issue the application and safety inspection rules required by § 350, and start processing applications by Mexican motor carriers and authorize those that satisfy § 13902(a)(l)’s conditions. Without a conflict, then, FMCSA must comply with all of its statutory mandates.
Respondents must rest, then, on a particularly unyielding variation of “but for” causation, where an agency’s action is considered a cause of an environmental effect even when the agency has no authority to prevent the effect. However, a “but for” causal relationship is insufficient to make an agency responsible for a particular effect under NEPA and the relevant regulations. As this Court held in Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U. S. 766, 774 (1983), NEPA requires “a reasonably close causal relationship” between the environmental effect and the alleged cause. The Court analogized this requirement to the “familiar doctrine of proximate cause from tort law.” Ibid. In particular, “courts must look to the underlying policies or legislative intent in order to draw a manageable line between those causal changes that may make an actor responsible for an effect and those that do not.” Id., at 774, n. 7. See also W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 264, 274-275 (5th ed. 1984) (proximate cause analysis turns on policy considerations and considerations of the “legal responsibility” of actors).
Also, inherent in NEPA and its implementing regulations is a “‘rule of reason,’” which ensures that agencies determine whether and to what extent to prepare an EIS based on the usefulness of any new potential information to the decisionmaking process. See Marsh, 490 U. S., at 373-374. Where the preparation of an EIS would serve “no purpose” in light of NEPA’s regulatory scheme as a whole, no rule of reason worthy of that title would require an agency to prepare an EIS. See Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 422 U. S. 289, 325 (1975); see also 40 CFR §§ 1500.1(b)-(e) (2003).-
In these circumstances, the underlying policies behind NEPA and Congress’ intent, as informed by the “rule of reason,” make clear that the causal connection between FMCSA’s issuance of the proposed regulations and the entry of the Mexican trucks is insufficient to make FMCSA responsible under NEPA to consider the environmental effects of the entry. The NEPA EIS requirement serves two purposes. First, “[i]t ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.” Robertson, 490 U. S., at 349. Second, it “guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.” Ibid. Requiring FMCSA to consider the environmental effects of the entry of Mexican trucks would fulfill neither of these statutory purposes. Since FMCSA has no ability categorically to prevent the cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, the environmental impact of the cross-border operations would have no effect on FMCSA’s decisionmaking — FMCSA simply lacks the power to act on whatever information might be contained in the EIS.
Similarly, the informational purpose is not served. The “informational role” of an EIS is to “giv[e] the public the assurance that the agency ‘has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process,’ Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. [v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U. S. 87, 97 (1983)], and, perhaps more significantly, provid[e] a springboard for public comment” in the agency decisionmaking process itself, ibid. The purpose here is to ensure that the “larger audience,” ibid., can provide input as necessary to the agency making the relevant decisions. See 40 CFR § 1500.1(c) (2003) (“NEPA’s purpose is not to generate paperwork — even excellent paperwork — but to foster excellent action. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment”); § 1502.1 (“The primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government”). But here, the “larger audience” can have no impact on FMCSA’s decisionmaking, since, as just noted, FMCSA simply could not act on whatever input this “larger audience” could provide.
It would not, therefore, satisfy NEPA’s “rule of reason” to require an agency to prepare a full EIS due to the environmental impact of an action it could not refuse to perform. Put another way, the legally relevant cause of the entry of the Mexican trucks is not FMCSA’s action, but instead the actions of the President in lifting the moratorium and those of Congress in granting the President this authority while simultaneously limiting FMCSA’s discretion.
Consideration of the CEQ’s “cumulative impact” regulation does not change this analysis. An agency is required to evaluate the “[cjumulative impact” of its action, which is defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” § 1508.7. The “cumulative impact” regulation required FMCSA to consider the “incremental impact” of the safety rules themselves, in the context of the President’s lifting of the moratorium and other relevant circumstances. But this is exactly what FMCSA did in its EA. FMCSA appropriately and reasonably examined the incremental impact of its safety rules assuming the President’s modification of the moratorium (and, hence, assuming the increase in cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers). The “cumulative impact” regulation does not require FMCSA to treat the lifting of the moratorium itself, of consequences from the lifting of the moratorium, as an effect of its promulgation of its Application and Safety Monitoring Rules.
C
We hold that where an agency has no ability to prevent a certain effect due to its limited statutory authority over the relevant actions, the agency cannot be considered a legally relevant “cause” of the effect. Hence, under NEPA and the implementing CEQ regulations, the agency need not consider these effects in its EA when determining whether its action is a “major Federal action.” Because the President, not FMCSA, could authorize (or not authorize) cross-border operations from Mexican motor carriers, and because FMCSA has no discretion to prevent the entry of Mexican trucks, its EA did not need to consider the environmental effects arising from the entry.
III
Under the CAA, a federal “department, agency, or instrumentality” may not, generally, “engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve, any activity” that violates an applicable state air-quality implementation plan. 42 U. S. C. § 7506(c)(1); 40 CFR § 93.150(a) (2003). Federal agencies must, in many circumstances, undertake a conformity determination with respect to a proposed action, to ensure that the action is consistent with § 7506(c)(1). See 40 CFR §§ 93.150(b), 93.153(a)-(b). However, an agency is exempt from the general conformity determination under the CAA if its action would not cause new emissions to exceed certain threshold emission rates set forth in § 93.153(b). FMCSA determined that its proposed regulations would not cause emissions to exceed the relevant threshold amounts and therefore concluded that the issuance of its regulations would comply with the CAA. App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a-66a, 155a. Critical to its calculations was its consideration of only those emissions that would occur from the increased roadside inspections of Mexican trucks; like its NEPA analysis, FMCSA’s CAA analysis did not consider any emissions attributable to the increased presence of Mexican trucks within the United States.
The EPA’s rules provide that “a conformity determination is required for each pollutant where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a Federal action would equal or exceed” the threshold levels established by the EPA. 40 CFR § 93.153(b) (2003). “Direct emissions” are defined as those covered emissions “that are caused or initiated by the Federal action and occur at the same time and place as the action.” §93.152. The term “[indirect emissions” means covered emissions that
“(1) Are caused by the Federal action, but may occur later in time and/or may be further removed in distance from the action itself but are still reasonably foreseeable; and
“(2) The Federal agency can practicably control and will maintain control over due to a continuing program responsibility of the Federal agency.” Ibid.
Unlike the regulations implementing NEPA, the EPA’s CAA regulations have defined the term “[claused by.” Ibid. In particular, emissions are “[claused by” a federal action if the “emissions . .. would not... occur in the absence of the Federal action.” Ibid. Thus, the EPA has made clear that for purposes of evaluating causation in the conformity review process, some sort of “but for” causation is sufficient.
Although arguably FMCSA’s proposed regulations would be “but for” causes of the entry of Mexican trucks into the United States, the emissions from these trucks are neither “direct” nor “indirect” emissions. First, the emissions from the Mexican trucks are not “direct” because they will not occur at the same time or at the same place as the promulgation of the regulations.
Second, FMCSA cannot practicably control, nor will it maintain control, over these emissions. As discussed above, FMCSA does not have the ability to countermand the President’s decision to lift the moratorium, nor could it act categorically to prevent Mexican carriers from being registered or Mexican trucks from entering the United States. Once the regulations are promulgated, FMCSA would have no ability to regulate any aspect of vehicle exhaust from these Mexican trucks. FMCSA could not refuse to register Mexican motor carriers simply on the ground that their trucks would pollute excessively. FMCSA cannot determine whether registered carriers actually will bring trucks into the United States, cannot control the routes the carriers take, and cannot determine what the trucks will emit. Any reduction in emissions that would occur at the hands of FMCSA would be mere happenstance. It cannot be said that FMCSA “practicably controls]” or “will maintain control” over the vehicle emissions from the Mexican trucks, and it follows that the emissions from the Mexican trucks are not “indirect emissions.” Ibid.; see also Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans, 58 Fed. Reg. 63214, 63221 (1993) (“The EPA does not believe that Congress intended to extend the prohibitions and responsibilities to eases where, although licensing or approving action is a required initial step for a subsequent, activity that causes emissions, the agency has no control over that subsequent activity”).
The emissions from the Mexican trucks are neither “direct” nor “indirect” emissions caused by the issuance of FMCSA’s proposed regulations. Thus, FMCSA did not violate the CAA or the applicable regulations by failing to consider them when it evaluated whether it needed to perform a full “conformity determination.”
IV
FMCSA did not violate NEPA or the relevant CEQ regulations when it did not consider the environmental effect of the increase in cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers in its EA. Nor did FMCSA act improperly by not performing, pursuant to the CAA and relevant regulations, a full conformity review analysis for its proposed regulations. We therefore reject respondents’ challenge to the procedures used in promulgating these regulations. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In 1995, Congress abolished the ICC and transferred most of its responsibilities to the Secretary of Transportation. See ICC Termination Act of 1995, § 101,109 Stat. 803. In 1999, Congress transferred responsibility for motor carrier safety within DOT to the newly created FMCSA. See Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, 113 Stat. 1748.
Respondents are left with arguing that an EIS would be useful for informational purposes entirely outside FMCSA’s decisionmaking process. See Brief for Respondents 42. But such an argument overlooks NEPA’s core focus on improving agency decisionmaking. See 40 CFR §§ 1500.1, 1500.2,1502.1 (2003).
The Court of Appeals and respondents contend that the EA contained numerous other errors, but their contentions are premised on the conclusion that FMCSA was required to take into account the increased cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers.
Respondents argue that Congress ratified the Court of Appeals’ decision when it, after the lower court’s opinion, reenacted §350 in two appropriations bills. The doctrine of ratification states that “Congress is presumed to be aware of [a] . . . judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change.” Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580 (1978). But this case involves the interpretation of NEPA and the CAA, not §350. Indeed, the precise requirements of §350 were not below, and are not here, in dispute. Hence, congressional reenactment of § 350 tells us nothing about Congress’ view as to the requirements of NEPA and the CAA, and so, on the legal issues involved in this case, Congress has been entirely silent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and in its more transcendent dimensions.
I
The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned. The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody overnight, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace.
The complaints described their crime as “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).” App. to Pet. for Cert. 127a, 139a. The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). It provides: “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” The statute defines “[d]eviate sexual intercourse” as follows:
“(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
“(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.” §21.01(1).
The petitioners exercised their right to a trial de novo in Harris County Criminal Court. They challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and of a like provision of the Texas Constitution. Tex. Const., Art. 1, § 3a. Those contentions were rejected. The petitioners, having entered a plea of nolo contendere, were each fined $200 and assessed court costs of $141.25. App. to Pet. for Cert. 107a-110a.
The Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District considered the petitioners’ federal constitutional arguments under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing the case en banc the court, in a divided opinion, rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed the convictions. 41 S. W. 3d 349 (2001). The majority opinion indicates that the Court of Appeals considered our decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), to be controlling on the federal due process aspect of the case. Bowers then being authoritative, this was proper.
We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1044 (2002), to consider three questions:
1. Whether petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law — which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples — violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
2. Whether petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, supra, should be overruled? See Pet. for Cert. i.
The petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was in private and consensual.
II
We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court’s holding in Bowers.
There are broad statements of the substantive reach of liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965).
In Griswold the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of drugs or devices of contraception and counseling or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives. The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. Id., at 485.
After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. The case was decided under the Equal Protection Clause, id., at 454; but with respect to unmarried persons, the Court went on to state the fundamental proposition that the law impaired the exercise of their personal rights, ibid. It quoted from the statement of the Court of Appeals finding the law to be in conflict with fundamental human rights, and it followed with this statement of its own:
“It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. ... If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id., at 453.
The opinions in Griswold and Eisenstadt were part of the background for the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). As is well known, the case involved a challenge to the Texas law prohibiting abortions, but the laws of other States were affected as well. Although the Court held the woman’s rights were not absolute, her right to elect an abortion did have real and substantial protection as an exercise of her liberty under the Due Process Clause. The Court cited cases that protect spatial freedom and cases that go well beyond it. Roe recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny and confirmed once more that the protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person.
In Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977), the Court confronted a New York law forbidding sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to persons under 16 years of age. Although there was no single opinion for the Court, the law was invalidated. Both Eisenstadt and Carey, as well as the holding and rationale in Roe, confirmed that the reasoning of Griswold could not be confined to the protection of rights of married adults. This was the state of the law with respect to some of the most relevant cases when the Court considered Bowers v. Hardwick.
The facts in Bowers had some similarities to the instant case. A police officer, whose right to enter seems not to have been in question, observed Hardwick, in his own bedroom, engaging in intimate sexual conduct with another adult male. The conduct was in violation of a Georgia statute making it a criminal offense to engage in sodomy. One difference between the two cases is that the Georgia statute prohibited the conduct whether or not the participants were of the same sex, while the Texas statute, as we have seen, applies only to participants of the same sex. Hardwick was not prosecuted, but he brought an action in federal court to declare the state statute invalid. He alleged he was a practicing homosexual and that the criminal prohibition violated rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution. The Court, in an opinion by Justice White, sustained the Georgia law. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell joined the opinion of the Court and filed separate, concurring opinions. Four Justices dissented. 478 U. S., at 199 (opinion of Black-mun, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, JJ.); id., at 214 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ.).
The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: “The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” Id., at 190. That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or riot entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.
This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
Having misapprehended the claim of liberty there presented to it, and thus stating the claim to be whether there is a fundamental right to engage in consensual sodomy, the Bowers Court said: “Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots.” Id., at 192. In academic writings, and in many of the scholarly amicus briefs filed to assist the Court in this case, there are fundamental criticisms of the historical premises relied upon by the majority and concurring opinions in Bowers. Brief for Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae 16-17; Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 15-21; Brief for Professors of History et al. as Amici Curiae 3-10. We need not enter this debate in the attempt to reach a definitive historical judgment, but the following considerations counsel against adopting the definitive conclusions upon which Bowers placed such reliance.
At the outset it should be noted that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Beginning in colonial times there were prohibitions of sodomy derived from the English criminal laws passed in the first instance by the Reformation Parliament of 1533. The English prohibition was understood to include relations between men and women as well as relations between men and men. See, e. g., King v. Wiseman, 92 Eng. Rep. 774, 775 (K. B. 1718) (interpreting “mankind” in Act of 1533 as including women and girls). Nineteenth-century commentators similarly read American sodomy, buggery, and crime-against-nature statutes as criminalizing certain relations between men and women and between men and men. See, e. g., 2 J. Bishop, Criminal Law § 1028 (1858); 2 J. Chitty, Criminal Law 47-50 (5th Am. ed. 1847); R. Desty, A Compendium of American Criminal Law 143 (1882); J. May, The Law of Crimes §203 (2d ed. 1893). The absence of legal prohibitions focusing on homosexual conduct may be explained in part by noting that according to some scholars the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century. See, e. g., J. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J. D’Emilio & E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 121 (2d ed. 1997) (“The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions”). Thus early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonproereative sexual activity more generally. This does not suggest approval of homosexual conduct. It does tend to show that this particular form of conduct was not thought of as a separate category from like conduct between heterosexual persons.
Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. A substantial number of sodomy prosecutions and convictions for which there are surviving records were for predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent, as in the case of a minor or the victim of an assault. As to these, one purpose for the prohibitions was to ensure there would be no lack of coverage if a predator committed a sexual assault that did not constitute rape as defined by the criminal law. Thus the model sodomy indictments presented in a 19th-century treatise, see 2 Chitty, supra, at 49, addressed the predatory acts of an adult man against a minor girl or minor boy. Instead of targeting relations between consenting adults in private, 19th-century sodomy prosecutions typically involved relations between men and minor girls or minor boys, relations between- adults involving force, relations between adults implicating disparity in status, or relations between men and animals.
To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a burden that would make a conviction more difficult to obtain even taking into account the problems always inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a consenting partner, because the partner was considered an accomplice. A partner’s testimony, however, was admissible if he or she had not consented to the act or was a minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e. g., F. Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). The rule may explain in part the infrequency of these prosecutions. In all events that infrequency makes it difficult to say that society approved of a rigorous and systematic punishment of the consensual acts committed in private and by adults. The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which the Bowers decision placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character.
The policy of punishing consenting adults for private acts was not much discussed in the early legal literature. We can infer that one reason for this was the very private nature of the conduct. Despite the absence of prosécutions, there may have been periods in which there was public criticism of homosexuals as such and an insistence that the criminal laws be enforced to discourage their practices. But far from possessing “ancient roots,” Bowers, 478 U. S., at 192, American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. The reported decisions concerning the prosecution of consensual, homosexual sodomy between adults for the years 1880-1995 are not always clear in the details, but a significant number involved conduct in a public place. See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 14-15, and n. 18.
It was not until the 1970’s that any State singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution, and only nine States have done so. See 1977 Ark. Gen. Acts no. 828; 1983 Kan. Sess. Laws p. 652; 1974 Ky. Acts p. 847; 1977 Mo. Laws p. 687; 1973 Mont. Laws p. 1339; 1977 Nev. Stats, p. 1632; 1989 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 591; 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws ch. 399; see also Post v. State, 715 P. 2d 1105 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986) (sodomy law invalidated as applied to different-sex couples). Post -Bowers even some of these States did not adhere to the policy of suppressing homosexual conduct. Over the course of the last decades, States with same-sex prohibitions have moved toward abolishing them. See, e. g., Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S. W. 3d 332 (2002); Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433, 942 P. 2d 112 (1997); Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S. W. 2d 250 (Tenn. App. 1996); Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S. W. 2d 487 (Ky. 1992); see also 1993 Nev. Stats, p. 518 (repealing Nev. Rev. Stat. §201.193).
In summary, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger indicate. Their historical premises are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated.
It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).
Chief Justice Burger joined the opinion for the Court in Bowers and further explained his views as follows: “Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards.” 478 U. S., at 196. As with Justice White’s assumptions about history, scholarship casts some doubt on the sweeping nature of the statement by Chief Justice Burger as it pertains to private homosexual conduct between consenting adults. See, e. g., Eskridge, Hardwick and Historiography, 1999 U. Ill. L. Rev. 631,656. In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. “[H]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 857 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
This emerging recognition should have been apparent when Bowers was decided. In 1955 the American Law Institute promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for “criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private.” ALI, Model Penal Code §213.2, Comment 2, p. 372 (1980). It justified its decision on three grounds: (1) The prohibitions undermined respect for the law by penalizing conduct many people engaged in; (2) the statutes regulated private conduct not harmful to others; and (3) the laws were arbitrarily enforced and thus invited the danger of blackmail. ALI, Model Penal Code, Commentary 277-280 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955). In 1961 Illinois changed its laws to conform to the Model Penal Code. Other States soon followed. Brief for Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae 15-16.
In Bowers the Court referred to the fact that before 1961 all 50 States had outlawed sodomy, and that at the time of the Court’s decision 24 States and the District of Columbia had sodomy laws. 478 U. S., at 192-193. Justice Powell pointed out that these prohibitions often were being ignored, however. Georgia, for instance, had not sought to enforce its law for decades. Id., at 197-198, n. 2 (“The history of nonenforcement suggests the moribund character today of laws criminalizing this type of private, consensual conduct”).
The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, § 1.
Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today’s case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶ 52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization.
In our own constitutional system the deficiencies in Bowers became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the relevant conduct referenced in the Bowers decision are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. The State of Texas admitted in 1994 that as of that date it had not prosecuted anyone under those circumstances. State v. Morales, 869 S. W. 2d 941, 943.
Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its holding into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.
Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.
The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s Constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.
As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we con-elude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.
Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.
The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. The offense, to be sure, is but a class C misdemeanor, a minor offense in the Texas legal system. Still, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged. The petitioners will bear on their record the history of their criminal convictions. Just this Term we rejected various challenges to state laws requiring the registration of sex offenders. Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84 (2003); Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U. S. 1 (2003). We are advised that if Texas convicted an adult for private, consensual homosexual conduct under the statute here in question the convicted person would come within the registration laws of at least four States were he or she to be subject to their jurisdiction. Pet. for Cert. 13, and n. 12 (citing Idaho Code §§18-8301 to 18-8326 (Cum. Supp. 2002); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. §§15:540-15:549 (West 2003); Miss. Code Ann. §§45-33-21 to 45-33-57 (Lexis 2003); S. C. Code Ann. §§23-3-400 to 23-3-490 (West 2002)). This underscores the consequential nature of the punishment and the state-sponsored condemnation attendant to the criminal prohibition. Furthermore, the Texas criminal conviction carries with it the other collateral consequences always following a conviction, such as notations on job application forms, to mention but one example.
The foundations of Bowers have sustained serious erosion from our recent decisions in Casey and Romer. When our precedent has been thus weakened, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. See, e. g., C. Fried, Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution — A Firsthand Account 81-84 (1991); R. Posner, Sex and Reason 341-350 (1992). The courts of five different States have declined to follow it in interpreting provisions in their own state constitutions parallel to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S. W. 3d 332 (2002); Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S. E. 2d 18, 24 (1998); Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433, 942 P. 2d 112 (1997); Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S. W. 2d 250 (Tenn. App. 1996); Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S. W. 2d 487 (Ky. 1992).
To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P. G. & J. H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, ¶ 56 (Eur. Ct. H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1988). Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary Robinson et al. as Amici Curiae 11-12. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.
The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ” (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U. S., at 855-856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”). The holding in Bowers, however, has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. Bowers itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.
The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens came to these conclusions:
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U. S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Justice Stevens’ analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here.
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
E
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents two issues:
I. Was it reversible error for the Circuit Court of Appeals to deny petitioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal, made on the ground that the appeal had not been docketed and the transcript of record had not been filed within the time specified in Rule 73 (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? We hold that it was not.
II. Under the principles we have stated in the companion case of Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U. S. 649, was the Circuit Court of Appeals justified in remanding the present case to the District Court for entry of a judgment under the Fair Labor Standards Act, in favor of all of the respondents except Shapiro? We hold that the case should be remanded, but with directions to proceed in accordance with the opinion of this Court in this case and the Levinson case. This will include a direction to the District Court to determine whether or not the activities of each respondent consisted, wholly or in substantial part, of the class of work which is defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 133-134, as that of a “loader” of freight for an interstate common carrier by motor vehicle, and as affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.
This action was begun in 1942 in the City Court of the City of New York, pursuant to § 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It sought to recover unpaid overtime compensation for services rendered to the petitioner by each of six of the eight respondents as “a delivery clerk and ‘push-boy’,” during various periods between October 24, 1938, and September 20, 1941, computed in accordance with § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, together with interest, liquidated damages and an attorney’s fee. The case was removed by the petitioner to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The other two respondents there joined in the complaint on like grounds. The petitioner answered that it was an interstate common carrier of freight by motor vehicle; that the labor performed by each of the respondents “consisted primarily of that of [a] driver’s helper and of [a] loader;” that, with respect to them, the Interstate Commerce Commission had power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, and that, by virtue of § 13 (b) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, § 7 of that Act did not apply to the services of the respondents. The case was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts.
On November 29, 1943, the District Court rendered an opinion in which it declined to determine the status of the respondents but held the case “open for further action” in order to give the respondents an opportunity to present that question to the Interstate Commerce Commission. 54 F. Supp. 565, 569. Pursuant to respondents’ statement that they would not so apply to the Commission and pursuant to their motion requesting a final disposition of the case, the court, on February 14, 1945, dismissed the complaint “without prejudice.” 59 F. Supp. 341. After considerable delay in the filing of the record on appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of dismissal as to the respondent Shapiro on the ground that “he is a ‘helper’ within the Commission’s ruling in 28 M. C. C. at pages 135, 136.” 152 F. 2d 619, 622. As to the other respondents, it reversed the judgment with costs and remanded the cause “for entry of judgment in their favor and for allowance of an attorney’s fee.” Id. at 622. The judgment as to Shapiro has not been questioned and is not before us.
Because of its importance in the interpretation of the Motor Carrier Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, we granted certiorari, 327 U. S. 774, and the case was argued immediately following the Levinson case. A brief on behalf of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, as amicus curiae, was filed jointly in this case and in the Levinson case, supporting the position of the respondents.
I.
Notice of appeal, dated March 29, 1945, was filed by the respondents in the District Court April 2, 1945. In spite of the applicable provisions of Rule 73 (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respondents sought from the District Court no extension of time within which to docket their appeal or file a transcript of the record. On July 20, 1945, more than 90 days from the date of the first notice of appeal, respondents, pursuant to motion supported by affidavit, secured from Circuit Judge Augustus N. Hand an order extending to September 1, 1945, the time within which to serve and file their record on appeal. On that date, the transcript of record was filed. The petitioner promptly moved to dismiss the appeal under Rule 73 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, questioning especially the right of a single member of that court to make the order of July 20. This motion was denied October 10, 1945, Circuit Judges Learned Hand, Swan and Clark speaking for the court. The motion was renewed at the hearing on the merits of the appeal and, on December 28, 1945, was denied again, Circuit Judges Learned Hand, Swan and Frank speaking for the court. 152 F. 2d 619. The issue was raised properly and fully presented here.
The authority of a Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to extend the time for filing the record on appeal appears to be supported by Rule 15 of that court. That Rule, however, was not discussed by counsel and we sustain the action taken by the Circuit Court of Appeals under authority of Rule 73 (a), even without reference to its own Rule 15.
The principal argument against the final action of the Circuit Court of Appeals on this motion is based upon the following statement in that court's opinion: “In the case at bar there was no abuse of discretion in extending the time, despite the somewhat feeble excuses for delay, since the appeal presents a substantial question as to the correctness of the judgment.” (Italics supplied.) 152 F. 2d 619, 621. It is urged that this shows that the court based its refusal to dismiss the appeal on the substantiality of the question to be presented on the merits of the appeal, rather than on the substantiality of the excuses for the delay in filing the record.
We interpret, the statement as no more than a recognition by the court that the substantiality of the question to be at issue on the merits of the appeal was a matter appropriate for its consideration under Rule 73 (a), in connection with all the other circumstances before it. Rule 73 (a) is intended to place reliance upon the sound discretion of the Circuit Court of Appeals. We see no reason to question the discretion exercised in this case as evidenced by the agreement of all of the five Circuit Judges to whom the issue was presented. Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 104 F. 2d 83; Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. v. Snyder, 109 F. 2d 469; Burke v. Canfield, 72 App. D. C. 127, 111 F. 2d 526; United States v. Gallagher, 151 F. 2d 556.
Accordingly, we sustain the denial of the motion to dismiss the appeal under Rule 73 (a).
II.
On the merits, the question is whether or not the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in remanding this case with instructions to enter a judgment under the Fair Labor Standards Act in favor of all of the respondents except Shapiro. We hold that the cause should be remanded but that the order of remand should be modified. This case was tried, without a jury, entirely upon an agreed statement of facts and a pre-trial agreement between the parties, approved by the District Court, settling the issues to be determined. For the sake of clarity, we have proceeded on the same basis and have treated the case as though, upon remand of it to the District Court, that court will proceed upon the same record. This, however, should not be interpreted as necessarily restricting that court to that record if, for good cause, that court should find it advisable to retry the case de novo.
Under the agreed statement there was no question but that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to each respondent provided only that he was not found to have been excluded from the overtime pay requirements of that Act by § 13 (b) (1) because of being an “employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935; . . . .” 52 Stat. 1068, 29 U. S. C. § 213 (b) (1). There thus will remain to be determined by the District Court the question whether the activities of the respective respondents consisted, either wholly or in substantial part, of the class of work which is defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 133-134, as that of a “loader,” and as affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.
It will remain for the District Court to apply the facts found by it as to the activities of the respective respondents to the classifications of work that have been made by the Interstate Commerce Commission, defining what comes within the jurisdiction of the Commission under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act. The Commission has defined its jurisdiction, both affirmatively and negatively, as follows:
“. . . we have power, under section 204 (a) of said part II, to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for the classes of employees covered by findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 3 above [mechanics, loaders and helpers], and ... we have no such power over any other classes of employees, except drivers.” Ex parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 139.
Under these circumstances, there is no occasion for us to refer to the Commission any question presented in this case nor to suspend the long-delayed final judgment pending further findings by the Commission. The Commission has done its work. The District Court must determine simply whether or not the respective employees who seek to recover overtime compensation under § 7 are excluded from the benefits of that Section because they are within the above classification. The special knowledge and experience required to determine what classifications of work affect safety of operation of interstate motor carriers have been applied by the Commission. Whether or not an individual employee is within any such classification is to be determined by judicial process.
The District Court, in applying § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act to respondents, will determine whether or not the activities of each respondent, either as a whole or in substantial part, come within the Commission’s definition of the work of a “loader.” In determining whether the activities, or any substantial part of the activities, of an individual come within those of such a “loader,” the District Court shall not be concluded by the name which may have been given to his position or to the work that he does, nor shall the District Court be required to find that any specific part of his time in any given week must have been spent in those activities. The District Court shall give particular attention to whether or not the activities of the respective respondents included that kind of “loading” which is held by the Commission to affect safety of operation. In contrast to the loading activities in the Levinson case, the mere handling of freight at a terminal, before or after loading, or even the placing of certain articles of freight on a motor carrier truck may form so trivial, casual or occasional a part of an employee’s activities, or his activities may relate only to such articles or to such limited handling of them, that his activities will not come within the kind of “loading” which is described by the Commission and which, in its opinion, affects safety of operation. See also, McKeown v. Southern California Freight Forwarders, 49 F. Supp. 543. Except insofar as the Commission has found that the activities of drivers, mechanics, loaders and helpers, as defined by it, affect safety of operation, it has disclaimed its power to establish qualifications or maximum hours of service under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act.
If none of the alleged “loading” activities of the respective respondents, during the periods at issue, come within the kind of activities which, according to the Commission, affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, then those respondents of which that is true are entitled to the benefits of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On the other hand, if the whole or a substantial part of such alleged “loading” activities of the respective respondents, during the periods at issue, does come within the kind of activities which, according to the Commission, affect such safety of operation, then those respondents who were engaged in such activities are excluded from the benefits of such § 7. If some, but less than a substantial part, of such activities of the respective respondents, during some or all of the periods at issue, come within the kind of activities which, according to the Commission, affect such safety of operation, then the right of those respondents who were engaged in such activities to receive the benefits of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act does not come within the precise issue determined in the Levinson case and this Court reserves its decision as to the power of the Commission to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to them and, consequently, reserves its decision as to their right to receive the benefits of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it relates to the respondents other than Shapiro, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, ante, p. 652, note 2.
See Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, ante, p. 653, note 6.
See Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, ante, p. 653, note 5.
See Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, ante, p. 653, note 4.
This included the following description of the work of the respondents as employees of the petitioner:
“Item 3. As to northbound freight the loaded vehicles would come into New York in the very early morning hours to the West 11th Street Terminal where new drivers took charge of the vehicles, and what were called downtown helpers rode on the vehicles with the drivers to the 38th Street Terminal. At such terminal the doors of the trucks were opened in the mornings, both the driver and downtown helper remaining on the vehicles. As the downtown helper pushed the freight packages over the tailboards they were received by the plaintiffs [respondents], who then placed the freight packages in the sub-terminal building. Still later in the mornings the plaintiffs [respondents] then delivered the packages to various consignees in the Garment Center, generally using for that purpose what are called hand-trucks or flat trucks, using their own manpower for propulsion.
“During those same days other northbound trucks after first stopping at the West 11th Street main terminal to change a driver and receive a downtown helper, by-passed the West 38th Street sub-terminal and parked first at one place and then another alongside the curbs in the Garment Center. At those places the unloading operation was performed in the same way as at the sub-terminal hereinabove described, and the plaintiffs [respondents] then made the deliveries by hand or by hand trucks into the insides of the Garment Center buildings.
“Item 4. In the late afternoons and early evenings freight originating with various consignors at various locations in the Garment Center was 'picked up’ for intended delivery the next morning in Philadelphia or elsewhere south of New York. As to these southbound operations the facts were these: Some of the freight packages would be picked up by the plaintiffs [respondents] at the consignor’s places of business in the Garment Center and hand-trucked by them to the West 88th Street sub-terminal. At that place the plaintiffs [respondents] themselves did, in due course, physically load the freight packages into a waiting truck which, when loaded, took up this journey first to the West 11th Street main terminal, and then with a new driver went on to the destinations south of New York. A downtown employee other than the plaintiffs [respondents] would also at the same time so load the vehicles.
“Other trucks for southbound loadings took their stations on the public streets in the Garment Center where the plaintiffs [respondents] brought the packages by hand or by hand truck. The part which the plaintiffs [respondents] took in such loading consisted of the lifting of the packages on to the tailboards of the trucks, and very often when the weights or size of the packages so required they would stand inside the truck bodies and, together with the downtown employee, stack and pile the freight in the vehicle.
“Item 5. As to all the plaintiffs [respondents] other than Shapiro they generally walked between stopping points but occasionally rode upon the trucks when the trucks moved from one place to another in the Garment Center, thereby avoiding loss of time by walking. As to the plaintiff Shapiro, he regularly and as a matter of fixed duty, between August 1939 and September 1, 1941, rode on the truck between four and five hours daily. On the truck at the same time was the driver and a helper from the downtown terminal. In addition thereto the plaintiff Shapiro devoted three and a half hours each day to inside office work at the 38th Street sub-terminal.” (Italics supplied.)
The order of dismissal appearing in the record was as follows:
“Ordered that the complaint be and the same hereby is dismissed and that judgment be entered abating and dismissing said action, without prejudice to the rights of plaintiffs [respondents], or any one of them, to bring other actions or proceedings for the establishment of their respective claims, either administratively or at an appropriate time, by action in this court or other proper tribunal.”
See also, Walling v. Comet Carriers, 57 F. Supp. 1018, 151 F. 2d 107, 109; cert. granted, 326 U. S. 716; writ of certiorari dismissed on motion of counsel for petitioner Comet Carriers, 328 U. S. 819. That case, also in the Second Circuit, related to “four motor truck drivers, four drivers’ helpers and two hand truckers or pushers” employed by Comet Carriers in the transportation of goods between manufacturers and contractors mostly on intrastate trips within or near the New York City Garment Center. As to the hand truckers or pushers, the District Court said: “they are not employed on motor vehicles nor do their functions as employees affect or relate to the safety of operation of the motor vehicles in interstate commerce.” 57 F. Supp. 1018, 1023. The Circuit Court of Appeals discussed only the drivers and drivers’ helpers. As to them it said:
“Proof that two employees worked only three hours a week in interstate transportation and that two employees made 'some’ and 'occasional’ deliveries to the warehouses of chain stores and worked the remaining time in the production of goods for commerce does not satisfy the requirement that the amount of time during which they are engaged in interstate commerce be substantial.” 151 F. 2d 107, 111.
“Rule 73. Appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals.
“(g) Docketing and Record on Appeal. The record on appeal as provided for in Rules 75 and 76 shall be filed with the appellate court and the action there docketed within 40 days from the date of the notice of appeal;except that, when more than one appeal is taken from the same judgment to the same appellate court, the district court may prescribe the time for filing and docketing, which in no event shall be less than 40 days from the date of the first notice of appeal. In all cases the district court in its discretion and with or without motion or notice may extend the time for filing the record on appeal and docketing the action, if its order for extension is made before the expiration of the period for filing and docketing as originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order; but the district court shall not extend the time to a day more than 90 days from the date of the first notice of appeal.” 308 U. S. 752, 28 U. S. C. following § 723 (c).
“Rule 73. Appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals.
“(a) How Taken. When an appeal is permitted by law from a district court to a circuit court of appeals and within the time prescribed, a party may appeal from a judgment by filing with the district court a notice of appeal. Failure of the appellant to take any of the further steps to secure the review of the judgment appealed from does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such remedies as are specified in this rule or, when no remedy is specified, for such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.” 308 U. S. 749, 28 U. S. C. following § 723 (c).
Rule 15, U. S. C. C. A., Second Circuit.
“Docketing Cases.
“1. In an appeal in a civil action the appellant shall docket the action and file the record in this court within forty days after filing the notice of appeal with the District Court, or within any added time granted by the district judge within forty days after the filing of the notice of appeal, but in no case later than ninety days after such filing (Rule 73 [g]). . . . If the record is not presented to the clerk for filing within the periods above provided, he shall refuse to accept it unless this court so orders, or a judge thereof if the court is not sitting.
“2. This Court will not hear and grant motions for filing and docketing appeals, otherwise properly taken, at times other than as stated in subdivision 1 hereof, except upon a showing by affidavits, or otherwise as the Court may order, (a) that the delay has been due to cause beyond the control of the moving party or (b) that the delay has been due to circumstances which shall be deemed to be merely excusable neglect on the part of the moving party and there is a substantial question to be presented on appeal and (e) in all cases where the district court has power to act, that an extension of time has been denied by that court, together with the grounds for such denial, if any are stated.
“3. If the appellant shall have failed to comply with this rule, any appellee may either docket the action and file the record in this Court, in which event it shall stand for argument, or may have the action docketed and dismissed by the Clerk of this Court upon producing a certificate from the Clerk of the Court wherein the judgment or decree was rendered, certifying that such appeal has been duly taken or allowed, and proof that four days’ notice in writing has been served on the appellant or his attorney that application will be made to the Clerk of this Court for such dismissal. No action dismissed under this rule shall be reinstated except in the discretion of the Court and upon a showing similar to that required under subdivision 2 hereof.” (Italics supplied.) 11 U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. Digest, L. Ed., Supp. No. 4, p. 55.
The District Court, in its order of February 14, 1945, described the basis on which the case had been tried as follows:
. . on the 3rd day of May, 1943, and. the parties hereto having duly appeared by their respective attorneys, and submitted to the Court, in lieu of the offering of proof, an agreed statement of facts setting forth the issues framed by the complaint, and the Court, upon the consent of the attorneys for the respective parties, having thereupon made and entered an order herein on the said 3rd day of May, 1943, wherein and whereby the said agreed statement of facts which were submitted by the attorneys for the respective parties, as aforesaid, was set forth as the issues framed by the complaint and answer, and the said action having been submitted to the Court for its determination upon the said agreed statement of facts and order hereinbefore mentioned and referred to, . . . .”
See Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, ante, p. 652, note 2.
The findings of fact referred to by the Commission, insofar as they relate to loaders, are those quoted in the text of Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, ante, p. 669, at note 17.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since 1824 a provision of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, now Art. V, § I, ¶ IV, has provided that its Governor shall be selected (1) by a majority of votes cast in a general election, and (2) if no candidate receives a majority of votes at such election, then a majority of the members of the Georgia General Assembly shall elect the Governor “from the two persons having the highest number of votes . ...” At the State's general election, held Tuesday, November 8, 1966, no single candidate received a majority of the votes cast. A Georgia three-judge federal district court has in this case enjoined the State Assembly from electing one of the two highest candidates as Governor on the ground that this method of election, required by Article V of the Georgia Constitution, would deny Georgia voters equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We uphold the constitutionality of Article V of the State Constitution, for so long as this provision is applied as it is written, we perceive no conflict with the Equal Protection Clause. We reverse the District Court’s judgment.
The District Court erroneously relied on Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, to strike down Article V of the State’s Constitution. The Gray case held that it had been demonstrated that Georgia voters were denied equal protection of the laws by the operation of a county-unit system under which state officials were elected by a majority of counties voting as units instead of by a majority of individual voters. The result was that the number of votes of persons living in large counties was given no more weight in electing state officers than was given to a far fewer number of votes of persons residing in small counties. ' This discrimination against large county voters was held to deny them the equal protection of the laws. That case, as was emphasized, had to do with the equal right of “all who participate in the election,” 372 U. S., at 379, to vote and have their votes counted without impairment or dilution. But as the Court said, 372 U. S., at 378, the case was “only a voting case.” Not a word in the Court’s opinion indicated that it was intended to compel a State to elect its governors or any other state officers or agents through elections of the people rather than through selections by appointment or elections by the State Assembly. It is wrongly cited as having either expressly or impliedly decided that a State cannot, if it wishes, permit its legislative body to elect its Governor.
The language of Article V of the State Constitution struck down by the District Court has been a part of Georgia’s State Constitution since 1824 and was readopted by the people in 1945. It set up two ways to select the Governor. The first, and preferred one, was election by a majority of the people; the second, and alternative one, was election by the State Assembly if any one candidate failed to receive a majority of the popular vote. Under the second method, in the legislative election the votes of the people were not to be disregarded but the State Assembly was to consider them as, in effect, nominating votes and to limit itself to choosing between the two persons on whom the people had bestowed the highest number of votes. There is no provision of the United States Constitution or any of its amendments which either expressly or impliedly dictates the method a State must use to select its Governor. A method which would be valid if initially employed is equally valid when employed as an alternative. It would be surprising to conclude that, after a State has already held two primaries and one general election to try to elect by a majority, the United States Constitution compels it to continue to hold elections in a futile effort to obtain a majority for some particular candidate. Statewide elections cost time and money and it is not strange that Georgia’s people decided to avoid repeated elections. The method they chose for this purpose was not unique, but was well known and frequently utilized before and since the Revolutionary War. Georgia Governors were selected by the State Legislature, not the people, until 1824. At that time a new constitution provided for popular election, but with the provision that upon the failure of any one candidate to receive a majority, the General Assembly should elect.
Two States, Mississippi and Vermont, that provide for majority voting also provide for state legislative election of their governors in case of no majority in the general election. Thirty-eight States of the Union which today provide for election of their governors by a plurality also provide that in case of a tie vote the State Legislatures shall elect.
It thus turns out that Georgia, clearly acting within its rights as a State, has decided that, any one candidate failing to obtain a majority in a general election, its General Assembly will elect its Governor. Its clear choice has remained in its constitution for 142 years. The District Court below treated Article V of the Georgia Constitution as the valid law of the State except as it thought itself compelled to strike it down because of Gray v. Sanders, supra. The Gray case, however, did no more than to require the State to eliminate the county-unit machinery from its election system. The State did this in an election that resulted in the election of no candidate. Its duty now, under Article V of its Constitution, is to proceed to have the General Assembly elect its Governor from the two highest candidates in the election, unless, as some of the parties contend, the entire legislative body is incapable of performing its responsibility of electing a Governor because it is malapportioned. But this is not correct. In Toombs v. Fortson, 384 U. S. 210, affirming 241 F. Supp. 65, we held that with certain exceptions, not here material, the Georgia Assembly could continue to function until May 1, 1968. Consequently the Georgia Assembly is not disqualified to elect a Governor as required by Article V of the State’s Constitution. Neither is it disqualified by the fact that its Democratic members had obligated themselves to support the Democratic nominee in the general election on November 8, 1966. That election is over, and with it terminated any promises by the Democratic legislators to support the Democratic nominee.
Article V of Georgia's Constitution provides a method for selecting the Governor which is as old as the Nation itself. Georgia does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by following this article as it was written.
Reversed.
Article V, § I, ¶ IV (Ga. Code Ann. § 2-3004). “How returns published. — The members of each branch of the General Assembly shall convene in the Representative Hall, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives shall open and publish the returns in the presence and under the direction of the General Assembly; and the person having the majority of the whole number of votes, shall be declared duly elected Governor of this State; but, if no person shall have such majority, then from the two persons having the highest number of votes, who shall be in life, and shall not decline an election at the time appointed for the General Assembly to elect, the General Assembly shall immediately, elect a Governor viva voce; and in all cases of election of a Governor by the General Assembly, a majority of the members present shall be necessary to a choice.”
Miss. Const., Art. 5, §§140, 141; Vt. Const., c. II, §39.
This is by statutory provision in North Carolina and by constitutional provision in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
A three-judge District Court was convened in response to appellee’s complaint alleging that N. Y. Civil Service Law § 72 (1969), governing leave of absence for mentally unfit civil service employees, denied her the procedural due process guaranteed her by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Joined as defendants in her action, which sought both declaratory and injunctive relief, were the appellants Civil Service Commission of the State of New York and its members, and the city of New York.
The District Court sustained appéllee’s federal constitutional claims, and enjoined the defendants from taking any action under the challenged statutory provision, and also ordered that appellee be reinstated in her civil service position and given backpay by the city of New York. The city has not appealed from the judgments.
Appellee, in addition to the previously described allegations, also asserted in her complaint that the city of New York in suspending her had not followed the procedures set forth in § 72. She particularly alleged that the doctor who examined her had not been selected in the manner prescribed by that statute. Appellants have not denied this allegation and, indeed, now acknowledge that the state law was not followed. The record therefore now establishes that the statutory procedure which appellee challenged has not been applied to her. It follows that she may have had a claim under state law against the city of New York; she may indeed have had a claim against the city of New York based on the procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment by reason of the procedure which the city in fact followed in suspending her. Since the city has not appealed, we have no occasion to consider any aspect of her claim against it, other than to say that neither of the claims just described would authorize the convening of the three-judge District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 2281. Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 253 (1941).
“In so far as it is alleged that the assessments are void because unauthorized by the Arizona statute, the injunction sought is obviously not upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the state statute as tested by the Federal Constitution.” Ex parte Bransford, 310 U. S. 354, 358 (1940).
Stripped of these related contentions, appellee’s claim against appellant state Civil Service Commission amounts to a request for a determination of the constitutionality of a statute which, while administered by the Commission has never in fact been properly applied by the Commission or indeed by the city of New York to her. Since the record now makes it clear that she has no standing to assert such a challenge, her complaint as to the constitutionality of § 72 should be dismissed. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528 (1974).
Appellee asserted no claim against appellant Civil Service Commission and its members other than her constitutional claim. On their appeal, therefore, the judgment of the District Court as to them is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss ap-pellee’s complaint insofar as it sought relief against them.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would affirm without hearing oral argument.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
. Appellant, an Ohio corporation, owns boats and barges which it employs for the transportation of oil along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. The vessels neither pick up oil nor discharge it in Ohio., The main terminals are in Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, and Louisiana. The maximum river mileage traversed by the boats and barges on any trip through waters bordering Ohio was l7% miles. These 17y2 miles were in the section of the Ohio River which had to be traversed to reach Bromley, Kentucky. While this stretch of water bordered Ohio, it was not necessarily within Ohio. The vessels were registered in Cincinnati, Ohio, but only stopped in Ohio for occasional fuel or repairs. These stops were made at Cincinnati; but none of them involved loading or unloading cargo.
The Tax Commissioner of Ohio, acting under §§ 5325 and 5328 of the Ohio General Code, levied an ad valorem personal propérty tax on all of these vessels. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed (with an exception not material here), and the Supreme Court of Ohio sustained the Board, 155 Ohio St. 61, 98 N. E. 2d 8, over the objection that the tax violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case is here bn appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
Under the earlier view governing the taxability of vessels moving in the inland waters (St. Louis v. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423; Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Kentucky, 202 U. S. 409; cf. Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299), Ohio, the state of the domicile, would have a strong claim to the whole of the tax that has been levied. But the rationale of those cases was rejected in Ott v. Mississippi Barge Line Co., 336 U. S. 169, where we held that vessels moving in interstate operations along the inland waters were taxable by the same standards as those which Pullman’s Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, first applied to railroad cars in interstate commerce. The formula approved was one which fairly apportioned the tax to the commerce carried on within the state. In that way we placed inland water transportation on the same constitutional footing as other interstate enterprises.
The Ott caáfe involved a tax by Louisiana on vessels of a foreign corporation operating in Louisiana waters. Louisiana sought to tax only that portion of the value of the vessels represented by the ratio between the total number of miles in Louisiana and the total number of miles in the entire operation. The present case is sought to be distinguished on the.ground that Ohio is the domiciliary state and therefore may tax the whole value even though the boats and barges operate outside Ohio. New York Central R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U. S. 584, sustained a tax by the domiciliary state on all the rolling stock.of a railroad. But in that case it did not appear that “any specific cars or any average of cars” was so continuously in another state as to be taxable there. P. 597. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292, allowed the domiciliary state to tax the entire fleet: of airplanes operating interstate; but in that case, as in the Miller case, it was not shown that “a. defined part of the domiciliary corpus” had acquired a. taxable situs elsewhere. P. 295. Those cases, though exceptional on their facts, illustrate the reach of the taxing power of the state of the domicile as contrasted to that of the other states. But they have no application here since most; if not all, of the barges and boats which Ohio has taxed were almost continuously outside Ohio during the taxable year. No one vessel may have been continuously in another state during the taxable year. But we do know that most, if not all, of them were operating in other waters and therefore under Ott v. Mississippi Barge Line Co., supra, could be taxed by the.several states on an apportionment basis. The rule which permits taxatioft by two or more states on. an apportionment basis precludes taxation of all of the property by the state of the domicile. See Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194. Otherwise there would be multiple taxation of interstate operations and the tax would have no relation to the opportunities, benefits, or protection which the taxing state gives those operations.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Medical Committee for Human Rights acquired by gift five shares of stock in Dow Chemical Co. In March 1968, the Committee’s national chairman wrote a letter to the company expressing concern over its policy with respect to the production and sale of napalm. The letter also requested that there be included in the company’s proxy statement for 1968 a proposal to amend Dow’s Certificate of Incorporation to prohibit the sale of napalm unless the purchaser gives reasonable assurance that the napalm will not be used against human beings. Dow replied that the proposal was too late for inclusion in the 1968 proxy statement and for discussion at that year’s annual meeting, but that it would be reconsidered the following year.
In an exchange of letters with Dow in 1969, the Committee indicated its belief that it had a right under Rule 14a-8 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR § 240.14a-8 (1970) (promulgated pursuant to § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 895, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78n (a)), to have its proposal included in the company’s proxy statement for consideration by all shareholders. On February 7, 1969, Dow responded that it intended to omit the proposal (somewhat modified) from the 1969 statement under the authority of subsections of the SEC Rule relied on by the Committee that permitted omission of shareholder proposals under two sets of circumstances:
§ 240.14a-8 (c) (2) — “If it clearly appears that the proposal is submitted by the security holder primarily for the purpose of enforcing a personal claim or redressing a personal grievance against the issuer or its management, or primarily for the purpose of promoting general economic, political, racial, religious, social or similar causes”; or
§ 240.14a-8 (c) (5) — “If the proposal consists of a recommendation or request that the management take action with respect to a matter relating to the conduct of the ordinary business operations of the issuer.”
The Committee requested that Dow's decision be reviewed by the staff of the SEC. On February 18, 1969, the Chief Counsel for the Division of Corporation Finance wrote both Dow and the Committee to inform them that “this Division will not recommend any action to the Commission if this proposal is omitted from the management’s proxy material.” App. 21. The SEC Commissioners granted a request by the Committee that they review the Division’s decision and affirmed it. App. 43. The Committee then sought and obtained review of the Commission’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
On July 8, 1970, the Court of Appeals held that the decision of the SEC was reviewable under § 25 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78y (a); that while review of Dow’s decision was clearly available in district court, reviéw of the SEC’s decision could also be obtained in a court of appeals; that the validity of the Commission’s determination was extremely dubious, especially in light of its failure to state reasons supporting its conclusion; and that the case should be remanded to the Commission for reconsideration and a statement of reasons. 139 U. S. App. D. C. 226, 432 F. 2d 659. The Commission petitioned for review here, and we granted certiorari on March 22, 1971. 401 U. S. 973.
Events have taken place, subsequent to the decision by the court below, and some subsequent to our decision to grant certiorari, that require that we dismiss this case on the ground that it has now become moot. In January 1971, the Medical Committee again submitted its napalm resolution for inclusion in Dow’s 1971 proxy-statement. This time Dow acquiesced in the Committee’s request and included the proposal. At the annual stockholder’s meeting in May 1971, Dow’s shareholders voted on the Committee’s proposal. Less than 3% of all voting shareholders supported it, and pursuant to Rule 14a-8 (c)(4) (i), 17 CFR § 240.14a-8 (c) (4) (i), Dow may exclude the same or substantially the same proposal from its proxy materials for the next three years. We find that this series of events has mooted the controversy.
Respondent argues that it will continue to urge the adoption of the proposal and its inclusion in proxy statements, and that it is likely that Dow will reject inclusion in the future as it has in the past. It is true that in permitting the proposal to be included in the 1971 proxy statement Dow stated that it adhered to its opinion that the proposal might properly be omitted and that its inclusion was without prejudice to future exclusion. However, this does not create the controversy that is necessary for us to retain jurisdiction to decide the merits. Whether or not the Committee will actually resubmit its proposal or a similar one in 1974 is purely a matter of conjecture at this point, as is whether or not Dow will accept it. If Dow were likely to repeat its allegedly illegal conduct, the case would not be moot. See Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U. S. 37, 43 (1944); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632-633 (1953). However, in light of the meager support the proposal attracted, we can only speculate that Dow will continue to include the proposal when it again becomes eligible for inclusion, rather than to repeat this litigation. Thus, we find that "the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968). The case is therefore moot.
“[I]t is well settled that federal courts may act only in the context of a justiciable cáse or controversy.” Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 788 (1969). “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.” Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U. S. 301, 306 n. 3 (1964); cf. Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429, 434 (1952).
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for dismissal.
MR. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Me. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether the Department of Justice may challenge the finality of a contract disputes decision made by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in favor of its contractor, where the contract provides that the decision of AEC shall be “final and conclusive.” Section 1 of the Wunderlich Act leaves open for contest a claim that “is fraudulent or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or is not supported by substantial evidence.”
Moreover, 41 U. S. C. § 322, provides that “[n]o government contract shall contain a provision making final on a question of law the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board.”
The Department of Justice challenged the settlement made by the AEC on two grounds, (1) that the decision was “not supported by substantial evidence” and (2) that it was “erroneous as a matter of law.”
But the disputes clause in the contract says that the decision of the AEC is “final and conclusive,” unless a court determines that the award is vulnerable under §§ 1 and 2 of the Act. There is no federal statute which submits disputes of this character to review by one or more administrative agencies, where as here there is no charge of fraud or bad faith. Nor is there a statute which enables another federal agency to contest in court the validity of the decision of the AEC, absent fraud or bad faith.
In plain lay language the question then is whether, absent fraud or bad faith, the contractor can rely on the ruling of the federal agency with which it made the contract or can be forced to go through still another tier of federal review. We hold that absent fraud or bad faith the federal agency’s settlement under the disputes clause is binding on the Government; that there is not another tier of administrative review; and that, save for fraud or bad faith, the decision of AEC is “final and conclusive,” it being for these purposes the Federal Government. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims.
I
On August 4, 1961, petitioner contracted with the AEC to build a testing facility at the National Reactor Test Station in Idaho. The work was completed and accepted by the AEC on June 29, 1962. Because of various changes in contract specifications and difficulties in meeting performance schedules, petitioner submitted a series of claims to the contracting officer for resolution under the standard disputes clause contained in the contract, asking for equitable modifications of the contract and additional compensation. On August 8 and November 8, 1962, the contracting officer approved some of the claims and disapproved others, and the petitioner sought review of the adverse decisions with the AEC.
Since it did not then have a contract appeals board, the Commission referred petitioner’s appeal to a hearing examiner, before whom an adversary hearing was held. On June 26, 1963, the examiner decided in favor of eight of petitioner’s claims and remanded the dispute to the contracting officer for negotiations to determine the exact amount due petitioner. 2 A. E. C. 631. The contracting officer then sought review of this decision by the Commission. See 10 CER § 2.760 (Jan. 1, 1963).
The Commission declined to review four of the claims, 2 A. E. C. 738, which had the effect of sustaining the examiner’s decision on them. 10 CFR § 2.762 (a) (Jan. 1, 1963). Included within this group was the examiner’s determination that amounts due petitioner could not be retained to offset claims allegedly owed by petitioner to other contractors and other agencies of government. The Commission modified the examiner’s decision on three of the remaining claims and reversed him on the last, which petitioner has since abandoned. It “remanded to the contracting officer with instructions to proceed to final settlement or decision in accordance with the decision of the hearing examiner dated June 26, 1963, as modified by [its] order of November 14, 1963, and by [that] decision.” 2 A. E. C. 860, 856.
On March 6, 1964, prior to the AEC’s final ruling but after it had upheld the examiner’s decision on the “re-tainage” claim, a certifying officer of the Commission requested the opinion of the General Accounting Office on whether a voucher for the retainage claim could be certified for payment. Jurisdiction for the Comptroller General’s review was purportedly founded upon 31 U. S. C. § 82d. After some 33 months of what amounted to a plenary review of the proceedings before the examiner, the Comptroller General concluded that the voucher could not be certified for payment. 46 Comp. Gen. 441. On March 27, 1967, the AEC wrote petitioner, saying, “The Atomic Energy Commission’s view is that S&E Contractors, Inc. has exhausted its administrative recourse to the Commission. The Commission will take no action, in connection with the claims, inconsistent with the views expressed by the Comptroller General . . . .” The petitioner then brought this action in the Court of Claims seeking a judgment of $1.95 million and an order remanding the case for negotiations on the time extension to which it claimed it was entitled under the AEC’s original decision.
The defenses tendered raised no issue of any fraud or bad faith of the contractor against the United States.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, a commissioner of the Court of Claims ruled in favor of petitioner, holding that the General Accounting Office lacked authority to review the decision of the AEC and that the AEC’s refusal to follow its own decisions favorable to petitioner was a breach of the disputes clause of the contract. On review by the Court of Claims, however, that decision was reversed by a four-to-three vote. While the majority acknowledged “that the Comptroller General effectively stopped payment of the claims,” it did not pass upon the legality of that action. 193 Ct. Cl. 335, 340, 433 P. 2d 1373, 1375. Reasoning, instead, that the Wunder-lich Act allowed both the Department of Justice and contractors an equal right to judicial review of administrative decisions and that the AEC’s refusal to abide by its earlier decision was a permissible means of obtaining this review, it remanded petitioner’s claims “to the commissioner for his consideration and report on the various claims under Wunderlich Act standards.” Id., at 351, 433 F. 2d, at 1381.
The Commissioner did not base his opinion on any issue of fraud or bad faith of the contractor against the United States, nor did the Court of Claims. The case is now here on a petition for writ of certiorari which we granted. 402 U. S. 971.
Petitioner argues that neither the text nor the legislative history of the Wunderlich Act supports the right of the United States to seek judicial review of an administrative decision on a contractual dispute, that the General Accounting Office was without statutory or contractual authority to overturn the AEC’s decision, and that the AEC should not be allowed to abandon after some 33 months its own decision that had been made in petitioner’s favor. In response, the Solicitor General contends that the Wunderlich Act does give the Department of Justice the right of judicial review of contract decisions made by federal administrative agencies and that the Department of Justice is free to assert whatever defenses it desires in the Court of Claims without regard to the earlier actions of the federal contracting agency.
II
The disputes clause included in Government contracts is intended, absent fraud or bad faith, to provide a quick and efficient administrative remedy and to avoid “vexatious and expensive and, to the contractor oftentimes, ruinous litigation.” Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U. S. 398, 401 (1878). The contractor has ceded his right to seek immediate judicial redress for his grievances and has contractually bound himself to “proceed diligently with the performance of the contract” during the disputes process. The purpose of avoiding “vexatious litigation” would not be served, however, by substituting the action of officials acting in derogation of the contract.
The result in some cases might be sheer disaster. In the present case nearly a decade has passed since petitioner completed the performance of a contract under which the only agency empowered to act determined that it was entitled to payment. To postpone payment for such a period is to sanction precisely the sort of “vexatious litigation” which the disputes process was designed to avoid.
5 The American Bar Association, as amicus curiae, notes “that the contractor’s consent to permit a specific representative of the Government to decide disputes — the Commission — should not be read as permitting any different representative of the Government to 'veto’ decisions rendered by the Commission which are in favor of the contractor.”
Here, petitioner contracted with the United States acting through the AEC and it was exclusively with this Commission that the administrative resolution of disputes rested. Disputes initially were to be resolved between the contractor and the contracting officer and, if a settlement satisfactory to the contractor could be reached at that level, no review would lie. See United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U. S. 323; United States v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co., 91 U. S. 321.
By the disputes clause the decision of the AEC is “final and conclusive” unless “a court of competent jurisdiction” decides otherwise for the enumerated reasons. Neither the Wunderlich Act nor the disputes clause empowers any other administrative agency to have a veto of the AEC’s “final” decision or authority to review it. Nor does any other Act of Congress, except where fraud or bad faith is involved, give any other part of the Executive Branch authority to submit the matter to any court for determination. In other words, we cannot infer that by some legerdemain the disputes clause submitted the dispute to further administrative challenge or approval, and did not mean what it says when it made the AEC’s decision “final and conclusive.” See United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., supra, at 326. Kipps, The Right of the Government to Have Judicial Review of a Board of Contract Appeals Decision Made Under the Disputes Clause, 2 Pub. Contract L. J. 286 (1969); Schultz, Wunderlich Revisited: New Limits on Judicial Review of Administrative Determination of Government Contract Disputes, 29 Law & Contemp. Prob. 115, 132-133 (1964).
A citizen has the right to expect fair dealing from his government, see VitareUi v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535, and this entails in the present context treating the government as a unit rather than as an amalgam of separate entities. Here, the AEC spoke for the United States and its decision, absent fraud or bad faith, should be honored. Cf. NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U. S. 138.
Since the AEC withheld payment solely because of the views of the Comptroller General and since he had been given no authority to function as another tier of administrative review, there was no valid reason for the AEC not to settle with petitioner according to its earlier decision. For that purpose the AEC was the United States. Cf. Small Business Administration v. McClellan, 364 U. S. 446, 449.
The cases deny review by the Comptroller General of administrative disputes clause decisions as “without legal authority” absent fraud or overreaching. E. g., McShain Co. v. United States, 83 Ct. Ct. 405, 409 (1936). In James Graham Mfg. Co. v. United States, 91 F. Supp. 715 (ND Cal. 1950), for example, the contracting agency had determined that the contractor was entitled to reimbursement for certain expenditures under two cost-plus-fee contracts, but the Comptroller General refused payment. While the court noted the “extensive and broad” powers of the Comptroller General, it held that, absent instances of “fraud or overreaching,” where the Comptroller General’s power was founded upon specific statutory provisions such as 41 U. S. C. § 53, he had no “authority to determine the propriety of contract payments” approved by the contracting agency. 91 F. Supp., at 716. Accordingly, summary judgment was entered by the court, which said, “Since the Navy Department has determined that plaintiff contractor is entitled to the payment sought, this Court must adjudge accordingly.” Id., at 717.
Congress contemplated giving the General Accounting Office such powers and, indeed, the Senate twice passed— in the form of the McCarran bill — a provision which would have allowed the Comptroller to review disputes decisions to determine if they were “fraudulent, grossly erroneous, so mistaken as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.” S. 24, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). “If enacted, it would [have] invest [ed] the GAO with the power — which it has never had — to upset an administrative decision which it [found] 'grossly erroneous’ or 'not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.’ ” Schultz, Proposed Changes in Government Contract Disputes Settlement: The Legislative Battle over the Wunderlich Case, 67 Harv. L. Rev. 217, 243 (1953). The House of Representatives rejected this provision, however, and the Wunderlich Act was ultimately passed in its present form. We cannot, therefore, construe it to give the Comptroller General powers which Congress has plainly denied.
It is suggested, however, that the Comptroller General’s power is not one of review over the AEC decision but is merely the power “to force the contractor to bring suit and thus to obtain judicial review for the Government.” The disputes clause, however, sets forth the administrative means for resolving contractual disputes. Under the present contract the AEC is the final administrative arbiter of such claims and nowhere is there a provision for oversight by the Comptroller General. The Comptroller General, however, conducted a 33-month de novo review of the AEC proceedings; he blocked the payment to which the AEC determined petitioner was entitled; and he placed upon petitioner the burden of going to the Court of Claims to receive that payment. That action by the Comptroller General was a form of additional administrative oversight foreclosed by the disputes clause.
Ill
A majority of the Court of Claims held “that the Government has the right to the same extent as the contractor to seek judicial review of an unfavorable administrative decision on a contract claim.” 193 Ct. Cl., at 346, 433 F. 2d, at 1378. The Solicitor General adopts this view and sees in the Attorney General’s obligation to conduct litigation on behalf of the United States, 28 U. S. C. §§ 516, 519, the power to overturn decisions of coordinate offices of the Executive Department.
The Attorney General has the duty to “conduct . . . litigation in which the United States, an .agency, or officer thereof is a party,” 28 U. S. C. § 516, and to “supervise all [such] litigation,” 28 U. S. C. § 519. That power is pervasive but it does not appear how under the Wunderlich Act it gives the Department of Justice the right to appeal from a decision of the Atomic Energy Commission. Normally, where the responsibility for rendering a decision is vested in a coordinate branch of Government, the duty of the Department of Justice is to implement that decision and not to repudiate it. See 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 67, 68 (1937); 38 Op. Atty. Gen. 149, 150 (1934); 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 524, 529 (1905); 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 93, 96 (1903); 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 711, 713 (1894); 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 270, 272 (1891); 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 332, 333 (1882). Indeed, this view of the role of the Department of Justice may be traced back to William Wirt, the first of our Attorneys General to keep detailed records of his tenure in office. “Wirt it was who first recorded the propositions that the Attorney General does not decide questions of fact, that the Attorney General does not sit as an arbitrator in disputes between the government departments and private individuals nor as a reviewing officer to hear appeals from the decisions of public officers . . . H. Cummings & C. McFarland, Federal Justice 84 (1937) (footnotes omitted).
The power to appeal to the Court of Claims a decision of the federal agency under a disputes clause in a contract which the agency is authorized to make is not to be found in the Wunderlich Act and its underlying legislative history. That Act was designed to overturn our decision in United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U. S. 98 (1951), which had closed the courthouse doors to certain citizens aggrieved by administrative action amounting to something less than fraud. See S. Rep. No. 32, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1380, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. It should not be construed to require a citizen to perform the Herculean task of beheading the Hydra in order to obtain justice from his Government.
We are reluctant to construe a statute enacted to free citizens from a form of administrative tyranny so as to subject them to additional bureaucratic oversight, where there is no evidence of fraud or overreaching. In-this connection, it should be noted that committee reports accompanying the Wunderlich Act indicate that judicial review was provided so that contractors would not inflate their bids to take into account the uncertainties of administrative action. This objective would be ill served if Government contractors — having won a favorable decision before the agencies with whom they contracted— had also to run the gantlet of the General Accounting Office and the Department of Justice.
IV
A contractor’s fraud is of course a wholly different genus than the case now before us. Even where the contractor has obtained a judgment and the time for review of it has expired, fraud on an administrative agency or on the court enforcing the agency action is ground for setting aside the judgment. “[S"Jetting aside the judgment to permit a new trial, altering the terms of the judgment, or restraining the beneficiaries of the judgment from taking any benefit whatever from it,” Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co., 322 U. S. 238, 245, are the usual forms of relief which have been granted. Patents obtained with unclean hands and contracts that are based on those patents are similarly tainted and will not be enforced. Precision Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 U. S. 806. Contracts with the United States — like patents — are matters concerning far more than the interest of the adverse parties; they entail the public interest:
“[WJhere a suit in equity concerns the public interest as well as the private interests of the litigants this doctrine assumes even wider and more significant proportions. For if an equity court properly uses the maxim to withhold its assistance in such a case it not only prevents a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression but averts an injury to the public.” Id., at 815.
Congress has made elaborate provisions for dealing with fraudulent claims of contractors. Where the Comptroller General is convinced “that any settlement was induced by fraud,” he is directed to “certify ... all the facts ... to the Department of Justice, to the Administrator of General Services, and to the contracting agency concerned.” 58 Stat. 664, as amended, 41 U. S. C. §116 (b). The Administrator of General Services is also given broad powers of investigation and he is directed to give the Department of Justice “any information received by him indicating any fraudulent practices, for appropriate action.” 41 U. S. C. § 118 (d). Moreover, whenever “any contracting agency or the Administrator of General Services believes that any settlement was induced by fraud,” the facts shall be reported to the Department of Justice. 41 U. S. C. § 118 (e). And the Department of Justice is given broad powers to act. Ibid. In addition, Congress has imposed severe penalties on contractors who commit fraudulent acts and it has given the federal courts power to hear and determine such cases. 41 U. S. C. § 119.
Broad, flexible civil remedies are also provided against those who “use or engage in ... an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to use or engage in or to cause to be used or engaged in, any fraudulent trick, scheme, or device, for the purpose of securing or obtaining, or aiding to secure or obtain, for any person any payment, property, or other benefits from the United States or any Federal agency in connection with the procurement, transfer, or disposition of property . . . .” 63 Stat. 392, 40 U. S. C. § 489 (b).
As to the Court of Claims, 28 U. S. C. § 2514 provides that: “A claim against the United States shall be forfeited to the United States by any person who corruptly practices or attempts to practice any fraud against the United States in the proof, statement, establishment, or allowance thereof.
“In such cases the Court of Claims shall specifically find such fraud or attempt and render judgment of forfeiture.”
These statutory provisions show that, apart from the inherent power of courts to deal with fraud, the Department of Justice indubitably has standing to appear or intervene at any time in any appropriate court to restrain enforcement of contracts with the United States based on fraud. See, e. g., United States v. Hougham, 364 U. S. 310 (1960); Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148 (1956); United States v. Dinerstein, 362 F. 2d 852 (CA2 1966).
So far as the Wunderlich Act is concerned, it is irrelevant whether the administrative agency deciding this dispute is the AEC or the AEC’s board of contract appeals. It was common in the beginning to give final authority over the resolution of disputes under a Government contract to the designated contracting officer, save for “fraud or such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, or a failure to exercise an honest judgment.” Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U. S., at 402. Later came the present boards of contract appeals.
Boards of contract appeals within the respective agencies today are common. They are not statutory creations but are established by administrative regulations. S. Doc. No. 99, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., Operation and Effectiveness of Government Boards of Contract Appeals 20-21. Their decisions “constitute administrative adjudication in its purest sense.” Id., at 21. As noted, the AEC has had a board of contract appeals since 1964. Boards of contract appeals were in effect long before the Wunderlich Act and that explains why the Act provides for review “of any decision of the head of any department or agency or his duly authorized representative or board.” 41 U. S. C. § 321 (emphasis added).
We held in United States v. Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709, that even where the decision on review in the Court of Claims is that of a board of contract appeals, the review must be on the administrative record and that no trial de novo may be held. That decision led to proposals in Congress that, in effect, rulings of contract appeals boards be denied finality. S. Doc. No. 99, supra, at 25-26 and n. 70. But Congress has not taken that step. Some have urged that where a decision of a board of contract appeals is involved, the United States should have standing to appeal to the Court of Claims. Id., at 159. But our leading authority on these problems, Professor Harold C. Petrowitz, who wrote S. Doc. No. 99, supra, observed, “This has never been done, and the procedure may appear anomalous in view of the relatively close relationship between boards and the agencies they serve.” Ibid. However serious the problem may be and whatever its dimensions, it is obviously one for the Congress to resolve, not for us to resolve within the limits of the Wunderlich Act.
This case does not involve the situation where an administrative agency, upon timely petition for rehearing or prompt sua sponte reconsideration, determines that its earlier decision was wrong and, for that reason, refuses to abide by it. The AEC has not, to this day, repudiated the merits of its decisions in favor of petitioner. Nor, to repeat, is this a case of a fraud of a contractor against the United States. This is simply an instance where a contractor successfully resolved its disputes with the agency with which it had contracted and to whom that power had been delegated. The fruits of petitioner’s labors were frustrated, however, by the intermeddling of another agency without power to act and, when petitioner sought enforcement of its rights in court, still another agency of the Government entered and sought to disavow the decision made here by the AEC.
If the General Accounting Office or the Department of Justice is to be an ombudsman reviewing each and every decision rendered by the coordinate branches of the Government, that mandate should come from Congress, not from this Court.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Wunderlich Act, 68 Stat. 81, provides:
“No provision of any contract entered into by the United States, relating to the finality or conclusiveness of any decision of the head of any department or agency or his duly authorized representative or board in a dispute involving a question arising under such contract, shall be pleaded in any suit now filed or to be filed as limiting judicial review of any such decision to cases where fraud by such official or his said representative or board is alleged: Provided, however, That any such decision shall be final and conclusive unless the same is fraudulent or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or is not supported by substantial evidence.” 41 U. S. C. § 321.
“No Government contract shall contain a provision making final on a question of law the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board.” 41 U. S. C. § 322.
The contract provided:
“6. Disputes
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his decision to writing and mail or otherwise furnish a copy thereof to the Contractor. The decision of the Contracting Officer shall be final and conclusive unless, within 30 days from the date of receipt of such copy, the Contractor mails or otherwise furnishes to the Contracting Officer a written appeal addressed to the Commission. The decision of the Commission or its duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals shall be final and conclusive unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, or capricious, or arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence. In connection with any appeal proceeding under this clause, the Contractor shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance with the Contracting Officer’s decision.
“(b) This ‘Disputes’ Clause does not preclude consideration of law questions in connection with decisions provided for in paragraph (a) above; Provided, that nothing in this contract shall be construed as making final the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board on a question of law.”
The Atomic Energy Commission Board of Contract Appeals was not established until 1964. See 10 CFR § 3.1 et seq. (Jan. 1, 1971).
Volume 55 Stat. 876, 31 U. S. C. § 82d provides:
“The liability of certifying officers or employees shall be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as now provided by law with respect to enforcement of the liability of disbursing and other accountable officers; and they shall have the right to apply for and obtain a decision by the Comptroller General on any question of law involved in a payment on any vouchers presented to them for certification.”
While the quoted language from paragraph 6 (a) of the contract concerns factual disputes and while questions of law are dealt with in paragraph 6 (b) (see n. 2, supra), there is no reason to believe that the two clauses should not be considered in pari materia or that a different avenue for review should apply to legal questions than to those of fact. Indeed, paragraph 6 (b) speaks of “consideration of law questions in connection with decisions provided for in paragraph (a).” (Emphasis added.) The difference between the two clauses relates only to the standard of reviewability and does not establish separate avenues of review.
See n. 2, supra.
For certain types of fraud against the Government, Congress has vested the General Accounting Office with investigative powers. In the case of kickbacks by Government contractors, for example, “the General Accounting Office shall have the power to inspect the plants and to audit the books and records of any prime contractor or subcontractor engaged in the performance of a negotiated contract,” 74 Stat. 741, 41 U. S. C. § 53, and criminal penalties are provided if a violation is established. 41 U. S. C. § 54.
If the Comptroller General has the broad, roving, investigatory powers that are asserted, specific statutory grants of authority such as this provision relating to kickbacks would be superfluous.
It has been said that the Act’s legislative history “has something for everyone.” Kipps, The Right of the Government to Have Judicial Review of a Board of Contract Appeals Decision Made Under the Disputes Clause, 2 Pub. Contract L. J. 286, 295 (1969). Suffice it to say we find the Act’s history at best ambiguous. In construing laws we have been extremely wary of testimony before committee hearings and of debates on the floor of Congress save for precise analyses of statutory phrases by the sponsors of the proposed laws. See generally NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 66 (1964); Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270, 288 (1956); Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 394-395 (1951); United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 247 U. S. 310, 318 (1918); Omaha & Council Bluffs Street R. Co. v. ICC, 230 U. S. 324, 333 (1913) ; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, 318 (1897).
The reason is the caveat of Mr. Justice Holmes, “We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statute means.” The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 419.
The House Report stated, “A continuation of this situation [created by the Wunderlich decision] will render the performance of Government work less attractive to the responsible industries upon whom the Government must rely for the performance of such work, and will adversely affect the free and competitive nature of such work. It will discourage the more responsible element of every industry from engaging in Government work and will attract more speculative elements whose bids will contain contingent allowances intended to protect them from unconscionable decisions of Government officials rendered during the performance of their contracts.” H. R. Rep. No. 1380, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 4.
In a similar vein, the Senate Report on the Senate version of the Wunderlich Act stated, “The impact of this decision on the many business firms who, in a condition of expanding production with respect to the defense of the United States, must deal with many of the Government departments in Government construction and defense materials, was one that could only cause great expense to the United States in that the contractors would be forced to puff up their bids so as to be sure of sufficient funds to provide for unforeseen contingencies.” S. Rep. No. 32, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 2.
Where the Department of Justice has successfully asserted this defense of fraud, the Court of Claims has disallowed contractors’ claims. See, e. g., Kamen Soap Products Co. v. United States, 129 Ct. Cl. 619, 124 F. Supp. 608 (1954) (fraudulent preparation of evidence) ; Morris Demolition Corp. v. United States, 99 Ct. Cl. 336 (1943); Jerman v. United States, 96 Ct. Cl. 540 (1942) (fraudulent invoices); Mervin Contracting Corp. v. United States, 94 Ct. Cl. 81 (1941) (false payroll vouchers); Atlantic Contracting Co. v. United States, 57 Ct. Cl. 185 (1922) (embezzlement).
See n. 3, supra. And see 29 Fed. Reg. 12829 et seq.
For other aspects of exhaustion of administrative review of decisions from boards of contract appeals, see United States v. Moorman, 338 U. S. 457; United States v. Grace & Sons, 384 U. S. 424; United States v. Utah Construction Co., 384 U. S. 394.
The Court's citation of Mason & Hanger, ante, at 10, is, to say the least, perplexing.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
An amendment to a Texas statute that went into effect on September 1, 1993, authorized conviction of certain sexual offenses on the victim’s testimony alone. The previous statute required the victim’s testimony plus other corroborating evidence to convict the offender. The question presented is whether that amendment may be applied in a trial for offenses committed before the amendment’s effective date without violating the constitutional prohibition against state ex post facto” laws.
I
In 1996, a Texas grand jury returned a 15-count indictment charging petitioner with various sexual offenses against his stepdaughter. The alleged conduct took place over more than four years, from February 1991 to March 1995, when the victim was 12 to 16 years old. The conduct ceased after the victim told her mother what had happened. Petitioner was convicted on all 15 counts. The two most serious counts charged him with aggravated sexual assault, and petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on those two counts. For each of the other 13 offenses (5 counts of sexual assault and 8 counts of indecency with a child), petitioner received concurrent sentences of 20 years.
Until September 1, 1993, the following statute was in effect in Texas:
“A conviction under Chapter 21, Section 22.011, or Section 22.021, Penal Code, is supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim of the sexual offense if the victim informed any person, other than the defendant, of the alleged offense within six months after the date on which the offense is alleged to have occurred. The requirement that the victim inform another person of an alleged offense does not apply if the victim was younger than 14 years of age at the time of the alleged offense.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann,, Art. 38.07 (Vernon 1983).
We emphasize three features of this law that are critical to petitioner’s case.
The first is the so-called “outcry or corroboration” requirement. Under that provision, a victim’s testimony can support a conviction for the specified offenses only if (1) that testimony is corroborated by other evidence, or (2) the victim informed another person of the offense within six months of its occurrence (an “outcry”). The second feature is the “child victim” provision, which is an exception to the outcry or corroboration requirement. According to this provision, if the victim was under 14 years old at the time of the alleged offense, the outcry or corroboration requirement does not apply and the victim’s testimony alone can support a conviction — even without any corroborating evidence or outcry. The third feature is that Article 38.07 establishes a suffi-eiency of the evidence rule respecting the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction. If the statute’s requirements are not met (for example, by introducing only the uncorroborated testimony of a 15-year-old victim who did not make a timely outcry), a defendant cannot be convicted, and the court must enter a judgment of acquittal. See Leday v. State, 983 S. W. 2d 713, 725 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Scoggan v. State, 799 S. W. 2d 679, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Conversely, if the requirements are satisfied, a conviction, in the words of the statute, “is supportable,” and the case may be submitted to the jury and a conviction sustained. See Vickery v. State, 566 S. W. 2d 624, 626-627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Burnham v. State, 821 S. W. 2d 1, 3 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991).
Texas amended Article 38.07, effective September 1,1993. The amendment extended the child victim exception to victims under 18 years old. For four of petitioner’s counts, that amendment was critical. The “outcry or corroboration” requirement was not satisfied for those convictions; they rested solely on the victim’s testimony. Accordingly, the verdicts on those four counts stand or fall depending on whether the child victim exception applies. Under the old law, the exception would not apply, because the victim was more than 14 years old at the time of the alleged offenses. Under the new law, the exception would apply, because the victim was under 18 years old at that time. In short, the validity of four of petitioner’s convictions depends on whether the old or new law applies to his case, which, in turn, depends on whether the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits the application of the new version of Article 38.07 to his case.
As mentioned, only 4 of petitioner’s 15 total convictions are implicated by the amendment to Article 38.07; the other 11 counts — including the 2 convictions for which petitioner received life sentences — are uncontested. Six counts are uncontested because they were committed when the victim was under 14 years old, so his convictions stand even under the old law; the other five uncontested counts were committed after the new Texas law went into effect, so there could be no ex post facto claim as to those convictions. See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U. S. 24, 31 (1981) (“The critical question [for an ex post facto violation] is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date”)- What are at stake, then, are the four convictions on counts 7 through 10 for offenses committed between June 1992 and July 1993 when the victim was 14 or 15 years old and the new Texas law was not in effect.
Petitioner appealed his four convictions to the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas in Fort Worth. See 963 S. W. 2d 833 (1998). Petitioner argued that under the pre-1993 version of Article 38.07, which was the law in effect at the time of his alleged conduct, those convictions could not stand, because they were based solely on the victim’s testimony, and the victim was not under 14 years old at the time of the offenses, nor had she made a timely outcry.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument. Under the 1993 amendment to Article 38.07, the court observed, petitioner could be convicted on the victim’s testimony alone because she was under 18 years old at the time of the offenses. The court held that applying this amendment retrospectively to petitioner’s case did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause:
“The statute as amended does not increase the punishment nor change the elements of the offense that the State must prove. It merely ‘removes existing restrictions upon the competency of certain classes of persons as witnesses’ and is, thus, a rule of procedure. Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 590... (1884).” Id., at 836.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied discretionary review. Because the question whether the retrospective application of a statute repealing a corroboration requirement has given rise to conflicting decisions, we granted petitioner’s pro se petition for certiorari, 527 U. S. 1002 (1999), and appointed counsel, id., at 1051.
II
To prohibit legislative Acts contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation,” the Framers included provisions they considered to be “perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any [the Constitution] contains.” The provisions declare:
“No State shall... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts... U. S. Const., Art. I, § 10.
The proscription against ex post facto laws “necessarily requires some explanation; for, naked and without explanation, it is unintelligible, and means nothing.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390 (1798) (Chase, J.). In Calder v. Bull, Justice Chase stated that the necessary explanation is derived from English common law well known to the Framers: “The expressions ‘ex post facto laws,’ are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors.” Id., at 391; see also id., at 389 (“The prohibition... very probably arose from the knowledge, that the Parliament of Great Britain claimed and exercised a power to pass such laws...”); id., at 396 (Paterson, J.). Specifically, the phrase “ex post facto” referred only to certain types of criminal laws. Justice Chase cataloged those types as follows:
“I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” Id., at 390 (emphasis in original).
It is the fourth category that is at issue in petitioner’s case.
The common-law understanding explained by Justice Chase drew heavily upon the authoritative exposition of one of the great scholars of the common law, Richard Wooddeson. See id., at 391 (noting reliance on Wooddeson’s treatise). Woóddeson’s classification divided ex post facto laws into three general categories: those respecting the crimes themselves; those respecting the legal rules of evidence; and those affecting punishment (which he further subdivided into laws creating a punishment and those making an existing punishment more severe). See 2 R. Wooddeson, A Systematical View of the Laws of England 625-640 (1792) (Lecture 41) (hereinafter Wooddeson). Those three categories (the last of which was further subdivided) correlate precisely to Calder’s four categories. Justice Chase also used language in describing the categories that corresponds directly to Wooddeson’s phrasing. Finally, in four footnotes in Justice Chase’s opinion, he listed examples of various Acts of Parliament illustrating each of the four categories. See 3 Dali., at 389, nn. *, †, ‡, ||. Each of these examples is exactly the same as the ones Wooddeson himself used in his treatise. See 2 Wooddeson 629 (case of the Earl of Strafford); id., at 634 (ease of Sir John Fenwick); id., at 638 (banishments of Lord Clarendon and of Bishop Atter-bury); id., at 639 (Coventry Act).
Calder’s four categories, which embraced Wooddeson’s formulation, were, in turn, soon embraced by contemporary scholars. Joseph Story, for example, in writing on the Ex Post Facto Clause, stated:
“The general interpretation has been, and is,... that the prohibition reaches every law, whereby an act is declared a crime, and made punishable as such, when it was not a crime, when done; or whereby the act, if a crime, is aggravated in enormity, or punishment; or whereby different, or less evidence, is required to convict an offender, than was required, when the act was committed.” 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1339, p. 212 (1833).
James Kent concurred in this understanding of the Clause:
“[T]he words ex post facto laws were technical expressions, and meant every law that made an act done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; or which aggravated a crime, and made it greater than it was when committed; or which changed the punishment, and inflicted a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; or which altered the legal rules of evidence, and received less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” 1 Commentaries on American Law 408 (3d ed. 1836) (Lecture 19).
This Court, moreover, has repeatedly endorsed this understanding, including, in particular, the fourth category (sometimes quoting Chase’s words verbatim, sometimes simply paraphrasing). See Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U. S. 433, 441, n. 13 (1997); Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 293 (1977); Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 183-184 (1915); Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 593-594 (1901); Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U. S. 380, 382, 387 (1898); Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189, 201 (1898) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 589-590 (1896); Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 382 (1894); Hopt v. Territory of Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 589 (1884); Kring v. Missouri, 107 U. S. 221, 228 (1883), overruled on other grounds, Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37 (1990); Gut v. State, 9 Wall. 35, 38 (1870); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 390-391 (1867) (Miller, J., dissenting); Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325-326, 328 (1867). State courts, too, in the years following Colder, adopted Justice Chase’s four-category formulation. See Boston & Gunby v. Cummins, 16 Ga. 102, 106 (1854); Martindale v. Moore, 3 Blackf. 275, 277 (Ind. 1833); Davis v. Ballard, 24 Ky. 563, 578 (1829); Strong v. State, 1 Blackf. 193, 196 (Ind. 1822); Dickinson v. Dickinson, 7 N. C. 327, 330 (1819); see also Woart v. Winnick, 3 N. H. 473, 475 (Super. Ct. 1826).
III
As mentioned earlier, Justice Chase and Wooddeson both cited several examples of ex post facto laws, and, in particular, cited the case of Sir John Fenwick as an example of the fourth category. To better understand the type of law that falls within that category, then, we turn to Fenwick’s case for preliminary guidance.
Those who remained loyal to James II after he was deposed by King William III in the Revolution of 1688 thought their opportunity for restoration had arrived in 1695, following the death of Queen Mary. 9 T. Macaulay, History of England 31 (1899) (hereinafter Maeaulay). Sir John Fen-wick, along with other Jacobite plotters including George Porter and Cardell Goodman, began concocting their scheme in the spring of that year, and over the next several months the original circle of conspirators expanded in number. Id., at 32, 47-48, 109-110. Before the conspirators could carry out their machinations, however, three members of the group disclosed the plot to William. Id., at 122-125. One by one, the participants were arrested, tried, and convicted of treason. Id., at 127-142. Fenwick, though, remained in hiding while the rest of the cabal was brought to justice. During that time, the trials of his accomplices revealed that there were only two witnesses among them who could prove Fenwick’s guilt, Porter and Goodman. Id., at 170-171. As luck would have it, an act of Parliament proclaimed that two witnesses were necessary to convict a person of high treason. See An Act for Regulateing of Tryals in Cases of Treason and Misprision of Treason, 7 & 8 Will. Ill, ch. 3, § 2 (1695-1696), in 7 Statutes of the Realm 6 (reprint 1963). Thus, Fenwick knew that if he could induce either Porter or Goodman to abscond, the case against him would vanish. 9 Macaulay 171.
Fenwick first tried his hand with Porter. Fenwick sent his agent to attempt a bribe, which Porter initially accepted in exchange for leaving for France. But then Porter simply pocketed the bribe, turned in Fenwick's agent (who was promptly tried, convicted, and pilloried), and proceeded to testify against Fenwick (along with Goodman) before a grand jury. Id., at 171-173. When the grand jury returned an indictment for high treason, Fenwick attempted to flee the country himself, but was apprehended and brought before the Lord Justices in London. Sensing an impending conviction, Fenwick threw himself on the mercy of the court and offered to disclose all he knew of the Jacobite plotting, aware all the while that the judges would soon leave the city for their circuits, and a delay would thus buy him a few weeks time. Id., at 173-174.
Fenwick was granted time to write up his confession, but rather than betray true Jacobites, he concocted a confession calculated to accuse those loyal to William, hoping to introduce embarrassment and perhaps a measure of instability to the current regime. Id., at 175-178. William, however, at once perceived Fenwick’s design and rejected the confession, along with any expectation of mercy. Id., at 178-180, 194. Though his contrived ploy for leniency was unsuccessful in that respect, it proved successful in another: during the delay, Fenwick’s wife had succeeded in bribing Goodman, the other witness against him, to leave the country. Id., at 194-195.
Without a second witness, Fenwick could not be convicted of high treason under the statute mentioned earlier. For all his plotting, however, Fenwick was not to escape. After Goodman’s absence was discovered, the House of Commons met and introduced a bill of attainder against Fenwick to correct the situation produced by the combination of bribery and the two-witness law. Id., at 198-199. A lengthy debate ensued, during which the Members repeatedly discussed whether the two-witness rule should apply. Ultimately, the bill passed by a close vote of 189 to 156, id., at 210, notwithstanding the objections of Members who (foreshadowing Colder’s fourth category) complained that Fenwick was being attainted “upon less Evidence” than would be required under the two-witness law, and despite the repeated importuning against the passing of an ex post facto law. The bill then was taken up and passed by the House of Lords, and the King gave his assent. Id., at 214-225; see also An Act to Attaint Sir John Fenwick Baronet of High Treason, 8 Will. Ill, ch. 4 (1696). On January 28,1697, Sir John Fenwick was beheaded. 9 Macaulay 226-227.
> b-H
Article 38.07 is unquestionably a law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” Under the law in effect at the time the acts were committed, the prosecution’s case was legally insufficient and petitioner was entitled to a judgment of acquittal, unless the State could produce both the victim’s testimony and corroborative evidence. The amended law, however, changed the quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction; under the new law, petitioner could be (and was) convicted on the victim’s testimony alone, without any corroborating evidence. Under any commonsense understanding of Calder’s fourth category, Article 38.07 plainly fits. Requiring only the victim’s testimony to convict, rather than the victim’s testimony plus other corroborating evidence is surely “less testimony required to convict” in any straightforward sense of those words.
Indeed, the circumstances of petitioner’s case parallel those of Fenwick’s case 300 years earlier. Just as the relevant law in Fenwick’s case required more than one witness’ testimony to support a conviction (namely, the testimony of a second witness), Texas’ old version of Article 38.07 required more than the victim’s testimony alone to sustain a conviction (namely, other corroborating evidence). And just like Fen-wick’s kill of attainder, which permitted the House of Commons to convict him with less evidence than was otherwise required, Texas’ retrospective application of the amendment to Article 38.07 permitted petitioner to be convicted with less than the previously required quantum of evidence. It is true, of course, as the Texas Court of Appeals observed, that “[t]he statute as amended does not increase the punishment nor change the elements of the offense that the State must prove.” 963 S. W. 2d, at 836. But that observation simply demonstrates that the amendment does not fit within Calder’s first and third categories. Likewise, the dissent’s remark that “Article 38.07 does not establish an element of the offense,” post, at 559, only reveals that the law does not come within Calder’s first category. The fact that the amendment authorizes a conviction on less evidence than previously required, however, brings it squarely within the fourth category.
V
The fourth category, so understood, resonates harmoniously with one of the principal interests that the Ex Post Facto Clause was designed to serve, fundamental justice.
Justice Chase viewed all ex post facto laws as “manifestly unjust and oppressive Calder, 3 Dall., at 391. Likewise, Blackstone condemned them as “cruel and unjust,” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 46 (1765), as did every state constitution with a similar clause, see n. 25, infra. As Justice Washington explained in characterizing “[t]he injustice and tyranny” of ex post facto laws:
“Why did the authors of the constitution turn their attention to this subject, which, at the first blush, would appear to be peculiarly fit to be left to the discretion of those who have the police and good government of the State under their management and control? The only answer to be given is, because laws of this character are oppressive, unjust, and tyrannical; and, as such, are condemned by the universal sentence of civilized man.” Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 266 (1827).
In short, the Ex Post Facto Clause was designed as “an additional bulwark in favour of the personal security of the subject,” Calder, 3 Dall, at 390 (Chase, J.), to protect against “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny,” The Federalist No. 84, p. 512 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton), that were “often used to effect the most detestable purposes,” Calder, 3 Dall., at 396 (Paterson, J.).
Calder’s fourth category addresses this concern precisely. A law reducing the quantum of evidence required to convict an offender is as grossly unfair as, say, retrospectively eliminating an element of the offense, increasing the punishment for an existing offense, or lowering the burden of proof (see infra, at 540-544). In each of these instances, the government subverts the presumption of innocence by reducing the number of elements it must prove to overcome that presumption; by threatening such severe punishment so as to induce a plea to a lesser offense or a lower sentence; or by making it easier to meet the threshold for overcoming the presumption. Reducing the quantum of evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof is simply another way of achieving the same end. All of these legislative changes, in a sense, are mirror images of one another. In each instance, the government refuses, after the fact, to play by its own rules, altering them in a way that is advantageous only to the State, to facilitate an easier conviction. There is plainly a fundamental fairness interest, even apart from any claim of reliance or notice, in having the government abide by the rules of law it establishes to govern the circumstances under which it can deprive a person of his or her liberty or life.
Indeed, Fenwick's ease is itself an illustration of this principle. Fenwick could claim no credible reliance interest in the two-witness statute, as he could not possibly have known that only two of his fellow conspirators would be able to testify as to his guilt, nor that he would be successful in bribing one of them to leave the country. Nevertheless, Parliament had enacted the two-witness law, and there was a profound unfairness in Parliament’s retrospectively altering the very rulés it had established, simply because those rules prevented the conviction of the traitor — notwithstanding the fact that Fenwick could not truly claim to be “innocent.” (At least one historian has concluded that his guilt was clearly established, see 9 Macaulay 203-204, and the debate in the House of Commons bears out that conclusion, see, e. g., Proceedings 219,230,246,265,289.) Moreover, the pertinent rule altered in Fenwick’s case went directly to the general issue of guilt, lowering the minimum quantum of evidence required to obtain a conviction. The Framers, quite clearly, viewed such maneuvers as grossly unfair, and adopted the Ex Post Facto Clause accordingly.
<1 W-l
The United States as amicus asks us to revisit the accuracy of the fourth category as an original matter. None of its reasons for abandoning the category is persuasive.
First, pointing to Blackstone’s Commentaries and a handful of state constitutions cited by Justice Chase in Colder, see 3 Dali., at 891-392, the United States asserts that Justice Chase simply got it wrong with his four categories. Blackstone wrote: “There is still a more unreasonable method than this, which is called making of laws ex post facto; when after an action is committed, the legislator then for the first time declares it to have been a crime, and inflicts a punishment upon the person who has committed it....” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England, at 46 (emphasis in original). The ex post facto clauses in Ratification-era state constitutions to which Justice Chase cited are of a piece. The United States directs our attention to the fact that none of these definitions mentions Justice Chase’s fourth category.
All of these sources, though, are perfectly consistent with Justice Chase’s first category of ex post facto laws. None of them is incompatible with his four-category formulation, unless we accept the premise that Blackstone and the state constitutions purported to express the exclusive definition of an ex post facto law. Yet none appears to do so on its face. And if those definitions were read as exclusive, the United States’ argument would rim up against a more troubling obstacle, namely, that neither Blackstone nor the state constitutions mention Calder’s third category either (increases in punishment). The United States, in effect, asks us to abandon two of Calder’s categories based on the unsupported supposition that the Blaekstonian and state constitutional definitions were exclusive, and upon the implicit premise that neither Wooddeson, Chase, Story, Kent, nor subsequent courts (state and federal) realized that was so. We think that simply stating the nature of the request demonstrates why it must be rejected.
Next, the United States contends Justice Chase was mistaken to cite the case of Sir John Fenwick as an example of an ex post facto law, because it was actually a bill of attainder. Fenwick was indeed convicted by a bill of attainder, but it does not follow that his ease cannot also be an example of an ex post facto law. Clearly, Wooddeson thought it was, see 2 Wooddeson 641, as did the House of Commons, see n. 19, supra, and we are aware of no rule stating that a single historical event can explain one, but not two, constitutional Clauses (actually, three Clauses, see Art. Ill, § 3 (Treason Clause)). We think the United States’ observation simply underscores the kinship between bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, see Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 468, n. 30 (1977); United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 323 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); see also Z. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, pp. 92-93 (1956) (hereinafter Chafee), which may explain why the Framers twice placed their respective prohibitions adjacent to one another. And if the United States means to argue that category four should be abandoned because its illustrative example was a bill of attainder, this would prove entirely too much, because all of the specific examples listed by Justice Chase were passed as bills of attainder.
Finally, both Texas and the United States argue that we have already effectively cast out the fourth category in Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37 (1990). Collins held no such thing. That case began its discussion of the Ex Post Facto Clause by quoting verbatim Justice Chase’s “now familiar opinion in Calder” and his four-category definition. Id., at 41-42. After noting that “[e]arly opinions of the Court portrayed this as an exclusive definition of ex post facto laws,” id., at 42, the Court then quoted from our opinion in Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U. S. 167 (1925):
“ ‘It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.’” Collins, 497 U. S., at 42 (quoting Beazell, 269 U. S., at 169-170).
Collins then observed in a footnote: “The Beazell definition omits the reference by Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull, to alterations in the ‘legal rules of evidence.’ As cases subsequent to Colder make clear, this language was not intended to prohibit the application of new evidentiary rules in trials for crimes committed before the changes.” 497 U. S., at 43, n. 3 (citations omitted). Collins then commented that “[t]he Beazell formulation is faithful to our best knowledge of the original understanding of the Ex Post Facto Clause.” Id., at 43.
It seems most accurate to say that Collins is rather cryptic. While calling Colder’s four categories the “exclusive definition” of ex post facto laws, it also calls Beazell’s definition a “faithful” rendition of the “original understanding” of the Clause, even though that quotation omitted category four. And while Collins quotes a portion of Beazell omitting the fourth category, the immediately preceding paragraph in Beazell explains that the law at issue in that case did not change “[t]he quantum and kind of proof required to establish guilt,” 269 U. S., at 170, a statement distinguishing, rather than overruling, Colder’s fourth category.
If Collins had intended to resurrect a long forgotten original understanding of the Ex Post Facto Clause shorn of the fourth category, we think it strange that it would have done so in a footnote. Stranger still would be its reliance on a single case from 1925, which did not even implicate, let alone purport to overrule, the fourth category, and which did not even mention Fenwick’s case. But this Court does not discard longstanding precedent in this manner. Further still, Collins itself expressly overruled two of our prior cases; if the Court that day were intent on overruling part of Colder as well, it surely would have said so directly, rather than act in such an ambiguous manner.
The better understanding of Collins’ discussion of the Ex Post Facto Clause is that it eliminated a doctrinal hitch that had developed in our cases, which purported to define the scope of the Clause along an axis distinguishing between laws involving “substantial protections" and those that are merely “procedural.” Both Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221 (1883), and Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343 (1898) — the two cases Collins overruled — relied on just that distinction. In overruling them, the Court correctly pointed out, “the prohibition which may not be evaded is, the one defined by the Colder categories.” 497 U. S., at 46. Accordingly, Collins held that it was a mistake to stray beyond Colder’s four categories, not that the fourth category was itself mistaken.
VII
Texas next argues that even if the fourth category exists, it is limited to laws that retrospectively alter the burden of proof (which Article 38.07 does not do). See also post, at 572 (dissenting opinion). It comes to this conclusion on the basis of two pieces of evidence. The first is our decision in Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 (1867). The second concerns Texas’ historical understanding of Fenwick’s case.
Cummings v. Missouri addressed an ex post facto challenge to certain amendments to the Missouri State Constitution made in 1865. When read together, those amendments listed a series of acts deemed criminal (all dealing with the giving of aid or comfort to anyone engaged in armed hostility against the United States), and then declared that unless a person engaged in certain professions (e. g., lawyers and clergymen) swore an oath of loyalty, he “shall, on conviction [for failing to swear the oath], be punished” by a fine, imprisonment, or both. Id'., at 279-281. We held that these provisions violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Writing for the Court, Justice Field first observed that “[b]y an ex post facto law is meant one which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed; or changes the rules of evidence by which less or different testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required.” Id., at 325-326. The Court then held the amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause in all these respects: some of the offenses deemed criminal by the amendments were not criminal acts before then, id., at 327-328; other acts were previously criminal, but now they carried a greater criminal sanction, id., at 328; and, most importantly for present purposes, the amendments permitted conviction on less testimony than was previously sufficient, because they “subvert the presumptions of innocence, and alter the rules of evidence, which heretofore, under the universally recognized principles of the common law, have been supposed to be fundamental and unchangeable,” ibid. The Court continued: “They assume that the parties are guilty; they call upon the parties to establish their innocence; and they declare that such innocence can be shown only in one way — by an inquisition, in the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians, federally recognized Indian Tribes, occupy reservations in Riverside County, California. Each Band, pursuant to an ordinance approved by the Secretary of the Interior, conducts bingo games on its reservation. The Cabazon Band has also opened a card club at which draw poker and other card games are played. The games are open to the public and are played predominantly by non-Indians coming onto the reservations. The games are a major source of employment for tribal members, and the profits are the Tribes’ sole source of income. The State of California seeks to apply to the two Tribes Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 326.5 (West Supp. 1987). That statute does not entirely prohibit the playing of bingo but permits it when the games are operated and staffed by members of designated charitable organizations who may not be paid for their services. Profits must be kept in special accounts and used only for charitable purposes; prizes may not exceed $250 per game. Asserting that the bingo games on the two reservations violated each of these restrictions, California insisted that the Tribes comply with state law. Riverside County also sought to apply its local Ordinance No. 558, regulating bingo, as well as its Ordinance No. 331, prohibiting the playing of draw poker and the other card games.
The Tribes sued the county in Federal District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the county had no authority to apply its ordinances inside the reservations and an injunction against their enforcement. The State intervened, the facts were stipulated, and the District Court granted the Tribes’ motion for summary judgment, holding that neither the State nor the county had any authority to enforce its gambling laws within the reservations. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 783 F. 2d 900 (1986), the State and the county appealed, and we postponed jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 476 U. S. 1168.
H-l
The Court has consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain “attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory,” United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 557 (1975), and that “tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States,” Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 154 (1980). It is clear, however, that state laws may be applied to tribal Indians on their reservations if Congress has expressly so provided. Here, the State insists that Congress has twice given its express consent: first in Pub. L. 280 in 1953, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 1162, 28 U. S. C. § 1360 (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), and second in the Organized Crime Control Act in 1970, 84 Stat. 937, 18 U. S. C. § 1955. We disagree in both respects.
In Pub. L. 280, Congress expressly granted six States, including California, jurisdiction over specified areas of Indian country within the States and provided for the assumption of jurisdiction by other States. In §2, California was granted broad criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians within all Indian country within the State. Section 4’s grant of civil jurisdiction was more limited. In Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U. S. 373 (1976), we interpreted § 4 to grant States jurisdiction over private civil litigation involving reservation Indians in state court, but not to grant general civil regulatory authority. Id., at 385, 388-390. We held, therefore, that Minnesota could not apply its personal property tax within the reservation. Congress’ primary concern in enacting Pub. L. 280 was combating lawlessness on reservations. Id., at 379-380. The Act plainly was not intended to effect total assimilation of Indian tribes into mainstream American society. Id., at 387. We recognized that a grant to States of general civil regulatory power over Indian reservations would result in the destruction of tribal institutions and values. Accordingly, when a State seeks to enforce a law within an Indian reservation under the authority of Pub. L. 280, it must be determined whether the law is criminal in nature, and thus fully applicable to the reservation under § 2, or civil in nature, and applicable only as it may be relevant to private civil litigation in state court.
The Minnesota personal property tax at issue in Bryan was unquestionably civil in nature. The California bingo statute is not so easily categorized. California law permits bingo games to be conducted only by charitable and other specified organizations, and then only by their members who may not receive any wage or profit for doing so; prizes are limited and receipts are to be segregated and used only for charitable purposes. Violation of any of these provisions is a misdemeanor. California insists that these are criminal laws which Pub. L. 280 permits it to enforce on the reservations.
Following its earlier decision in Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians, San Diego County, Cal. v. Duffy, 694 F. 2d 1185 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U. S. 929 (1983), which also involved the applicability of §326.5 of the California Penal Code to Indian reservations, the Court of Appeals rejected this submission. 783 F. 2d, at 901-903. In Barona, applying what it thought to be the civil/criminal dichotomy drawn in Bryan v. Itasca County, the Court of Appeals drew a distinction between state “criminal/prohibitory” laws and state “civil/regulatory” laws: if the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub. L. 280’s grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and Pub. L. 280 does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian reservation. The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the State’s public policy. Inquiring into the nature of §326.5, the Court of Appeals held that it was regulatory rather than prohibitory. This was the analysis employed, with similar results, by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F. 2d 310 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 1020 (1982), which the Ninth Circuit found persuasive.
We are persuaded that the prohibitory/regulatory distinction is consistent with Bryan’s construction of Pub. L. 280. It is not a bright-line rule, however; and as the Ninth Circuit itself observed, an argument of some weight may be made that the bingo statute is prohibitory rather than regulatory. But in the present case, the court reexamined the state law and reaffirmed its holding in Barona, and we are reluctant to disagree with that court’s view of the nature and intent of the state law at issue here.
There is surely a fair basis for its conclusion. California does not prohibit all forms of gambling. California itself operates a state lottery, Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §8880 et seq. (West Supp. 1987), and daily encourages its citizens to participate in this state-run gambling. California also permits parimutuel horse-race betting. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. §§ 19400-19667 (West 1964 and Supp. 1987). Although certain enumerated gambling games are prohibited under Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 330 (West Supp. 1987), games not enumerated, including the card games played in the Cabazon card club, are permissible. The Tribes assert that more than 400 card rooms similar to the Cabazon card club flourish in California, and the State does not dispute this fact. Brief for
Appellees 47-48. Also, as the Court of Appeals noted, bingo is legally sponsored by many different organizations and is widely played in California. There is no effort to forbid the playing of bingo by any member of the public over the age of 18. Indeed, the permitted bingo games must be open to the general public. Nor is there any limit on the number of games which eligible organizations may operate, the receipts which they may obtain from the games, the number of games which a participant may play, or the amount of money which a participant may spend, either per game or in total. In light of the fact that California permits a substantial amount of gambling activity, including bingo, and actually promotes gambling through its state lottery, we must conclude that California regulates rather than prohibits gambling in general and bingo in particular.
California argues, however, that high stakes, unregulated bingo, the conduct which attracts organized crime, is a misdemeanor in California and may be prohibited on Indian reservations. But that an otherwise regulatory law is enforceable by criminal as well as civil means does not necessarily convert it into a criminal law within the meaning of Pub. L. 280. Otherwise, the distinction between § 2 and § 4 of that law could easily be avoided and total assimilation permitted. This view, adopted here and by the Fifth Circuit in the Butterworth case, we find persuasive. Accordingly, we conclude that Pub. L. 280 does not authorize California to enforce Cal. Penal Code Ann. §326.5 (West Supp. 1987) within the Cabazon and Morongo Reservations.
California and Riverside County also argue that the Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) authorizes the application of their gambling laws to the tribal bingo enterprises. The OCCA makes certain violations of state and local gambling laws violations of federal law. The Court of Appeals rejected appellants’ argument, relying on its earlier decisions in United States v. Farris, 624 F. 2d 890 (CA9 1980), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1111 (1981), and Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians, San Diego County, Cal. v. Duffy, 694 F. 2d 1185 (1982). 783 F. 2d, at 903. The court explained that whether a tribal activity is “a violation of the law of a state” within the meaning of OCCA depends on whether it violates the “public policy” of the State, the same test for application of state law under Pub. L. 280, and similarly concluded that bingo is not contrary to the public policy of California.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has rejected this view. United States v. Dakota, 796 F. 2d 186 (1986). Since the OCCA standard is simply whether the gambling business is being operated in “violation of the law of a State,” there is no basis for the regulatory/prohibitory distinction that it agreed is suitable in construing and applying Pub. L. 280. 796 F. 2d, at 188. And because enforcement of OCCA is an exercise of federal rather than state authority, there is no danger of state encroachment on Indian tribal sovereignty. Ibid. This latter observation exposes the flaw in appellants’ reliance on OCCA. That enactment is indeed a federal law that, among other things, defines certain federal crimes over which the district courts have exclusive jurisdiction. There is nothing in OCCA indicating that the States are to have any part in enforcing federal criminal laws or are authorized to make arrests on Indian reservations that in the absence of OCCA they could not effect. We are not informed of any federal efforts to employ OCCA to prosecute the playing of bingo on Indian reservations, although there are more than 100 such enterprises currently in operation, many of which have been in existence for several years, for the most part with the encouragement of the Federal Government. Whether or not, then, the Sixth Circuit is right and the Ninth Circuit wrong about the coverage of OCCA, a matter that we do not decide, there is no warrant for California to make arrests on reservations and thus, through OCCA, enforce its gambling laws against Indian tribes.
I — ( I — l
Because the state and county laws at issue here are imposed directly on the Tribes that operate the games, and are not expressly permitted by Congress, the Tribes argue that the judgment below should be affirmed without more. They rely on the statement in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 170-171 (1973), that “‘[s]tate laws generally are not applicable to tribal Indians on an Indian reservation except where Congress has expressly provided that State laws shall apply’ ” (quoting United States Dept, of the Interior, Federal Indian Law 845 (1958)). Our cases, however, have not established an inflexible per se rule pre-eluding state jurisdiction over tribes and tribal members in the absence of express congressional consent. “[UJnder certain circumstances a State may validly assert authority over the activities of nonmembers on a reservation, and... in exceptional circumstances a State may assert jurisdiction over the on-reservation activities of tribal members.” New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S. 324, 331-332 (1983) (footnotes omitted).. Both Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463 (1976), and Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S. 134 (1980), are illustrative. In those decisions we held that, in the absence of express congressional permission, a State could require tribal smokeshops on Indian reservations to collect state sales tax from their non-Indian customers. Both cases involved nonmembers entering and purchasing tobacco products on the reservations involved. The State’s interest in assuring the collection of sales taxes from non-Indians enjoying the off-reservation services of the State was sufficient to warrant the minimal burden imposed on the tribal smokeshop operators.
This case also involves a state burden on tribal Indians in the context of their dealings with non-Indians since the question is whether the State may prevent the Tribes from making available high stakes bingo games to non-Indians coming from outside the reservations. Decision in this case turns on whether state authority is pre-empted by the operation of federal law; and “[s]tate jurisdiction is pre-empted... if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law, unless the state interests at stake are sufficient to justify the assertion of state authority.” Mescalero, 462 U. S., at 333, 334. The inquiry is to proceed in light of traditional notions of Indian sovereignty and the congressional goal of Indian self-government, including its “overriding goal” of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development. Id., at 334-335. See also, Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, ante, p. 9; White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 143 (1980).
These are important federal interests. They were reaffirmed by the President’s 1983 Statement on Indian Policy. More specifically, the Department of the Interior, which has the primary responsibility for carrying out the Federal Government’s trust obligations to Indian tribes, has sought to implement these policies by promoting tribal bingo enterprises. Under the Indian Financing Act of 1974, 25 U. S. C. § 1451 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), the Secretary of the Interior has made grants and has guaranteed loans for the purpose of constructing bingo facilities. See S. Rep. No. 99-493, p. 5 (1986); Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. McGuigan, 626 F. Supp. 245, 246 (Conn. 1986). The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Health and Human Services have also provided financial assistance to develop tribal gaming enterprises. See S. Rep. No. 99-493, supra, at 5. Here, the Secretary of the Interior has approved tribal ordinances establishing and regulating the gaming activities involved. See H. R. Rep. No. 99-488, p. 10 (1986). The Secretary has also exercised his authority to review tribal bingo management contracts under 25 U. S. C. §81, and has issued detailed guidelines governing that review. App. to Motion to Dismiss Appeal or Affirm Judgment 63a-70a.
These policies and actions, which demonstrate the Government’s approval and active promotion of tribal bingo enterprises, are of particular relevance in this case. The Caba-zon and Morongo Reservations contain no natural resources which can be exploited. The tribal games at present provide the sole source of revenues for the operation of the tribal governments and the provision of tribal services. They are also the major sources of employment on the reservations. Self-determination and economic development are not within reach if the Tribes cannot raise revenues and provide employment for their members. The Tribes’ interests obviously parallel the federal interests.
California seeks to diminish the weight of these seemingly important tribal interests by asserting that the Tribes are merely marketing an exemption from state gambling laws. In Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S., at 155, we held that the State could tax cigarettes sold by tribal smokeshops to non-Indians, even though it would eliminate their competitive advantage and substantially reduce revenues used to provide tribal services, because the Tribes had no right “to market an exemption from state taxation to persons who would normally do their business elsewhere.” We stated that “[i]t is painfully apparent that the value marketed by the smokeshops to persons coming from outside is not generated on the reservations by activities in which the Tribes have a significant interest.” Ibid. Here, however, the Tribes are not merely importing a product onto the reservations for immediate resale to non-Indians. They have built modern facilities which provide recreational opportunities and ancillary services to their patrons, who do not simply drive onto the reservations, make purchases and depart, but spend extended periods of time there enjoying the services the Tribes provide. The Tribes have a strong incentive to provide comfortable, clean, and attractive facilities and well-run games in order to increase attendance at the games. The tribal bingo enterprises are similar to the resort complex, featuring hunting and fishing, that the Mescalero Apache Tribe operates on its reservation through the “concerted and sustained” management of reservation land and wildlife resources. New Mexico v. Mesca-lero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S., at 341. The Mescalero project generates funds for essential tribal services and provides employment for tribal members. We there rejected the notion that the Tribe is merely marketing an exemption from state hunting and fishing regulations and concluded that New Mexico could not regulate on-reservation fishing and hunting by non-Indians. Ibid. Similarly, the Cabazon and Morongo Bands are generating value on the reservations through activities in which they have a substantial interest.
The State also relies on Rice v. Rehner, 463 U. S. 713 (1983), in which we held that California could require a tribal member and a federally licensed Indian trader operating a general store on a reservation to obtain a state license in order to sell liquor for off-premises consumption. But our decision there rested on the grounds that Congress had never recognized any sovereign tribal interest in regulating liquor traffic and that Congress, historically, had plainly anticipated that the States would exercise concurrent authority to regulate the use and distribution of liquor on Indian reservations. There is no such traditional federal view governing the outcome of this case, since, as we have explained, the current federal policy is to promote precisely what California seeks to prevent.
The sole interest asserted by the State to justify the imposition of its bingo laws on the Tribes is in preventing the infiltration of the tribal games by organized crime. To the extent that the State seeks to prevent any and all bingo games from being played on tribal lands while permitting regulated, off-reservation games, this asserted interest is irrelevant and the state and county laws are pre-empted. See n. 3, supra. Even to the extent that the State and county seek to regulate short of prohibition, the laws are preempted. The State insists that the high stakes offered at tribal games are attractive to organized crime, whereas the controlled games authorized under California law are not. This is surely a legitimate concern, but we are unconvinced that it is sufficient to escape the pre-emptive force of federal and tribal interests apparent in this case. California does not allege any present criminal involvement in the Cabazon and Morongo enterprises, and the Ninth Circuit discerned none. 783 F. 2d, at 904. An official of the Department of Justice has expressed some concern about tribal bingo operations, but far from any action being taken evidencing this concern — and surely the Federal Government has the authority to forbid Indian gambling enterprises — the prevailing federal policy continues to support these tribal enterprises, including those of the Tribes involved in this case.
We conclude that the State’s interest in preventing the infiltration of the tribal bingo enterprises by organized crime does not justify state regulation of the tribal bingo enterprises in light of the compelling federal and tribal interests supporting them. State regulation would impermissibly infringe on tribal government, and this conclusion applies equally to the county’s attempted regulation of the Cabazon card club. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Cabazon Reservation was originally set apart for the “permanent use and occupancy” of the Cabazon Indians by Executive Order of May 15, 1876. The Morongo Reservation also was first established by Executive Order. In 1891, in the Mission Indian Relief Act, 26 Stat. 712, Congress declared reservations “for the sole use and benefit” of the Cabazon and Morongo Bands. The United States holds the land in trust for the Tribes. The governing bodies of both Tribes have been recognized by the Secretary of the Interior. The Cabazon Band has 25 enrolled members and the Morongo Band has approximately 730 enrolled members.
The Cabazon ordinance authorizes the Band to sponsor bingo games within the reservation “[i]n order to promote economic development of the Cabazon Indian Reservation and to generate tribal revenues” and provides that net revenues from the games shall be kept in a separate fund to be used “for the purpose of promoting the health, education, welfare and well being of the Cabazon Indian Reservation and for other tribal purposes.” App. to Brief for Appellees lb-3b. The ordinance further provides that no one other than the Band is authorized to sponsor a bingo game within the reservation, and that the games shall be open to the public, except that no one under 18 years old may play. The Morongo ordinance similarly authorizes the establishment of a tribal bingo enterprise and dedicates revenues to programs to promote the health, education, and general welfare of tribal members. Id., at la-6a. It additionally provides that the games may be conducted at any time but must be conducted at least three days per week, that there shall be no prize limit for any single game or session, that no person under 18 years old shall be allowed to play, and that all employees shall wear identification.
The Tribes admit that their games violate the provision governing staffing and the provision setting a limit on jackpots. They dispute the State’s assertion that they do not maintain separate funds for the bingo operations. At oral argument, counsel for the State asserted, contrary to the position taken in the merits brief and contrary to the stipulated facts in this ease, App. 66, ¶ 24, 82-88, ¶ 16, that the Tribes are among the charitable organizations authorized to sponsor bingo games under the statute. It is therefore unclear whether the State intends to put the tribal bingo enterprises out of business or only to impose on them the staffing, jackpot limit, and separate fund requirements. The tribal bingo enterprises are apparently consistent with other provisions of the statute: minors are not allowed to participate, the games are conducted in buildings owned by the Tribes on tribal property, the games are open to the public, and persons must be physically present to participate.
The Court of Appeals “afñrm[ed] the summary judgment and the permanent injunction restraining the County and the State from applying their gambling laws on the reservations.” 783 F. 2d, at 906. The judgment of the District Court declared that the state statute and county ordinance were of no force and effect within the two reservations, that the State and the county were without jurisdiction to enforce them, and that they were therefore enjoined from doing so. Since it is now sufficiently clear that the state and county laws at issue were held, as applied to the gambling activities on the two reservations, to be “invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2), the ease is within our appellate jurisdiction.
“Indian country,” as defined at 18 U. S. C. §1151, includes “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation.” This definition applies to questions of both criminal and civil jurisdiction. DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S. 425, 427, n. 2 (1975). The Cabazon and Morongo Reservations are thus Indian country.
Section 2(a), codified at 18 U. S. C. § 1162(a), provides:
“Each of the States... listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed... to the same extent that such State... has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State..., and the criminal laws of such State... shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State... :
“California.All Indian country within the State.”
Section 4(a), codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1360(a) (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill) provides:
“Each of the States listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country listed... to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State:
“California.All Indian country within the State.”
The Court of Appeals questioned whether we indicated disapproval of the prohibitory/regulatory distinction in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U. S. 713 (1983). We did not. We rejected in that case an asserted distinction between state “substantive” law and state “regulatory” law in the context of 18 U. S. C. § 1161, which provides that certain federal statutory provisions prohibiting the sale and possession of liquor within Indian country do not apply “provided such act or transaction is in conformity both with the laws of the State in which such act or transaction occurs and with an ordinance duly adopted by the tribe having jurisdiction over such area of Indian country....” We noted that nothing in the text or legislative history of § 1161 supported the asserted distinction, and then contrasted that statute with Pub. L. 280. “In the absence of a context that might possibly require it, we are reluctant to make such a distinction. Cf. Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U. S. 373, 390 (1976) (grant of civil jurisdiction in 28 U. S. C. § 1360 does not include regulatory jurisdiction to tax in light of tradition of immunity from taxation).” 463 U. S., at 734, n. 18.
Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth was an action by the Seminole Tribe for a declaratory judgment that the Florida bingo statute did not apply to its operation of a bingo hall on its reservation. See also Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. McGuigan, 626 F. Supp. 245 (Conn. 1986); Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin, 518 F. Supp. 712 (WD Wis. 1981).
Nothing in this opinion suggests that cockfighting, tattoo parlors, nude dancing, and prostitution are permissible on Indian reservations within California. See post, at 222. The applicable state laws governing an activity must be examined in detail before they can be characterized as regulatory or prohibitory. The lower courts have not demonstrated an inability to identify prohibitory laws. For example, in United States v. Marcyes, 557 F. 2d 1361, 1363-1366 (CA9 1977), the Court of Appeals adopted and applied the prohibitory/regulatory distinction in determining whether a state law governing the possession of fireworks was made applicable to Indian reservations by the Assimilative Crimes Statute, 62 Stat. 686, 18 U. S. C. § 13. The court concluded that, despite limited exceptions to the statute’s prohibition, the fireworks law was prohibitory in nature. See also United States v. Farris, 624 F. 2d 890 (CA9 1980), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1111 (1981), discussed in n. 13, infra.
Nor does Pub. L. 280 authorize the county to apply its gambling ordinances to the reservations. We note initially that it is doubtful that Pub. L. 280 authorizes the application of any local laws to Indian reservations. Section 2 of Pub. L. 280 provides that the criminal laws of the “State” shall have the same force and effect within Indian country as they have elsewhere. This language seems clearly to exclude local laws. We need not decide this issue, however, because even if Pub. L. 280 does make local criminal/prohibitory laws applicable on Indian reservations, the ordinances in question here do not apply. Consistent with our analysis of Cal. Penal Code Ann. §326.5 (West Supp. 1987) above, we conclude that Ordinance No. 558, the bingo ordinance, is regulatory in nature. Although Ordinance No. 331 prohibits gambling on all card games, including the games played in the Cabazon card club, the county does not prohibit municipalities within the county from enacting municipal ordinances permitting these card games, and two municipalities have in fact done so. It is clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 331 does not prohibit these card games for purposes of Pub. L. 280.
OCCA, 18 U. S. C. § 1955, provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business shall be fined not more that $20,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
“(b) As used in this section—
“(1) ‘illegal gambling business’ means a gambling business which —
“(i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;
“(ii) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business; and
“(iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day.” (Emphasis added.)
In Farris, in contrast, the court had concluded that a gambling business, featuring blackjack, poker, and dice, operated by tribal members on the Puyallup Reservation violated the public policy of Washington; the United States, therefore, could enforce OCCA against the Indians.
In Dakota, the United States sought a declaratory judgment that a gambling business, also featuring the playing of blackjack, poker, and dice, operated by two members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community on land controlled by the community, and under a license issued by the community, violated OCCA. The Court of Appeals held that the gambling business violated Michigan law and OCCA.
Title 18 U. S. C. §3231 provides: “The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”
See S. Rep. No. 99-493, p. 2 (1986). Federal law enforcement officers have the capability to respond to violations of OCCA on Indian reservations, as is apparent from Farris and Dakota. This is not a situation where the unavailability of a federal officer at a particular moment would likely result in nonenforcement. OCCA is directed at large-scale gambling enterprises. If state officers discover a gambling business unknown to federal authorities while performing their duties authorized by Pub. L. 280, there should be ample time for them to inform federal authorities, who would then determine whether investigation or other enforcement action was appropriate. A federal police officer is assigned by the Department of the Interior to patrol the Indian reservations in southern California. App. to Brief for Appellees D-l — D-7.
In the special area of state taxation of Indian tribes and tribal members, we have adopted a per se rule. In Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U. S. 759 (1985), we held that Montana could not tax the Tribe’s royalty interests in oil and gas leases issued to non-Indian lessees under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938. We stated: “In keeping with its plenary authority over Indian affairs, Congress can authorize the imposition of state taxes on Indian tribes and individual Indians. It has not done so often, and the Court consistently has held that it will find the Indians’ exemption from state taxes lifted only when Congress has made its intention to do so unmistakably clear.” Id., at 765. We have repeatedly addressed the issue of state taxation of tribes and tribal members and the state, federal, and tribal interests which it implicates. We have recognized that the federal tradition of Indian immunity from state taxation is very strong and that the state interest in taxation is correspondingly weak. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to rebalance these interests in every case. In Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 148 (1973), we distinguished state taxation from other assertions of state jurisdiction. We acknowledged that we had made repeated statements “to the effect that, even on reservations, state laws may be applied unless such application would interfere with reservation self-government or would impair a right granted or reserved by federal law.... Even so, in the special area of state taxation, absent cession of jurisdiction or other federal statutes permitting it, there has been no satisfactory authority for taxing Indian reservation lands or Indian income from activities carried on within the boundaries of the reservation, and McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, [411 U. S. 164 (1973)], lays to rest any doubt in this respect by holding that such taxation is not permissible absent congressional consent.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
Justice Stevens appears to embrace the opposite presumption — that state laws apply on Indian reservations absent an express congressional statement to the contrary. But, as we stated in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 151 (1980), in the context of an assertion of state authority over the activities of non-Indians within a reservation, “[t]hat is simply not the law.” It is even less correct when applied to the activities of tribes and tribal members within reservations.
In New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S., at 335, n. 17, we discussed a number of the statutes Congress enacted to promote tribal self-government. The congressional declarations of policy in the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 1451 et seq.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Pro se petitioner Grant Anderson seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2241 and requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39. Pursuant to Rule 39.8, we deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis Petitioner is allowed until May 23, 1994, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from petitioner unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.
Petitioner is a prolific filer in this Court. In the last three years alone, he has filed 22 separate petitions and motions, including 3 petitions for certiorari, 6 motions for reconsideration, and 13 petitions for extraordinary writs. Thirteen of these petitions and motions have been filed this Term. We have denied all of the petitions and motions without recorded dissent. We have also denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to Rule 39.8, on the last three occasions that he has submitted petitions for extraordinary relief.
Like the majority of his previous submissions to this Court, the instant petition for habeas corpus relates to the denial of petitioner’s various postconviction motions by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The current petition merely repeats arguments that we have considered previously and not found worthy of plenary review. Like the three petitions in which we denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, moreover, the instant petition is patently frivolous.
The bulk of petitioner’s submissions have been petitions for extraordinary writs, and we limit our sanction accordingly. We have imposed similar sanctions in three prior cases. See In re Demos, 500 U. S. 16 (1991); In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991); In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989). For the reasons discussed in these cases, we feel compelled to bar petitioner from filing any further requests for extraordinary relief. As we concluded in Sindram:
“The goal of fairly dispensing justice ... is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. Pro se petitioners have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerations — filing fees and attorney’s fees — that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions. The risks of abuse are particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since such petitions are not subject to any time limitations and, theoretically, could be filed at any time without limitation. In order to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those individuals who have abused the system.” 498 U. S., at 179-180 (citation omitted).
So long as petitioner qualifies under this Court’s Rule 39 and does not similarly abuse the privilege, he remains free to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ. See id., at 180. In the meantime, however, today’s order “will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.” In re Sassower, 510 U. S. 4, 6 (1993).
It is so ordered.
This Court’s Rule 39.8 provides: “If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act provides that “[a]n individual shall be ineligible for benefits if he has failed, without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when so directed ... or to accept suitable work when offered him . . . .” Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, ¶433 (1986). In April 1984, William Frazee refused a temporary retail position offered him by Kelly Services because the job would have required him to work on Sunday. Frazee told Kelly that, as a Christian, he could not work on “the Lord’s day.” Frazee then applied to the Illinois Department of Employment Security for unemployment benefits claiming that there was good cause for his refusal to work on Sunday. His application was denied. Frazee appealed the denial of benefits to the Department of Employment Security’s Board of Review, which also denied his claim. The Board of Review stated: “When a refusal of work is based on religious convictions, the refusal must be based upon some tenets or dogma accepted by the individual of some church, sect, or denomination, and such a refusal based solely on an individual’s personal belief is personal and noncompelling and does not render the work unsuitable.” App. 18-19. The Board of Review concluded that Frazee had refused an offer of suitable work without good cause. The Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois, Peoria County, affirmed, finding that the agency’s decision was “not contrary to law nor against the manifest weight of the evidence,” thereby rejecting Frazee’s claim based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Id., at 23.
Frazee’s free exercise claim was again rejected by the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District. 159 Ill. App. 3d 474, 512 N. E. 2d 789 (1987). The court characterized Frazee’s refusal to work as resting on his “personal professed religious belief,” and made it clear that it did “not question the sincerity of the plaintiff,” id., at 475, 477, 512 N. E. 2d, at 790, 791. It then engaged in a historical discussion of religious prohibitions against work on the Sabbath and, in particular, on Sunday. Nonetheless, the court distinguished Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963); Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707 (1981); and Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Florida, 480 U. S. 136 (1987), from the facts of Frazee’s case. Unlike the claimants in Sherbert, Thomas, and Hobbie, Frazee was not a member of an established religious sect or church, nor did he claim that his refusal to work resulted from a “tenet, belief or teaching of an established religious body.” 159 Ill. App. 3d, at 477, 512 N. E. 2d, at 791. To the Illinois court, Frazee’s position that he was “a Christian” and as such felt it wrong to work on Sunday was not enough. For a Free Exercise Clause claim to succeed, said the Illinois Appellate Court, “the injunction against Sunday labor must be found in a tenet or dogma of an established religious sect. [Frazee] does not profess to be a member of any such sect.” Id., at 478-479, 512 N. E. 2d, at 792. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Frazee leave to appeal.
The mandatory appellate jurisdiction of this Court was invoked under 28 U. S. C. §1257(2), since the state court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Illinois’ statutory “good cause” requirement as applied in this case. We noted probable jurisdiction, 488 U. S. 814 (1988), and now reverse.
We have had more than one occasion before today to consider denials of unemployment compensation benefits to those who have refused work on the basis of their religious beliefs. In Sherbert v. Verner, supra, at 410, the Court held that a State could not “constitutionally apply the eligibility provisions [of its unemployment-compensation program] so as to constrain a worker to abandon his religious convictions respecting the day of rest.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, also held that the State’s refusal to award unemployment compensation benefits to one who terminated his job because his religious beliefs forbade participation in the production of armaments violated the First Amendment right to free exercise. Just two years ago, in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Florida, supra, Florida’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits to an employee discharged for her refusal to work on her Sabbath because of religious convictions adopted subsequent to employment was also declared to be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. In each of these cases, the appellant was “forced to choose between fidelity to religious belief and . . . employment,” id., at 144, and we found “the forfeiture of unemployment benefits for choosing the former over the latter brings unlawful coercion to bear on the employee’s choice,” ibid. In each of these cases, we concluded that the denial of unemployment compensation benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is true, as the Illinois court noted, that each of the claimants in those cases was a member of a particular religious sect, but none of those decisions turned on that consideration or on any tenet of the sect involved that forbade the work the claimant refused to perform. Our judgments in those cases rested on the fact that each of the claimants had a sincere belief that religion required him or her to refrain from the work in question. Never did we suggest that unless a claimant belongs to a sect that forbids what his job requires, his belief, however sincere, must be deemed a purely personal preference rather than a religious belief. Indeed, in Thomas, there was disagreement among sect members as to whether their religion made it sinful to work in an armaments factory; but we considered this to be an irrelevant issue and hence rejected the State’s submission that unless the religion involved formally forbade work on armaments, Thomas’ belief did not qualify as a religious belief. Because Thomas unquestionably had a sincere belief that his religion prevented him from doing such work, he was entitled to invoke the protection of the Free Exercise Clause.
There is no doubt that “[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause,” Thomas, supra, at 713. Purely secular views do not suffice. United States v. Seeger, 380 U. S. 163 (1965); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 215-216 (1972). Nor do we underestimate the difficulty of distinguishing between religious and secular convictions and in determining whether a professed belief is sincerely held. States are clearly entitled to assure themselves that there is an ample predicate for invoking the Free Exercise Clause. We do not face problems about sincerity or about the religious nature of Frazee’s convictions, however. The courts below did not question his sincerity, and the State concedes it. Tr. of Oral Arg. 35. Furthermore, the Board of Review characterized Frazee’s views as “religious convictions,” App. 18, and the Illinois Appellate Court referred to his refusal to work on Sunday as based on a “personal professed religious belief,” 159 Ill. App. 3d, at 475, 512 N. E. 2d, at 790.
Frazee asserted that he was a Christian, but did not claim to be a member of a particular Christian sect. It is also true that there are assorted Christian denominations that do not profess to be compelled by their religion to refuse Sunday work, but this does not diminish Frazee’s protection flowing from the Free Exercise Clause. Thomas settled that much. Undoubtedly, membership in an organized religious denomination, especially one with a specific tenet forbidding members to work on Sunday, would simplify the problem of identifying sincerely held religious beliefs, but we reject the notion that to claim the protection of the Free Exercise Clause, one must be responding to the commands of a particular religious organization. Here, Frazee’s refusal was based on a sincerely held religious belief. Under our cases, he was entitled to invoke First Amendment protection.
The State does not appear to defend this aspect of the decision below. In its brief and at oral argument, the State conceded that the Free Exercise Clause does not demand adherence to a tenet or dogma of an established religious sect. Instead, the State proposes its own test for identifying a “religious” belief, asserts that Frazee has not met such a test, and asks that we affirm on this basis. We decline to address this submission; for as the case comes to us, Frazee’s conviction was recognized as religious but found to be inadequate because it was not claimed to represent a tenet of a religious organization of which he was a member. That ground for decision was clearly erroneous.
The State offers no justification for the burden that the denial of benefits places on Frazee’s right to exercise his religion. The Illinois Appellate Court ascribed great significance to America’s weekend way of life. The Illinois court asked: “What would Sunday be today if professional football, baseball, basketball, and tennis were barred. Today Sunday is not only a day for religion, but for recreation and labor. Today the supermarkets are open, service stations dispense fuel, utilities continue to serve the people and factories continue to belch smoke and tangible products,” concluding that “[i]f all Americans were to abstain from working on Sunday, chaos would result.” 159 Ill. App. 3d, at 478, 512 N. E. 2d, at 792. We are unpersuaded, however, that there will be a mass movement away from Sunday employ if William Frazee succeeds in his claim.
As was the case in Thomas where there was “no evidence in the record to indicate that the number of people who find themselves in the predicament of choosing between benefits and religious beliefs is large enough to create ‘widespread unemployment,’ or even to seriously affect unemployment,” 450 U. S., at 719, there is nothing before us in this case to suggest that Sunday shopping, or Sunday sporting, for that matter, will grind to a halt as a result of our decision today. And, as we have said in the past, there may exist state interests sufficiently compelling to override a legitimate claim to the free exercise of religion. No such interest has been presented here.
The judgment of the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Third District is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
From the very first report of the Illinois Division of Unemployment Insurance claims adjudicator, Frazee’s refusal of Sunday work has been described as “due to his religious convictions.” In his application for reconsideration of the referee’s determination, Frazee stated: “I refused the job which required me to work on Sunday based on Biblical principles, scripture Exodus 20: 8, 9, 10. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work.”
We noted in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 715 (1981), that an asserted belief might be “so bizarre, so clearly nonreligious in motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the Free Exercise Clause.” But that avails the State nothing in this case. As the discussion of the Illinois Appellate Court itself indicates, claims by Christians that their religion forbids Sunday work cannot be deemed bizarre or incredible.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.