instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was convicted of grand larceny in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and sentenced to serve sixteen months to four years in prison. Pre-trial confessions of guilt without which petitioner could not have been convicted were admitted in evidence against his objection that they had been illegally obtained. The confessions had been made during a 30-hour period while petitioner was held a prisoner after the police had arrested him on suspicion and without a warrant.
Petitioner’s objection to the admissibility of the confessions rested on Rule 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and our holding in McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332. Rule 5 (a) provides that “An officer making an arrest . . . shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available” committing magistrate and when the arrested person appears before the magistrate “a complaint shall be filed forthwith.” Petitioner contended that the officers had violated this rule in detaining him as they did without taking him before a committing magistrate. In the Mc-Nabb case we held that confessions had been improperly admitted where they were the plain result of holding and interrogating persons without carrying them “forthwith” before a committing magistrate as the law commands.
In this case the District Court thought that the McNabb ruling did not apply because the detention of petitioner “was not unreasonable under the circumstances as a matter of law.” Consequently, that court held the confessions admissible. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the United States Attorney and his assistants detailed the circumstances of petitioner’s arrest and detention and confessed error. They concluded from these detailed circumstances that the “delay” in carrying petitioner before a committing magistrate “was unreasonable and the purpose of it, as stated by the officers themselves, was only to furnish an opportunity for further interrogation.” Under these circumstances, the district attorney thought that the McNabb rule made the confessions inadmissible without regard to whether they were “voluntary” in the legal sense. The delay in taking petitioner before a judicial officer was thought, in the words of the district attorney, to have been “for purposes inimical to the letter and spirit of the rule requiring prompt arraignment.”
The Court of Appeals rejected this confession of error, one judge dissenting. 83 U. S. App. D. C. 207, 168 F. 2d 167. It read the McNabb case as explained in United States v. Mitchell, 322 U. S. 65, as holding that “A confession voluntarily given is admissible in evidence” while conversely “a confession involuntarily made is inadmissible.” 83 U. S. App. D. C. 207, 168 F. 2d 167. That court thought the McNabb case did no more than extend the meaning of “involuntary” confessions to proscribe confessions induced by psychological coercion as well as those brought about by physical brutality. Finding no psychological coercion in the facts of this case, the court concluded that the confessions were not the “fruit of the illegal detention.” The court also laid stress on the fact that the petitioner’s detention unlike McNabb’s, “was not aggravated by continuous questioning for many hours by numerous officers.”
We hold that this case falls squarely within the McNabb ruling and is not taken out of it by what was decided in the Mitchell case. In the McNabb case we held that the plain purpose of the requirement that prisoners should promptly be taken before committing magistrates was to check resort by officers to “secret interrogation of persons accused of crime.” We then pointed out the circumstances under which petitioners were interrogated and confessed. This was done to show that the record left no doubt that the McNabbs were not promptly taken before a judicial officer as the law required, but instead were held for secret questioning, and “that the questioning of the petitioners took place while they were in the custody of the arresting officers and before any order of commitment was made.” The Me-Nabb confessions were thus held inadmissible because the McNabbs were questioned while held in “plain disregard of the duty enjoined by Congress upon federal law officers” promptly to take them before a judicial officer. In the McNabb case there were confessions “induced by illegal detention,” United States v. Mitchell, supra at 70, a fact which this Court found did not exist in the Mitchell case.
In the Mitchell case although the defendant was illegally held eight days, the court accepted the record as showing that Mitchell promptly and spontaneously admitted his guilt within a few minutes after his arrival at the police station. Mitchell’s confessions therefore were found to have been made before any illegal detention had occurred. This Court then stated in the Mitchell opinion that “the illegality of Mitchell’s detention does not retroactively change the circumstances under which he made the disclosures.” Thus the holding in the Mitchell case was only that Mitchell’s subsequent illegal detention did not render inadmissible his prior confessions. They were held not to involve “use by the Government of the fruits of wrongdoing by its officers.” The Mitchell case at p. 68, however, reaffirms the McNabb rule that a confession is inadmissible if made during illegal detention due to failure promptly to carry a prisoner before a committing magistrate, whether or not the “confession is the result of torture, physical or psychological . . . .”
In this case we are left in no doubt as to why this petitioner was not brought promptly before a committing magistrate. The arresting officer himself stated that petitioner was not carried before a magistrate on Friday or Saturday morning after his arrest on Friday at 2 a. m., because the officer thought there was not “a sufficient case” for the court to hold him, adding that even “if the Police Court did hold him we would lose custody of him and I no longer would be able to question him.” Thus the arresting officer in effect conceded that the confessions here were “the fruits of wrongdoing” by the police officers. He conceded more: He admitted that petitioner was illegally detained for at least thirty hours for the very purpose of securing these challenged confessions. He thereby refutes any possibility of an argument that after arrest he was carried before a magistrate “without unnecessary delay.”
The argument was made to the trial court that this method of arresting, holding, and questioning people on mere suspicion was in accordance with the “usual police procedure of questioning a suspect . . . .” However usual this practice, it is in violation of law, and confessions thus obtained are inadmissible under the McNabb rule. We adhere to that rule.
Reversed.
After the evidence was all in, the trial judge stated that without the confessions there was “nothing left in the case.” The trial judge instructed the jury to acquit if they found that the petitioner had not confessed “voluntarily but because he was beaten.” On this issue of physical violence the jury found against the petitioner, and therefore this issue is not involved in this case.
Our holding is not placed on constitutional grounds. Since the McNabb rule bars admission of confessions we need not and do not consider whether their admission was a violation of any of the provisions 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:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether, after invalidation of a state law which precluded instructions on lesser included offenses in capital cases, a new trial is required in a capital case in which the defendant’s own evidence negates the possibility that such an instruction might have been warranted.
I
A
Shortly after respondent was released on parole from an Indiana prison in 1976, he and Wayne Ritter, who had been a fellow inmate, embarked on what respondent himself described as a cross-country crime “spree.” App. 9. According to respondent’s testimony, they committed about 30 armed robberies, 9 kidnapings, and 2 extortion schemes in seven different States during a 2-month period. Respondent testified that on January 5, 1977, he and Ritter entered a pawnshop in Mobile, Ala., intending to rob it. Ritter asked the pawnshop owner, Edward Nassar, to show him a gun. When Nassar handed the gun to Ritter, respondent pulled his own gun and announced that he intended to rob him. Nassar dropped to his hands and knees and crawled toward his office. Respondent then shot him in the back, killing him. Nassar’s two daughters, aged seven and nine, were in the pawnshop at the time of the murder.
Respondent and Ritter were captured by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Little Rock, Ark., on March 7, 1977. A gun, which was identified by ballistics tests as the weapon used to kill Nassar, was found in their motel room and the gun Nassar showed Ritter at the pawnshop was found in their car. After being fully advised of his constitutional rights, respondent signed a detailed written confession on March 8, 1977, admitting that he shot Nassar in the back. He repeated and elaborated on his confession before a grand jury in Mobile on April 4, 1977. He told the grand jury that Nassar was not the only person he had ever killed, that he felt no remorse because of that murder, that he would kill again in similar circumstances, and that he intended to return to a life of crime if he was ever freed. Since he doubted that he ever would be freed, he told the grand jury that he wanted to be executed as soon as possible. The grand jury indicted him under Ala. Code § 13—11—2(a)(2) (1975), which makes “[rjobbery or attempts thereof when the victim is intentionally killed by the defendant” a capital offense.
B
Under Alabama law, capital punishment may be imposed only after conviction by a jury. Prothro v. State, 370 So. 2d 740, 746-747 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). The prosecution, therefore, declined to accept respondent’s guilty plea. A psychiatrist, appointed by the court, concluded that respondent was competent to stand trial. Respondent and Ritter were tried together. The evidence against respondent included his confession to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, two eyewitnesses who identified him, and ballistic evidence matching the bullet that killed Nassar with respondent’s gun.
Against his attorneys’ advice, respondent testified in his own behalf. He told the jury he had shot Nassar, and informed it that he had “no intention whatsoever of ever reforming in any way” and would return to a life of crime if released. App. 38. Release from prison in the near future appeared unlikely since he was wanted for a number of crimes in different States as a result of the armed robbery spree. Respondent told the jury: “I would rather die by electrocution than spend the rest of my life in the penitentiary. So, I’m asking very sincerely that you come back with a positive verdict for the State.” Ibid.
The judge instructed the jury that it could not convict respondent merely on the basis of his confession, but must consider all the evidence, and could find him guilty only if the State had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Prior to this Court’s judgment in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980), a jury hearing a capital case in Alabama was precluded by statute from considering lesser included offenses. Alabama required a jury to convict the defendant of the capital offense charged or return a verdict of not guilty. The jurors were instructed to impose the death sentence if they concluded that the defendant was guilty, and they were not told that the trial judge could reduce the sentence to a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Id., at 639, n. 15. The jury in this case returned its verdict of guilty in less than 15 minutes.
The trial judge sentenced respondent to death and entered written findings that the aggravating circumstances in his case far outweighed any mitigating circumstances. The conviction and sentence were subject to automatic appeal and were affirmed on review. Evans v. State, 361 So. 2d 654 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977), aff’d, 361 So. 2d 666 (Ala. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 930 (1979).
C
Respondent’s mother initiated habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U. S. C. §2254. Respondent then changed his previous attitude of desiring execution. His habeas corpus petition to the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama challenged his conviction on a number of grounds, including an allegation that he had been convicted and sentenced under a statute which unconstitutionally precluded consideration of lesser included offenses. He did not allege that he had been prejudiced by the Alabama death penalty statute’s preclusion clause, but instead argued that the statute was unconstitutional on its face and that his conviction therefore must be set aside. The District Court held a hearing, and subsequently rejected respondent’s arguments, noting that respondent had confessed at least four times to shooting Nassar. Evans v. Britton, 472 F. Supp. 707, 711-712 (1979).
Subsequently, in Beck v. Alabama, supra, we held that the sentence of death could not be imposed after a jury verdict of guilt of a capital offense, when the jury was not permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser included noncapital offense, provided that the evidence would have supported such a verdict. The petitioner in Beck was also involved in a robbery in the course of which a murder occurred. He contended, however, that he did not kill the victim or intend his death. Instead he claimed that while he was attempting to tie up the victim, an 80-year-old man, his accomplice unexpectedly struck and killed the man. The State conceded that, on the evidence in that case, Beck would have been entitled to an instruction on the lesser included, noncapital offense of felony murder except for the preclusion clause. Id., at 629-630.
Our opinion in Beck stressed that the jury was faced with a situation in which its choices were only to convict the defendant and sentence him to death or find him not guilty. The jury could not take a third option of finding that although the defendant had committed a grave crime, it was not so grave as to warrant capital punishment. We concluded that a jury might have convicted Beck but also might have rejected capital punishment if it believed Beck’s testimony. On the facts shown in Beck, we held that the defendant was entitled to a lesser included offense instruction as a matter of due process. Id., at 637.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, purporting to rely on Beck, reversed the District Court’s denial of relief. Evans v. Britton, 628 F. 2d 400 (1980), modified, 639 F. 2d 221 (1981). We granted certio-rari, 452 U. S. 960 (1981), and we now reverse.
II
A
The Court of Appeals misread our opinion in Beck. The Beck opinion considered the alternatives open to a jury which is constrained by a preclusion clause and therefore unable to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense when there was evidence which, if believed, could reasonably have led to a verdict of guilt of a lesser offense. In such a situation, we concluded, a jury might convict a defendant of a capital offense because it found that the defendant was guilty of a serious crime. 447 U. S., at 642. Or a jury might acquit because it does not think the crime warrants death, even if it concludes that the defendant is guilty of a lesser offense. Id., at 642-643. While in some cases a defendant might profit from the preclusion clause, we concluded that “in every case [it] introduce^] a level of uncertainty and unreliability into the factfinding process that cannot be tolerated in a capital case.” Id., at 643.
The Court of Appeals, quoting this statement from our Beck opinion, repeatedly stressed the words “in every case.” 639 F. 2d, at 223-224; 628 F. 2d, at 401. It concluded that we meant that the Alabama preclusion clause was a “brooding omnipresence” which might “infect virtually every aspect of any capital defendant’s trial from beginning to end.” Ibid. It is important to note that our holding in Beck was limited to the question submitted on certiorari, and we expressly pointed out that we granted the writ in that case to decide whether a jury must be permitted to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense “when the evidence would have supported such a verdict.” 447 U. S., at 627. Thus, our holding was that the jury must be permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a noncapital offense “in every case” in which “the evidence would have supported such a verdict.”
Our holding in Beck, like our other Eighth Amendment decisions in the past decade, was concerned with insuring that sentencing discretion in capital cases is channelled so that arbitrary and capricious results are avoided. See, e. g., Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325, 334 (1976) (plurality opinion); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 303 (1976) (plurality opinion); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 188 (1976) (principal opinion); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 313 (1972) (White, J., concurring); id., at 309-310 (Stewart, J., concurring); and id., at 398-399 (Burger, C. J., dissenting).
In Roberts v. Louisiana, supra, the Court considered a Louisiana statute which was the obverse of the Alabama preclusion clause. In Louisiana, prior to Roberts, every jury in a capital murder case was permitted to return a verdict of guilty of the noncapital crimes of second-degree murder and manslaughter, “even if there [was] not a scintilla of evidence to support the lesser verdicts.” Id., at 334 (plurality opinion). Such a practice was impermissible, a plurality of the Court concluded, because it invited the jurors to disregard their oaths and convict a defendant of a lesser offense when the evidence warranted a conviction of first-degree murder, inevitably leading to arbitrary results. Id., at 335. The analysis in Roberts thus suggests that an instruction on a lesser offense in this case would have been impermissible absent evidence supporting a conviction of a lesser offense.
Beck held that due process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given when the evidence warrants such an instruction. But due process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction. The jury’s discretion is thus channelled so that it may convict a defendant of any crime fairly supported by the evidence. Under Alabama law, the rule in noncapital cases is that a lesser included offense instruction should be given if “there is any reasonable theory from the evidence which would support the position.” Fulghum v. State, 291 Ala. 71, 75, 277 So. 2d 886, 890 (1973). The federal rule is that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205, 208 (1973). The Alabama rule clearly does not offend federal constitutional standards, and no reason has been advanced why it should not apply in capital cases.
B
The uniqueness of respondent’s claims has been outlined in the statement of facts, but those facts merit emphasis for they bear on the key issue of whether there was any eviden-tiary basis to support a conviction of a lesser included offense. From the outset, beginning with his appearance before the grand jury, respondent made it crystal clear that he had killed the victim, that he intended to kill him, and that he would do the same thing again in similar circumstances. At trial, he testified that he always tried to choose places to rob so that he could avoid killing people. However, he also testified that, if necessary, he was always prepared to kill. App. 19-21. Respondent was convicted, under Ala. Code § 13-11-2(a)(2) (1975), of robbery when the victim was intentionally killed.
In this Court, respondent contends that he could have been convicted under Ala. Code § 13-1-70 (1975), which makes a “homicide . . . committed in the perpetration of, or the attempt to perpetrate, any . . . robbery” a noncapital offense. Respondent concedes that a conviction is warranted under this section only when a defendant lacks intent to kill. Brief for Respondent 26. Respondent’s current claim is a curious — even cynical — new version of the claim of self-defense. His testimony given before the grand jury was:
“I was going to shoot him if he reached for a — a firearm, yeah. Uh, of course, our intention always, you know, never to hurt anybody, if you don’t have to. That’s— that’s stupidity, you know. But if it ever came down to a case of, you know, of me or somebody else, well that’s — that’s pure instinct. That’s self-preservation. I’m going to fire; I’m not going to waste any time . . . .” App. 19 (emphasis supplied).
On the basis of this testimony, he implies that he had no malice toward the victim nor intent to kill him. Of course, it can be argued that this case is not one of a killer with affirmative, purposeful malice; his claim bears some resemblance to that of a hired killer who, bearing no ill will or malice toward his victim, simply engages in the pursuit of his chosen occupation. Respondent thus blandly — even boldly — proclaims that, although he will try not to kill his victims, he will do it if he finds it to be an occupational necessity.
It would be an extraordinary perversion of the law to say that intent to kill is not established when a felon, engaged in an armed robbery, admits to shooting his victim in the back in the circumstances shown here. The evidence not only supported the claim that respondent intended to kill the victim, but affirmatively negated any claim that he did not intend to kill the victim. An instruction on the offense of unintentional killing during this robbery was therefore not warranted. See Fulghum, supra.
Finally, the Court of Appeals stated, and respondent argues, that the mere existence of the preclusion clause so “infected” respondent’s trial that he must be retried so that he may have the opportunity to introduce evidence of some lesser included offense. Respondent suggests no plausible claim which he might conceivably have made, had there been no preclusion clause, that is not contradicted by his own testimony at trial. The preclusion clause did not prejudice respondent in any way, and a new trial is not warranted. See Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967).
Reversed.
In another case with different facts, a defendant might make a plausible claim that he would have employed different trial tactics — for example, that he would have introduced certain evidence or requested certain jury instructions — but for the preclusion clause. However, that is not this case, since the defendant here confessed that he shot the victim and then pleaded guilty to capital murder.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An information was filed in the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia charging the petitioner with violation of 26 U. S. C. § 3290 in that he engaged in the business of accepting wagers without paying the occupational tax imposed by that section. The Municipal Court sustained a motion to dismiss the information. The Municipal Court of Appeals for the District reversed, 100 A. 2d 40, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Municipal Court of Appeals. 94 U. S. App. D. C.-, 214 F. 2d 853. We granted certiorari. 348 U. S. 810.
The questions presented in this case are: Does the Act, as applied to the petitioner in the District of Columbia, constitute a valid exercise of the taxing power or is it a penalty under the guise of a tax? Secondly, does it violate the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition as to compulsory self-incrimination? Thirdly, does it contravene the Fourth Amendment’s ban against unreasonable search and seizure? The first two questions were categorically answered in the negative, and the validity and constitutionality of the Act upheld by us in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22; the third question is not substantially different from the second and is also controlled by Kahriger. The only material factual difference between that case and the instant case is that in Kahriger the violation occurred in a State, namely, Pennsylvania, while in the instant case the violation is charged to have taken place in the District of Columbia.
The statute, 26 TJ. S. C. § 3290, provides:
“A special tax of $50 per year shall be paid by each person who is liable for tax under subchapter A or who is engaged in receiving wagers for or on behalf of any person so liable.”
Another section, 26 TJ. S. C. § 3271, reads:
“Payment of tax — (a) Condition precedent to doing business.
“No person shall be engaged in or carry on any trade or business mentioned in this chapter until he has paid a special tax therefor in the manner provided in this chapter.”
Subchapter A, referred to in § 3290, provides in § 3285:
“(a) Wagers.
“There shall be imposed on wagers, as defined in subsection (b), an excise tax equal to 10 per centum of the amount thereof.”
These provisions must be read together, and when we do, it seems clear that payment of the special $50 tax is to be made prior to engaging in the business of accepting wagers.
We held in Kahriger that this statute was a constitutional exercise of the taxing power and was not a penalty under the guise of a tax. 345 U. S., at 2A-32. It is argued that that case involved wagering in a State, where such activity is not a violation of federal law, that the instant case arises in the District of Columbia, where wagering is by federal law a crime, D. C. Code, 1951, § 22-1501 et seq., and that this statute as applied to petitioner in the District of Columbia is a penalty in the guise of a tax. The short answer to this argument is that this Court has long held that the Federal Government may tax what it also forbids. United States v. Stafoff, 260 U. S. 477.
Secondly, it is contended by petitioner that the Act in question is unconstitutional because compliance compels self-incrimination in contravention of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment provides that one cannot be compelled, in a criminal case, to be a witness against himself. It is a shield that prevents one from being convicted out of his own mouth by anything short of voluntary statements.
Petitioner maintains that the taxes imposed are retrospective in application. It is argued that he must be liable for the tax under subchapter A in the sense that he must have already wagered before he is required to take out the occupational tax, and that to require him to do so compels admission that he has gambled. We do not so read the statute. The Act does not mean one must first have made a wager as defined in subchapter A and therefore incurred liability to pay the tax levied therein before liability for the occupational tax attaches. The Act is wholly prospective and by its terms did not become applicable until November 1,1951, more than ten days after its enactment on October 20, 1951. See compiler’s note to 26 U. S. C. § 3285. The statute simply designates a class that is liable to pay the ten percent tax when a wager or wagers are made. Payment of the $50 tax here under consideration is a registration fee that must be paid before engaging in the business of wagering.
We said in Kahriger, supra, at 32-33: “Under the registration provisions of the wagering tax, appellee is not compelled to confess to acts already committed, he is merely informed by the statute that in order to engage in the business of wagering in the future he must fulfill certain conditions.” The condition here important was that petitioner must first pay the $50 tax, but that did not give him any license to engage in an unlawful business. License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 471. It only warned that if he proposed to carry on this particular business he must pay the tax.
If petitioner desires to engage in an unlawful business, he does so only on his own volition. The fact that he may elect to pay the tax and make the prescribed disclosures required by the Act is a matter of his choice. There is nothing compulsory about it, and, consequently, there is nothing violative of the Fifth Amendment. If he does not pay the occupational tax, proceeds to accept wagers, and is prosecuted therefor, as in this case, he cannot be compelled to testify and may claim his privilege. The only compulsion under the Act is that requiring the decision which would-be gamblers must make at the threshold. They may have to give up gambling, but there is no constitutional right to gamble. If they elect to wager, though it be unlawful, they must pay the tax.
And, finally, the petitioner argues that to require him to pay the tax and exhibit the stamp in his place of business, as required by 26 U. S. C. § 3293 of the Act, is to furnish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. This is just another facet of the Fifth Amendment argument, but the ready answer is that the petitioner has no stamp. If he does not purchase a stamp even though he wagers, which is this case, it is difficult to see how such failure would give probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. His complaint is that if he had one he might get in trouble. Since petitioner is without a stamp, he is not in a position to raise the question as to what might happen to him if he had one.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal question which survives proceedings in the Florida state courts is whether renewal notes representing the purchase price of goods sold and delivered are uncollectible if it is found that the vendor violated the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 1528; 15 U. S. C. §§ 13, 13a.
Bruce is a canner and, over a period of years, bought its cans chiefly from The American Can Company. A debt accumulated which was put into promissory notes and on one or more occasions they were renewed, reduced by amounts which had been paid. Upon eventual default, two suits, later consolidated, were brought on renewal notes aggregating about $114,000. As to each note, Bruce pleaded in defense that “the consideration for said notes is illegal and said notes void and of no force and effect.” This was said to be for the reason that the Can Company had sold to others at prices which discriminated against Bruce and thereby violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
The alleged discrimination chiefly relied upon consisted of quantity discounts. Annual purchases by Bruce were about $350,000. Some other canners bought much larger quantities. The Can Company’s contract with all its customers allowed a discount of 1% on annual purchases of $500,000, and nothing to those whose purchases were less than that. It was so graduated as to give a maximum discount of 5% to a customer whose purchases were $7,000,000 a year. The consequence is that relatively small packers pay 5% more for their cans than their largest competitors.
It is claimed that this advantage to quantity buyers renders the quantity discount per se a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. To sustain the defense in this case it would be necessary to so hold. It is not denied that Bruce got the same discounts as other purchasers of like quantities when it qualified, and in one year Bruce was in the $500,000 bracket and received the 1 % discount. It is not claimed that the Can Company failed to give discounts where earned under this uniform contract, or that discounts were given where not so earned. Bruce received the same discounts as others within its classification and it is not questioned that had it been a purchaser of larger quantities it would have been allowed the same discount as other purchasers of that class.
Before a court could sustain the defense in this particular case, it would also have to overcome other difficulties of law and fact. The Act does not prohibit all quantity discounts but expressly permits them under certain conditions. It indicates, too, that the Federal Trade Commission is the appropriate tribunal to hear in the first instance the complicated issues growing out of grievances against a quantity discount practice of a seller. 49 Stat. 1526; 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a). Quantity discounts are among the oldest, most widely employed and best known of discount practices. They are common in retail trade, wholesale trade, and manufacturer-jobber relations. They are common in regulated as well as unregulated price structures. Congress refused to declare flatly that they are illegal. They become illegal only under certain conditions and when they are illegal it is as much a violation to accept or receive as to allow them. Bruce, in one of the years included in its balance of account, purchased more than a half million dollars of cans on which it received precisely the kind and amount of discount it now asserts to be illegal.
The argument is made that such a remedy as Bruce seeks here would support the anti-monopoly policy of Congress. But Bruce is not complaining of the high price of cans. Bruce complains of a lower price for cans to others—which would enable competitors to put their products on the market cheaper. This may well put Bruce to some disadvantage, but it does not follow that Congress would forbid the savings of large-scale mass production to be passed along to consumers. The economic effects on competition of such discounts are for the Trade Commission to judge. Until the Commission has determined the question, courts are not given guidance as to what the public interest does require concerning the harm or benefit of these quantity discounts on the ultimate public interests sought to be protected in the Act. It would be a far-reaching decision to outlaw all quantity discounts. Courts should not rush in where Congress feared to tread.
Because of a more fundamental defect in petitioner’s case, however, the Court does not find it necessary to consider the effect of these features of the Act on this case, as would be necessary before a conclusion could be reached that petitioner should win on the merits. On the questions of fact, considerable evidence was taken at pre-trial hearings and the parties are in dispute as to whether the decision thereon was a final judgment and, if so, as to whether the defense was not also adjudicated to be insufficient on the facts. Although the record is unsatisfactory, we take it that all of the sales evidenced by the notes were made after the passing of the Robinson-Patman Act. It appears, however, that the notes are not identified with any particular sale but represent a balance remaining on a running account of sales and credits in many of which a claim of discrimination might not be supportable. The indebtedness they supplant is conceded to have been incurred before February, 1940. The purchases covered at least a four-year period and involved two types of cans. The purchase price which Bruce asks us to excuse it from paying is not identified either as to type of can or date of transaction. But petitioner contends that it is not necessary in proving a discrimination to show that others received a different discount on the same type of can at approximately the same time “because the scheme of discount by aggregate dollar volume of annual sales comprehends all cans bought whatever their size or price.” To sustain this position would mean that a sale to a competitor of large cans in 1940 at a higher discount invalidated a sale of small cans to petitioner in 1936 so that petitioner need not pay the contract price for cans delivered that year. The contention is simply that if some purchasers got larger discounts on any bill for cans than petitioner got, the bill against petitioner and notes in settlement and extension of it are uncollectible.
However, for the purposes of this decision, in view of the uncertain nature of the proceedings below, we assume, but do not decide, that the defense on the facts has been or could be established as pleaded. We do not decide whether the quantity discount plan, whatever the facts were, violated the Robinson-Patman Act. The sole question we decide is whether notes given for purchases are unenforceable if the quantity discount plan violates the Act. Petitioner suggests that the Court may take two paths to the answer, but that the answer will be yes. The broad ground petitioner offers is “that a transaction unlawful under the Robinson-Patman Act constitutes criminal conduct upon which no money judgment can be based.” Petitioner also offers a narrow ground on which we can yet decide in its favor. “But, if it be admitted that the buyer [sic] is entitled to the fair value of the goods,” petitioner says, respondent probably already has been paid the fair value of all the cans bought in 1936-40. When that value has been determined by the trial court, it urges, it will be found that the amount in notes is substantially equivalent to the amount of discrimination in discount.
In effect, petitioner is treating the $114,000 in notes as representing the discount it claims it should have gotten on its 1937-42 purchases of $2,000,000. This alternative argument is that petitioner is liable only for the fair value of all the cans it bought, and in this suit it asks the courts to determine what that fair value was. But the fact is that as to the transactions for which petitioner paid $2,000,000 it has already paid the agreed price. Those transactions cannot be identified with particularity, but they were paid for at respondent’s prices. Petitioner did not allege and does not contend that the notes represent specific transactions or that the sales for which they were given could be identified. Mr. Bruce conceded in his testimony that the notes simply represent a balance of an account which mingled the prices of individual transactions. In its brief here, petitioner’s only response to respondent’s statement that “None of the original notes . . . had been tied to a particular transaction” is that “The record shows that all of'the notes are tied to the entire series of transactions.” There may be substantial equivalence numerically in the amount of the notes and the amount of alleged discrimination, but it cannot be said that the notes represent the separate item of price discrimination.
The Act prescribes sanctions, and it does not make uncollectibility of the purchase price one of them. Violation of the Act is made criminal and upon conviction a violator may be fined or imprisoned. 49 Stat. 1528, 15 U. S. C. § 13a. Any person who is injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden therein may sue and recover threefold the damages by him sustained and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15. This triple damage provision to redress private injury and the criminal proceedings to vindicate the public interest are the only sanctions provided by Congress.
It is contended that we should act judicially to add a sanction not provided by Congress by declaring the purchase price of goods uncollectible where the vendor has violated the Act. It may be admitted as argued that such a sanction would be an effective enforcement provision. Addressed to Congress, this argument might be persuasive, but the very fact that it would obviously be an effective sanction makes it even more significant that the Act made no provision for it; that no committee dealing with the Robinson-Patman Act proposed it; that not one word suggesting its consideration appears in the debates of Congress; no proponent of the Act pointed out in its favor that it would be self-enforcing because of this sanction; and no opponent pointed with alarm to the consequences of such a drastic sanction on the commerce of the nation. On the contrary, a proposed provision of the Act, passed only by the Senate which later receded, shows that Congress gave consideration to no sanction more extreme than to compel the remission of the excess charged. See S. 3154, § 2 (d), 74th Cong., 1st Sess., S. Rep. No. 1502, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 8: Conference Rep., H. Rep. No. 2951, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 8. Congress declined to adopt this relatively moderate provision and at no time does it appear that either house of Congress wanted to go so far as to permit a buyer to get goods for nothing.
Where the interests of individuals or private groups or those who bear a special relation to the prohibition of a statute are identical with the public interest in having a statute enforced, it is not uncommon to permit them to invoke sanctions. This stimulates one set of private interest to combat transgressions by another without resort to governmental enforcement agencies. Such remedies have the advantage of putting back of such statutes a strong and reliable motive for enforcement, which relieves the Government of cost of enforcement. Such private remedies lose, of course, whatever advantage there may be in the presumed disinterested, public interest standards and expertness of a governmental agency which has the initiative control of retributory measures. It is clear Congress intended to use private self-interest as a means of enforcement and to arm injured persons with private means to retribution when it gave to any injured party a private cause of action in which his damages are to be made good threefold, with costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fee.
Bruce, it appears, already has undertaken the triple damage suit remedy against the Can Company. Bruce’s Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., No. 569, Civ. T., S. D. Fla., 1942. To indicate its need that the Court establish this additional remedy unauthorized by Congress, it seeks to discredit and belittle both of the remedies Congress has expressly authorized. It says, “The triple damage suit is likely to prove protracted and expensive; damages caused by a disadvantageous competitive position are so speculative as to be usually unprovable. Nor can the buyer rely for protection upon the action of the government. The Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission may never get around to the matter.” It is a little dubious whether the sort of remedy which has been in litigation over four years in this case which Bruce asks us to reverse and send back again, is an antidote for “protracted and expensive” triple damage suits. Moreover, if Bruce can in this suit prove that the prices respondent charged were illegal, as it must in order to win, it can do the same in a triple damage suit. The damages sustained because of discrimination are no more “speculative” nor “unprovable” in one suit than in the other, and their establishment in the statutory form of action carries a bonus.
Annexation of the proposed defense to the statute by implication either as an inference of unexpressed intention of Congress or as the result of some doctrine of common law, would be justified only if it would be at least a rational, nondiscriminatory and appropriate means of making the policy of the statute effective. To allow a buyer to get his goods for nothing because the seller violated the Act by giving someone else a greater discount, does not meet this test.
It would seem that one test of the rationality and appropriateness of such a defense because of a violation of the Act would be that the reparation it permits should be measured at least roughly by the extent of the injury caused by the violation. This, of course, is the principle of the suit for triple damages. But that is not the principle of the defense here urged. The extent of its indemnity is not measured by injury, and not measured by the dealings affected with the alleged violation. It is measured solely by the amount of credit the buyer obtained from the seller. The seller would lose the amount carried in notes or in open account. Had Bruce’s delinquency been greater, so would its gain; had there been no credit asked or given the buyer could have had no remedy by way of defense. The obvious consequence would be to discourage vendors from extending credit where the operation of this rather difficult statute is in doubt. Since the danger of loss under the proposed remedy is greatest in the case of small buyers who get small discounts, the consequence would be to deny the small buyers credit and trust only those who, having the largest discounts, would be least likely to defend on a claim of violation. This result would hardly comport with the argument, so much dwelt upon by petitioner, that its status is that of a small business concern trying to battle a business giant. But we cannot suppose that “little fellows” are always buyers and only giants sell goods. Bruce itself is a seller of canned goods and if its trade practices include quantity discounts, this “little” canner might be on the other side of the same issue trying to collect against a small wholesaler who had less discount than a larger one. To decide issues of law on the size of the person who gets advantage or claims disadvantage is treacherous.
This construction which would make a grant of credit a point of vulnerability could be avoided only by holding that the whole purchase price, not merely that involved in the credit, is uncollectible and recoverable even if voluntarily paid. In that case, the volume of the transaction, rather than the volume of the credit extended, would measure the loss a seller might suffer from violating the Act.
But, of course, if the discount system of the Can Company makes all of the Bruce purchases illegal and the price thereof recoverable, all sales to others under the discount system must be similarly tainted. It is hard to see how any of the Can Company’s sales are valid if these to Bruce are void on the theory advanced. If this view is taken, certainly the remedy would soon end illegal quantity business discounts—by ending the business. We do not believe Congress has contemplated so deadly a remedy or has left the way open to us by judicial edict to dislocate business as such a holding would do. It must not be forgotten that such a decision would have retroactive effect for several years and unsettle many accounts. We cannot justify a judicial declaration to this effect.
But if only a few cases are to be unsettled—those, say, in positions similar to Bruce’s—what becomes of the policy of nondiscrimination? Other canners who have paid cash find themselves competing with Bruce who is absolved from paying for a very large part of its cans—something like one-third of its annual dollar volume being involved in this case. In other words, as penalty for establishing a uniform one to five percent discount, the Can Company would be obliged to give Bruce something over a 30% discount on one year, or about 5% on all purchases shown by the evidence ever to have been made.
It is urged that holdings under the Sherman Antitrust Act supply an analogy for allowing this defense under the Robinson-Patman Act. The former provides, among other things, that every contract in restraint of trade or commerce “is hereby declared to be illegal.” 26 Stat. 209, 50 Stat. 693, 15 U. S. C. § 1. This Court has held that where a suit is based upon an agreement to which both defendant and plaintiff are parties, and which has as its object and effect accomplishment of illegal ends which would be consummated by the judgment sought, the Court will entertain the defense that the contract in suit is illegal under the express provision of that statute. Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight and Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227. Cf. Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173. But when the contract sued upon is not intrinsically illegal, the Court has refused to allow property to be obtained under a contract of sale without enforcing the duty to pay for it because of violations of the Sherman Act not inhering in the particular contract in suit and has reaffirmed the “doctrine that 'where a statute creates a new offense and denounces the penalty, or gives a new right and declares the remedy, the punishment or the remedy can be only that which the statute prescribes.’ ” D. R. Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co., 236 U. S. 165, 174-175; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540.
Moreover, no single sale can violate the Robinson-Pat-man Act. At least two transactions must take place in order to constitute a discrimination. Thus, a contract may be made today which has no legal defect under the Robinson-Patman Act. A week later, another sale may be made at a different price or at a different discount, and the latter taken into consideration with the former may establish a discrimination. Whether a sale would be rendered void only because of simultaneous discrimination or preexisting ones, or whether a contract valid when made becomes void by reason of later transactions, and, if so, how much later, are questions we need not decide now. It is plain that the violation, if there was one, is not inherent in the contract sued upon, whether it be the notes or the sale of the goods, but can only be found in different transactions which a party to the litigation had with third persons who are not parties. No such defense has been approved under the Sherman Act, and, furthermore, these characteristics show that the entire basis for judging under the two Acts is different and that the case law as to the Sherman Act does not fit the Robinson-Patman Act.
None the less, we are urged to supply judicially the sanction of invalidating obligations to pay for goods sold and delivered because, it is said, otherwise the courts become parties to the enforcement of a discrimination. If, in order to prove his own case, a plaintiff proves his violation of law, then no court will aid the plaintiff to recover. Here, however, what the plaintiff must show is the notes which import consideration. If consideration is denied, he can prove that cans were sold and delivered at a stated price. That is no violation of law. It is only when the Court goes outside of the dealings between plaintiff and defendant and it is proved that the same kind of cans were sold to others at different prices within a relevant period of time, amounting to a discrimination—a fact unnecessary to sustain the plaintiff’s cause of action— that the basis of the defense asserted here appears. The Court does not give its approval to transactions between one of the litigants and a third party just because it holds them irrelevant in this litigation.
The defendant’s claim to be freed of the obligation to pay his promissory note because the payee, as vendor of cans, made sales to others that when compared with sales to itself may be held unlawfully discriminatory, cannot be supported as resting on any congressional word or policy. Not only was this remedy not named by Congress, but it would be surprising if it had been, in view of the remedies Congress did give. We have assumed for the purposes of this case that petitioner could establish that the prices respondent charged were discriminatory so that they violated the Act. But if petitioner can show that, clearly it would be entitled to recover in a triple damage suit supported by the same evidence. For despite petitioner’s plaint on the difficulty of proving damages, it would establish its right to recover three times the discriminatory difference without proving more than the illegality of the prices. If the prices are illegally discriminatory, petitioner has been damaged, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, at least in the amount of that discrimination. No reason suggests itself why Congress should have intended a remedy by which the victim of discrimination could recover by defense only one-third of what he could recover, on the same proof, by offense. The inducement of thrice the damages suffered may bring the sufferer to aid in enforcement of the statute. To assure his help, however, it would hardly be thought appropriate to offer him the choice of taking only one-third that amount. Since the remedy embodied in petitioner’s second theory would be but a weak one-third shadow of the one Congress expressly gave, we cannot see the need for judicial reduplication in miniature. We hold that federal law does not support the defense alleged and the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is
Affirmed.
On petitioner’s first theory, clearly no recovery on quantum meruit could be had. The general rule is that a transaction wholly illegal will not support such a suit. See Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed., 1938) § 1786A; Restatement, Contracts, § 598, Comment c. And on Bruce’s second theory, because of the leniency with which respondent extended credit, it would be impossible for respondent to show which cans the notes represent and it would of course be unable to establish their fair value. If we hold the notes uncollectible, therefore, respondent could not recover on quantum meruit, and Bruce would get a windfall.
His testimony on this point follows:
“Q. Mr. Bruce, do the notes evidence the purchase price of any particular size of cans you purchased from the American Can Co.?
A. There is nothing on the face of the notes that shows what size they were.
Q. During that period you purchased a certain size can?
A. It was purchased during a certain period.
Q. Did you run a separate account on the grocery can and on the soft drink can, or small and large?
A. No sir.
Q. The notes themselves simply represent that account, irrespective of the size of the cans?
A. Yes sir, the blanket way.
Q. In a blanket way. In other words there was no distinction made in your account between the large and small cans, I mean in the indebtedness?
A. Not while the notes were accruing.
Q. In other words the notes in question are for the purchase price of both large and small cans?
A. That is right.”
If the notes are considered alternatively as representing respondent’s price due on the latest purchases to that amount in late 1939 and early 1940, petitioner, on its theory, would be entitled to be excused payment of only about 5% of the $114,000, because it is defending on the ground that it ought not to pay the allegedly discriminatory part of the price. But even for this limited purpose, it cannot be established what cans the $114,000 represents, so the court could not determine their fair value.
In Penn-Alien Cement Co. v. Phillips & Southerland, 182 N. C. 437, 109 S. E. 257, the specific sales were identified and the price unpaid. The court there held only that the buyer should be excused payment of the discriminatory part of the contract price. But the opinion was given after the court had decided that the appeal was prematurely taken.
The defendant had counterclaimed for treble damages, computed on the basis of the alleged overcharge. The plaintiff urged that treble damages could not be recovered in an action for the purchase price but that the defendant must pay first, and then sue on that claim. The court said simply, “This matter also has not been passed upon by the court below, and there is nothing for us to consider.” 182 N. C. at 441, 109 S. E. at 259. But if the court was right in holding that plaintiff could not recover the overcharge, it would necessarily follow that the counterclaim should have been dismissed. For without paying the overcharge, the defendant would have had no basis on which to rest its claim that it had been damaged in that amount and therefore entitled to treble compensation.
In McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639, for example, the Court refused to enforce a partnership contract which was based on an illegal and fraudulent agreement to submit collusive bids for public construction. The plaintiff argued that the partnership contract itself did not disclose any illegality, but even that was questionable. The Court, moreover, held that the agreement to be partners could not be separated from the general collusive agreement which gave rise to it Agreements with third persons, not parties to the suit, however, were not relied upon by Court or litigants.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case presents the question whether peaceful picketing of a business enterprise located within a shopping center can be enjoined on the ground that it constitutes an unconsented invasion of the property rights of the owners of the land on which the center is situated. We granted certiorari to consider petitioners’ contentions that the decisions of the state courts enjoining their picketing as a trespass are violative of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 389 U. S. 911 (1967). We reverse.
Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. (Logan), one of the two respondents herein, owns a large, newly developed shopping center complex, known as the Logan Valley Mall, located near the City of Altoona, Pennsylvania. The shopping center is situated at the intersection of Plank Road, which is to the east of the center, and Good’s Lane, which is to the south. Plank Road, also known as U. S. Route 220, is a heavily traveled highway along which traffic moves at a fairly high rate of speed. There are five entrance roads into the center, three from Plank Road and two from Good’s Lane. Aside from these five entrances, the shopping center is totally separated from the adjoining roads by earthen berms. The berms are 15 feet wide along Good’s Lane and 12 feet wide along Plank Road.
At the time of the events in this case, Logan Valley Mall was occupied by two businesses, Weis Markets, Inc. (Weis), the other respondent herein, and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears), although other enterprises were then expected and have since moved into the center. Weis operates a supermarket and Sears operates both a department store and an automobile service center. The Weis property consists of the enclosed supermarket building, an open but covered porch along the front of the building, and an approximately five-foot-wide parcel pickup zone that runs 30 to 40 feet along the porch. The porch functions as a sidewalk in front of the building and the pickup zone is used as a temporary parking place for the loading of purchases into customers’ cars by Weis employees.
Between the Weis building and the highway berms are extensive macadam parking lots with parking spaces and driveways lined off thereon. These areas, to which Logan retains title, provide common parking facilities for all the businesses in the shopping center. The distance across the parking lots to the Weis store from the entrances on Good’s Lane is approximately 350 feet and from the entrances on Plank Road approximately 400 to 500 feet. The entrance on Plank Road farthest from the Weis property is the main entrance to the shopping center as a whole and is regularly used by customers of Weis. The entrance on Plank Road nearest to Weis is almost exclusively used by patrons of the Sears automobile service station into which it leads directly.
On December 8, 1965, Weis opened for business, employing a wholly nonunion staff of employees. A few days after it opened for business, Weis posted a sign on the exterior of its building prohibiting trespassing or soliciting by anyone other than its employees on its porch or parking lot. On December 17, 1965, members of Amalgamated Food Employees Union, Local 590, began picketing Weis. They carried signs stating that the Weis market was nonunion and that its employees were not “receiving union wages or other union benefits.” The pickets did not include any employees of Weis, but rather were all employees of competitors of Weis. The picketing continued until December 27, during which time the number of pickets varied between four and 13 and averaged around six. The picketing was carried out almost entirely in the parcel pickup area and that portion of the parking lot immediately adjacent thereto. Although some congestion of the parcel pickup area occurred, such congestion was sporadic and infrequent. The picketing was peaceful at all times and unaccompanied by either threats or violence.
On December 27, Weis and Logan instituted an action in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, and that court immediately issued an ex parte order enjoining petitioners from, inter alia, “[picketing and trespassing upon . . . the [Weis] storeroom, porch and parcel pick-up area . . . [and] the [Logan] parking area and all entrances and exits leading to said parking area.” The effect of this order was to require that all picketing be carried on along the berms beside the public roads outside the shopping center. Picketing continued along the berms and, in addition, handbills asking the public not to patronize Weis because it was nonunion were distributed, while petitioners contested the validity of the ex parte injunction. After an evidentiary hearing, which resulted in the establishment of the facts set forth above, the Court of Common Pleas continued indefinitely its original ex parte injunction without modification.
That court explicitly rejected petitioners’ claim under the First Amendment that they were entitled to picket within the confines of the shopping center, and their contention that the suit was within the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB. The trial judge held that the injunction was justified both in order to protect respondents’ property rights and because the picketing was unlawfully aimed at coercing Weis to compel its employees to join a union. On appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, with three Justices dissenting, affirmed the issuance of the injunction on the sole ground that petitioners’ conduct constituted a trespass on respondents’ property.
We start from the premise that peaceful picketing carried on in a location open generally to the public is, absent other factors involving the purpose or manner of the picketing, protected by the First Amendment. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); AFL v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321 (1941); Bakery Drivers Local 802 v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769 (1942); Teamsters Local 795 v. Newell, 356 U. S. 341 (1958). To be sure, this Court has noted that picketing involves elements of both speech and conduct, i. e., patrolling, and has indicated that because of this intermingling of protected and unprotected elements, picketing can be subjected to controls that would not be constitutionally permissible in the case of pure speech. See, e. g., Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U. S. 460 (1950); International Bro. of Teamsters v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U. S. 284 (1957); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611. Nevertheless, no case decided by this Court can be found to support the proposition that the nonspeech aspects of peaceful picketing are so great as to render the provisions of the First Amendment inapplicable to it altogether.
The majority of the cases from this Court relied on by respondents, in support of their contention that picketing can be subjected to a blanket prohibition in some instances by the States, involved picketing that was found either to have been directed at an illegal end, e. g., Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490 (1949); Building Service Employees Local 262 v. Gazzam, 339 U. S. 532 (1950); Plumbers Local 10 v. Graham, 345 U. S. 192 (1953), or to have been directed at coercing a decision by an employer which, although in itself legal, could validly be required by the State to be left to the employer’s free choice, e. g., Carpenters Local 213 v. Ritter’s Cafe, 315 U. S. 722 (1942) (secondary boycott); Teamsters Local 809 v. Hanke, 339 U. S. 470 (1950) (self-employer union shop). Compare NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675 (1951), and International Bro. of Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 341 U. S. 694 (1951).
Those cases are not applicable here because they all turned on the purpose for which the picketing was carried on, not its location. In this case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically disavowed reliance on the finding of unlawful purpose on which the trial court alternatively based its issuance of the injunction. It did emphasize that the pickets were not employees of Weis and were discouraging the public from patronizing the Weis market. However, those facts could in no way provide a constitutionally permissible independent basis for the decision because this Court has previously specifically held that picketing of a business enterprise cannot be prohibited on the sole ground that it is conducted by persons not employees whose purpose is to discourage patronage of the business. AFL v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321 (1941). Compare Bakery Drivers Local 802 v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769 (1942). Rather, those factors merely supported the court’s finding of a trespass by demonstrating that the picketing took place without the consent, and against the will, of respondents.
The case squarely presents, therefore, the question whether Pennsylvania’s generally valid rules against trespass to private property can be applied in these circumstances to bar petitioners from the Weis and Logan premises. It is clear that if the shopping center premises were not privately owned but instead constituted the business area of a municipality, which they to a large extent resemble, petitioners could not be barred from exercising their First Amendment rights there on the sole ground that title to the property was in the municipality. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413 (1943). The essence of those opinions is that streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely.
The fact that Lovell, Schneider, and Jamison were concerned with handbilling rather than picketing is immaterial so far as the question is solely one of right of access for the purpose of expression of views. Handbilling, like picketing, involves conduct other than speech, namely, the physical presence of the person distributing leaflets on municipal property. If title to municipal property is, standing alone, an insuflicient basis for prohibiting all entry onto such property for the purpose of distributing printed matter, it is likewise an insufficient basis for prohibiting all entry for the purpose of carrying an informational placard. While the patrolling involved in picketing may in some cases constitute an interference with the use of public property greater than that produced by handbilling, it is clear that in other cases the converse may be true. Obviously, a few persons walking slowly back and forth holding placards can be less obstructive of, for example, a public sidewalk than numerous persons milling around handing out leaflets. That the manner in which handbilling, or picketing, is carried out may be regulated does not mean that either can be barred under all circumstances on publicly owned property simply by recourse to traditional concepts of property law concerning the incidents of ownership of real property.
This Court has also held, in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501 (1946), that under some circumstances property that is privately owned may, at least for First Amendment purposes, be treated as though it were publicly held. In Marsh, the appellant, a Jehovah's Witness, had undertaken to distribute religious literature on a sidewalk in the business district of Chickasaw, Alabama. Chickasaw, a so-called company town, was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. “The property consists of residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a ‘business block' on which business places are situated. . . . [T]he residents use the business block as their regular shopping center. To do so, they now, as they have for many years, make use of a company-owned paved street and sidewalk located alongside the store fronts in order to enter and leave the stores and the post office. Intersecting company-owned roads at each end of the business block lead into a four-lane public highway which runs parallel to the business block at a distance of thirty feet. There is nothing to stop highway traffic from coming onto the business block and upon arrival a traveler may make free use of the facilities available there. In short the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation.” 326 U. S., at 502-603.
The corporation had posted notices in the stores stating that the premises were private property and that no solicitation of any kind without written permission would be permitted. Appellant- Marsh was told that she must have a permit- to distribute her literature and that a permit would not be granted to her. When she declared that the company rule could not be utilized to prevent her from exercising her constitutional rights under the First Amendment, she was ordered to leave Chickasaw. She refused to do so and was arrested for violating Alabama’s criminal trespass statute. In reversing her conviction under the statute, this Court held that the fact that the property from which appellant was sought to be ejected for exercising her First Amendment rights was owned by a private corporation rather than the State was an insufficient basis to justify the infringement on appellant’s right to free expression occasioned thereby. Likewise the fact that appellant Marsh was herself not a resident of the town was not considered material.
The similarities between the business block in Marsh and the shopping center in the present case are striking. The perimeter of Logan Valley Mall is a little less than 1.1 miles. Inside the mall were situated, at the time of trial, two substantial commercial enterprises with numerous others soon to follow. Immediately adjacent to the mall are two roads, one of which is a heavily traveled state highway and from both of which lead entrances directly into the mall. Adjoining the buildings in the middle of the mall are sidewalks for the use of pedestrians going to and from their cars and from building to building. In the parking areas, roadways for the use of vehicular traffic entering and leaving the mall are clearly marked out. The general public has unrestricted .access to the mall property. The shopping center here is clearly the functional equivalent of the business district of Chickasaw involved in Marsh.
It is true that, unlike the corporation in Marsh, the respondents here do not own the surrounding residential property and do not provide municipal services therefor. Presumably, petitioners are free to canvass the neighborhood with their message about the nonunion status of Weis Market, just as they have been permitted by the state courts to picket on the berms outside the mall. Thus, unlike the situation in Marsh, there is no power on respondents’ part to have petitioners totally denied access to the community for which the mall serves as a business district. This fact, however, is not determinative. In Marsh itself the precise issue presented was whether the appellant therein had the right, under the First Amendment, to pass out leaflets in the business district, since there was no showing made there that the corporate owner would have sought to prevent the distribution of leaflets in the residential areas of the town. While it is probable that the power to prevent trespass broadly claimed in Marsh would have encompassed such an incursion into the residential areas, the specific facts in the case involved access to property used for commercial purposes.
We see no reason why access to a business district 'in a company town for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights should be constitutionally required, while access for the same purpose to property functioning as a business district should be limited simply because the property surrounding the “business district” is not under the same ownership. Here the roadways provided for vehicular movement within the mall and the sidewalks leading from building to building are the functional equivalents of the streets and sidewalks of a normal municipal business district. The shopping center premises are open to the public to the same extent as the commercial center of a normal town. So far as can be determined, the main distinction in practice between use by the public of the Logan Valley Mall and of any other business district, were the decisions of the state courts to stand, would be that those members of the general public who sought to use the mall premises in a manner contrary to the wishes of the respondents could be prevented from so doing.
Such a power on the part of respondents would be, of course, part and parcel of the rights traditionally associated with ownership of private property. And it may well be that respondents’ ownership of the property here in question gives them various rights, under the laws of Pennsylvania, to limit the use of that property by members of the public in a manner that would not be permissible were the property owned by a municipality. All we decide here is that because the shopping center serves as the community business block “and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through,” Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S., at 508, the State may not delegate the power, through the use of its trespass laws, wholly to exclude those members of the public wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights on the premises in a manner and for a purpose generally consonant with the use to which the property is actually put.
We do not hold that respondents, and at their behest the State, are without power to make reasonable regulations governing the exercise of First Amendment rights on their property. Certainly their rights to make such regulations are at the very least co-extensive with the powers possessed by States and municipalities, and recognized in many opinions of this Court, to control the use of public property. Thus where property is not ordinarily open to the public, this Court has held that access to it for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights may be denied altogether. See Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966). Even where municipal or state property is open to the public generally, the exercise of First Amendment rights may be regulated so as to prevent interference with the use to which the property is ordinarily put by the State. Thus we have upheld a statute prohibiting picketing “in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any . . . county . . . courthouses.” Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 616. Likewise it has been indicated that persons could be constitutionally prohibited from picketing “in or near” a court “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965).
In addition, the exercise of First Amendment rights may be regulated where such exercise will unduly interfere with the normal use of the public property by other members of the public with an equal right of access to it. Thus it has been held that persons desiring to parade along city streets may be required to secure a permit in order that municipal authorities be able to limit the amount of interference with use of the sidewalks by other members of the public by regulating the time, place, and manner of the parade. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395 (1953). Compare Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949) (use of sound trucks making “loud and raucous noises” on public streets may be prohibited).
However, none of these cases is applicable to the present case. Because the Pennsylvania courts have held that “picketing and trespassing” can be prohibited absolutely on respondents’ premises, we have no occasion to consider the extent to which respondents are entitled to limit the location and manner of the picketing or the number of pickets within the mall in order to prevent interference with either access to the market building or vehicular use of the parcel pickup area and parking lot. Likewise, Adderley furnishes no support for the decision below because it is clear that the public has virtually unrestricted access to the property at issue here. Respondents seek to defend the injunction they have obtained by characterizing the requirement that picketing be carried on outside the Logan Mall premises as a regulation rather than a suppression of it. Accepting arguendo such a characterization, the question remains, under the First Amendment, whether it is a permissible regulation.
Petitioners’ picketing was directed solely at one establishment within the shopping center. The berms surrounding the center are from 350 to 500 feet away from the Weis store. All entry onto the mall premises by customers of Weis, so far as appears, is by vehicle from the roads alongside which the berms run. Thus the placards bearing the message which petitioners seek to communicate to patrons of Weis must be read by those to whom they are directed either at a distance so great as to render them virtually indecipherable — where the Weis customers are already within the mall — or while the prospective reader is moving by car from the roads onto the mall parking areas via the entrance ways cut through the berms. In addition, the pickets are placed in some danger by being forced to walk along heavily traveled roads along which traffic moves constantly at rates of speed varying from moderate to high. Likewise, the task of distributing handbills to persons in moving automobiles is vastly greater (and more hazardous) than it would be were petitioners permitted to pass them out within the mall to pedestrians. Finally, the requirement that the picketing take place outside the shopping center renders it very difficult for petitioners to limit its effect to Weis only.
It is therefore clear that the restraints on picketing and trespassing approved by the Pennsylvania courts here substantially hinder the communication of the ideas which petitioners seek to express to the patrons of Weis. The fact that the nonspeech aspects of petitioners’ activity are also rendered less effective is not particularly compelling in light of the absence of any showing, or reliance by the state courts thereon, that the patrolling accompanying the picketing sought to be carried on was significantly interfering with the use to which the mall property was being put by both respondents and the general public. As we observed earlier, the mere fact that speech is accompanied by conduct does not mean that the speech can be suppressed under the guise of prohibiting the conduct. Here it is perfectly clear that a prohibition against trespass on the mall operates to bar all speech within the shopping center to which respondents object. Yet this Court stated many years ago, “[0]ne is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.” Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163 (1939).
The sole justification offered for the substantial interference with the effectiveness of petitioners’ exercise of their First Amendment rights to promulgate their views through handbilling and picketing is respondents’ claimed absolute right under state law to prohibit any use of their property by others without their consent. However, unlike a situation involving a person’s home, no meaningful claim to protection of a right of privacy can be advanced by respondents here. Nor on the facts of the case can any significant claim to protection of the normal business operation of the property be raised. Naked title is essentially all that is at issue.
The economic development of the United States in the last 20 years reinforces our opinion of the correctness of the approach taken in Marsh. The large-scale movement of this country’s population from the cities to the suburbs has been accompanied by the advent of the suburban shopping center, typically a cluster of individual retail units on a single large privately owned tract. It has been estimated that by the end of 1966 there were between 10,000 and 11,000 shopping centers in the United States and Canada, accounting for approximately 37% of the total retail sales in those two countries.
These figures illustrate the substantial consequences for workers seeking to challenge substandard working conditions, consumers protesting shoddy or overpriced merchandise, and minority groups seeking nondiscriminatory hiring policies that a contrary decision here would have. Business enterprises located in downtown areas would be subject to on-the-spot public criticism for their practices, but businesses situated in the suburbs could largely immunize themselves from similar criticism by creating a cordon sanitaire of parking lots around their stores. Neither precedent nor policy compels a result so at variance with the goal of free expression and communication that is the heart of the First Amendment.
Therefore, as to the sufficiency of respondents’ ownership of the Logan Valley Mall premises as the sole support of the injunction issued against petitioners, we simply repeat what was said in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S., at 506, “Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” Logan Valley Mall is the functional equivalent of a “business block” and for First Amendment purposes must be treated in substantially the same manner.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Petitioners also contend (1) that the state courts were without jurisdiction in this case because the controversy involves issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, see Meat Cutters Local 427 v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U. S. 20 (1957), and (2) that the picketing herein was protected as a “concerted activit[y] for . . . mutual aid or protection” by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 49 Stat. 452, 29 U. S. C. § 157. Because of our disposition of the case, we do not reach either contention.
Such congestion as there may have been was regulated by portions of the order not here challenged. See n. 4, infra.
In addition to Local 590, the petitioners herein are various members and officials of the local who were engaged in the picketing in one way or another.
The court also enjoined petitioners from blocking access by anyone to respondents’ premises, making any threats or using any violence against customers, employees, and suppliers of Weis, and physically interfering with the performance by Weis employees of their duties. Petitioners make no challenge to these parts of the order and it appears conceded that there has been no subsequent picketing by petitioners in violation of these provisions. A portion of the order also directs that no more than “-pickets” be used at any one time, but no number has ever been inserted into the blank space and thus no limitation appears to have ever been imposed.
We need not concern ourselves with deciding whether the injunction is to be characterized as permanent or temporary. Since the order provides in terms that it shall remain in effect until further modification by the court and since there is no indication that any modification affecting the issues presently before us will be forthcoming at any time in the near future, the judgment below upholding the issuance of the injunction is clearly final for purposes of review by this Court. Compare Construction Laborers’ Local 438 v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542 (1963).
Petitioners did not argue their pre-emption contentions in their brief before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and, accordingly, that court does not appear to have passed on them.
Needless to say, had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on the purpose of the picketing and held it to be illegal, substantial questions of pre-emption under the federal labor laws would have been presented. Compare Hotel Employees Local 255 v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., 358 U. S. 270 (1959).
We are informed that, in addition to Weis and Sears, 15 other commercial establishments are presently situated in the shopping center.
The picketing carried on by petitioners was directed specifically at patrons of the Weis Market located within the shopping center and the message sought to be conveyed to the public concerned the manner in which that particular market was being operated. We are, therefore, not called upon to consider whether respondents’ property rights could, consistently with the First Amendment, justify a bar on picketing which was not thus directly related in its purpose to the use to which the shopping center property was being put.
Compare Cox v. New Hampshire, supra; Cox v. Louisiana, supra; Cameron v. Johnson, supra. It should be noted that portions of the injunction, not contested here by petitioners, do accomplish precisely such a regulation of the picketing. See n. 4, supra.
Respondents argue that this case does not involve petitioners’ right to distribute handbills, notwithstanding that the provision of the injunction prohibiting trespassing would seem to encompass entry for the purpose of distributing leaflets, because the petitioners were never engaged in handbifling within the mall. Similarly respondents suggest that the only question concerning picketing in this case relates to the picketing carried on in the parcel pickup area, since almost all the picketing occurred there prior to the issuance of the injunction. We reject the notion that an injunction that by its terms clearly prohibits entry onto the entire mall premises to picket should be given the reading suggested by the respondents simply because it is broader than, the facts at the time required. The injunction is presently still operative and no limiting construction has been placed on it by the Pennsylvania courts. We see nothing to suggest that petitioners could not be immediately cited for contempt if they violated the plain terms of the injunction, whatever its relationship to their previous conduct may be. As for handbifling, the opinion of the trial court reveals that it was prepared to enjoin the handbilling being carried on along the berms had respondents so requested. Given that, the suggestion that the absolute prohibition against petitioners' trespassing on the mall does not include handbilling is likewise untenable. We do not treat petitioners’ right to distribute leaflets separately in this opinion simply because a holding that petitioners are entitled to picket within the mall obviously extends to handbilling as well and also because petitioners themselves make no separate issue of it.
Petitioners point out that they could conceivably find themselves charged with conducting an illegal secondary boycott if they do not comply with the rules laid down by the NLRB and the courts governing common situs picketing. Compare Electrical Workers Local 761 v. NLRB, 366 U. S. 667 (1961).
Moreover, the parts of the injunction not contested by petitioners already went a long way towards preventing any such interference. See n. 4, sufra.
Kaylin, A Profile of the Shopping Center Industry, Chain Store Age, May 1966, at 17.
A number of state courts have reached similar conclusions as to shopping centers. See, e. g., Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery Workers Local 31, 61 Cal. 2d 766, 394 P. 2d 921 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U. S. 906 (1965); Moreland Corp. v. Retail Store Employees Local 444, 16 Wis. 2d 499, 114 N. W. 2d 876 (1962). Compare Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Wonderland Shopping Center, Inc., 370 Mich. 547, 122 N. W. 2d 785 (1963) (affirming four-to-four a lower court holding that handbilling in a shopping center is protected by the First Amendment).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico for a trial on the merits of the case. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U. S. 464.
Separate Memorandum of
Mr. Justice Harlan.
This is an appeal by the Government in an antitrust case wherein the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee without opinion, findings of fact, or conclusions of law of any kind. The case is here on a typewritten record of some 2,000 pages, consisting of pleadings, briefs, depositions, exhibits, and the transcript of a pretrial conference. The district judge is now deceased.
The Court vacates the judgment below and remands the case for trial. Short of its being the law that the summary judgment procedure is wholly unavailable in a government antitrust case — a holding not before nor, as I understand matters, now made — I am unable to say that summary judgment was improvidently granted in this instance without making an examination of the entire record; certainly this disposition should not be made simply on the basis of the Government’s statements that triable issues of fact exist. To examine this large record without any illumination by the court below would place an intolerable burden on this Court.
In these circumstances I believe that the proper course is to vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court, with leave to the defendant to renew its motion for summary judgment before another district judge. The Court’s action, which deprives the defendant of that opportunity, seems to me unwarranted. If summary judgment were again granted, the District Court would be expected to furnish a statement of its reasons, including such findings of fact and conclusions of law as might be appropriate. Cf. United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U. S. 651, 662 (concurring-dissenting opinion of Harlan, J.).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., limits the scope of discovery available to a judgment creditor in a federal postjudgment execution proceeding against a foreign sovereign.
I. Background
In 2001, petitioner, Republic of Argentina, defaulted on its external debt. In 2005 and 2010, it restructured most of that debt by offering creditors new securities (with less favorable terms) to swap out for the defaulted ones. Most bondholders went along. Respondent, NML Capital, Ltd. (NML), among others, did not.
NML brought 11 actions against Argentina in the Southern District of New York to collect on its debt, and prevailed in every one.1 It is owed around $2.5 billion, which Argentina has not paid. Having been unable to collect on its judgments from Argentina, NML has attempted to execute them against Argentina's property. That postjudgment litigation "has involved lengthy attachment proceedings before the district court and multiple appeals." EM Ltd v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 203, and n. 2 (C.A.2 2012) (referring the reader to prior opinions "[f]or additional background on Argentina's default and the resulting litigation").
Since 2003, NML has pursued discovery of Argentina's property. In 2010, " '[i]n order to locate Argentina's assets and accounts, learn how Argentina moves its assets through New York and around the world, and accurately identify the places and times when those assets might be subject to attachment and execution (whether under [United States law] or the law of foreign jurisdictions),' " id., at 203 (quoting NML brief), NML served subpoenas on two nonparty banks, Bank of America (BOA) and Banco de la Nación Argentina (BNA), an Argentinian bank with a branch in New York City. For the most part, the two subpoenas target the same kinds of information: documents relating to accounts maintained by or on behalf of Argentina, documents identifying the opening and closing dates of Argentina's accounts, current balances, transaction histories, records of electronic fund transfers, debts owed by the bank to Argentina, transfers in and out of Argentina's accounts, and information about transferors and transferees.
Argentina, joined by BOA, moved to quash the BOA subpoena. NML moved to compel compliance but, before the court ruled, agreed to narrow its subpoenas by excluding the names of some Argentine officials from the initial electronic-fund-transfer message search. NML also agreed to treat as confidential any documents that the banks so designated.
The District Court denied the motion to quash and granted the motions to compel. Approving the subpoenas in principle, it concluded that extraterritorial asset discovery did not offend Argentina's sovereign immunity, and it reaffirmed that it would serve as a "clearinghouse for information" in NML's efforts to find and attach Argentina's assets. App. to Pet. for Cert. 31. But the court made clear that it expected the parties to negotiate further over specific production requests, which, the court said, must include "some reasonable definition of the information being sought." Id., at 32. There was no point, for instance, in "getting information about something that might lead to attachment in Argentina because that would be useless information," since no Argentinian court would allow attachment. Ibid. "Thus, the district court ... sought to limit the subpoenas to discovery that was reasonably calculated to lead to attachable property." 695 F.3d, at 204-205.
NML and BOA later negotiated additional changes to the BOA subpoena. NML expressed its willingness to narrow its requests from BNA as well, but BNA neither engaged in negotiation nor complied with the subpoena.
Only Argentina appealed, arguing that the court's order transgressed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because it permitted discovery of Argentina's extraterritorial assets. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that "because the Discovery Order involves discovery, not attachment of sovereign property, and because it is directed at third-party banks, not at Argentina itself, Argentina's sovereign immunity is not infringed." Id., at 205.
We granted certiorari. 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 895, 187 L.Ed.2d 701 (2014).
II. Analysis
A
The rules governing discovery in postjudgment execution proceedings are quite permissive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) states that, "[i]n aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor ... may obtain discovery from any person-including the judgment debtor-as provided in the rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located." See 12 C. Wright, A. Miller, & R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3014, p. 160 (2d ed. 1997) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) (court "may use the discovery devices provided in [the federal rules] or may obtain discovery in the manner provided by the practice of the state in which the district court is held"). The general rule in the federal system is that, subject to the district court's discretion, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). And New York law entitles judgment creditors to discover "all matter relevant to the satisfaction of [a] judgment," N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 5223 (West 1997), permitting "investigation [of] any person shown to have any light to shed on the subject of the judgment debtor's assets or their whereabouts," D. Siegel, New York Practice § 509, p. 891 (5th ed. 2011).
The meaning of those rules was much discussed at oral argument. What if the assets targeted by the discovery request are beyond the jurisdictional reach of the court to which the request is made? May the court nonetheless permit discovery so long as the judgment creditor shows that the assets are recoverable under the laws of the jurisdictions in which they reside, whether that be Florida or France? We need not take up those issues today, since Argentina has not put them in contention. In the Court of Appeals, Argentina's only asserted ground for objection to the subpoenas was the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 695 F.3d, at 208 ("Argentina argues ... that the normally broad scope of discovery in aid of execution is limited in this case by principles of sovereign immunity"). And Argentina's petition for writ of certiorari asked us to decide only whether that Act "imposes [a] limit on a United States court's authority to order blanket post-judgment execution discovery on the assets of a foreign state used for any activity anywhere in the world." Pet. for Cert. 14. Plainly, then, this is not a case about the breadth of Rule 69(a)(2).2 We thus assume without deciding that, as the Government conceded at argument, Tr. of Oral Arg. 24, and as the Second Circuit concluded below, "in a run-of-the-mill execution proceeding ... the district court would have been within its discretion to order the discovery from third-party banks about the judgment debtor's assets located outside the United States." 695 F.3d, at 208. The single, narrow question before us is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act specifies a different rule when the judgment debtor is a foreign state.
B
To understand the effect of the Act, one must know something about the regime it replaced. Foreign sovereign immunity is, and always has been, "a matter of grace and comity on the part of the United States, and not a restriction imposed by the Constitution." Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983). Accordingly, this Court's practice has been to "defe[r] to the decisions of the political branches" about whether and when to exercise judicial power over foreign states. Ibid. For the better part of the last two centuries, the political branch making the determination was the Executive, which typically requested immunity in all suits against friendly foreign states. Id., at 486-487, 103 S.Ct. 1962 . But then, in 1952, the State Department embraced (in the so-called Tate Letter) the "restrictive" theory of sovereign immunity, which holds that immunity shields only a foreign sovereign's public, noncommercial acts. Id., at 487, and n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1962. The Tate Letter "thr[ew] immunity determinations into some disarray," since "political considerations sometimes led the Department to file suggestions of immunity in cases where immunity would not have been available under the restrictive theory." Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 690, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further muddling matters, when in particular cases the State Department did not suggest immunity, courts made immunity determinations "generally by reference to prior State Department decisions." Verlinden, 461 U.S., at 487, 103 S.Ct. 1962. Hence it was that "sovereign immunity decisions were [being] made in two different branches, subject to a variety of factors, sometimes including diplomatic considerations. Not surprisingly, the governing standards were neither clear nor uniformly applied." Id., at 488, 103 S.Ct. 1962.
Congress abated the bedlam in 1976, replacing the old executive-driven, factor-intensive, loosely common-law-based immunity regime with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's "comprehensive set of legal standards governing claims of immunity in every civil action against a foreign state." Ibid. The key word there-which goes a long way toward deciding this case-is comprehensive. We have used that term often and advisedly to describe the Act's sweep: "Congress established [in the FSIA] a comprehensive framework for resolving any claim of sovereign immunity." Altmann, 541 U.S., at 699, 124 S.Ct. 2240. The Act "comprehensively regulat [es] the amenability of foreign nations to suit in the United States." Verlinden, supra, at 493, 103 S.Ct. 1962. This means that "[a]fter the enactment of the FSIA, the Act-and not the pre-existing common law-indisputably governs the determination of whether a foreign state is entitled to sovereign immunity." Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 313, 130 S.Ct. 2278, 176 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2010). As the Act itself instructs, "[c]laims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts ... in conformity with the principles set forth in this [Act]." 28 U.S.C. § 1602 (emphasis added). Thus, any sort of immunity defense made by a foreign sovereign in an American court must stand on the Act's text. Or it must fall.
The text of the Act confers on foreign states two kinds of immunity. First and most significant, "a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States ... except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607." § 1604. That provision is of no help to Argentina here: A foreign state may waive jurisdictional immunity, § 1605(a)(1), and in this case Argentina did so, see 695 F.3d, at 203. Consequently, the Act makes Argentina "liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." § 1606.
The Act's second immunity-conferring provision states that "the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment[,] arrest [,] and execution except as provided in sections 1610 and 1611 of this chapter." § 1609. The exceptions to this immunity defense (we will call it "execution immunity") are narrower. "The property in the United States of a foreign state" is subject to attachment, arrest, or execution if (1) it is "used for a commercial activity in the United States," § 1610(a), and (2) some other enumerated exception to immunity applies, such as the one allowing for waiver, see § 1610(a)(1)-(7). The Act goes on to confer a more robust execution immunity on designated international-organization property, § 1611(a), property of a foreign central bank, § 1611(b)(1), and "property of a foreign state ... [that] is, or is intended to be, used in connection with a military activity" and is either "of a military character" or "under the control of a military authority or defense agency," § 1611(b)(2).
That is the last of the Act's immunity-granting sections. There is no third provision forbidding or limiting discovery in aid of execution of a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor's assets. Argentina concedes that no part of the Act "expressly address[es] [postjudgment] discovery." Brief for Petitioner 22. Quite right. The Act speaks of discovery only once, in an subsection requiring courts to stay discovery requests directed to the United States that would interfere with criminal or national-security matters, § 1605(g)(1). And that section explicitly suspends certain Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when such a stay is entered, see § 1605(g)(4). Elsewhere, it is clear when the Act's provisions specifically applicable to suits against sovereigns displace their general federal-rule counterparts. See, e.g., § 1608(d). Far from containing the "plain statement" necessary to preclude application of federal discovery rules, Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 539, 107 S.Ct. 2542, 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987), the Act says not a word on the subject.3
Argentina would have us draw meaning from this silence. Its argument has several parts. First, it asserts that, before and after the Tate Letter, the State Department and American courts routinely accorded absolute execution immunity to foreign-state property. If a thing belonged to a foreign sovereign, then, no matter where it was found, it was immune from execution. And absolute immunity from execution necessarily entailed immunity from discovery in aid of execution. Second, by codifying execution immunity with only a small set of exceptions, Congress merely "partially lowered the previously unconditional barrier to post-judgment relief." Brief for Petitioner 29. Because the Act gives "no indication that it was authorizing courts to inquire into state property beyond the court's limited enforcement authority," ibid., Argentina contends, discovery of assets that do not fall within an exception to execution immunity (plainly true of a foreign state's extraterritorial assets) is forbidden.
The argument founders at each step. To begin with, Argentina cites no case holding that, before the Act, a foreign state's extraterritorial assets enjoyed absolute execution immunity in United States courts. No surprise there. Our courts generally lack authority in the first place to execute against property in other countries, so how could the question ever have arisen? See Wright & Miller § 3013, at 156 ("[A] writ of execution ... can be served anywhere within the state in which the district court is held"). More importantly, even if Argentina were right about the scope of the common-law execution-immunity rule, then it would be obvious that the terms of § 1609 execution immunity are narrower, since the text of that provision immunizes only foreign-state property " in the United States." So even if Argentina were correct that § 1609 execution immunity implies coextensive discovery-in-aid-of-execution immunity, the latter would not shield from discovery a foreign sovereign's extraterritorial assets.
But what of foreign-state property that would enjoy execution immunity under the Act, such as Argentina's diplomatic or military property? Argentina maintains that, if a judgment creditor could not ultimately execute a judgment against certain property, then it has no business pursuing discovery of information pertaining to that property. But the reason for these subpoenas is that NML does not yet know what property Argentina has and where it is, let alone whether it is executable under the relevant jurisdiction's law. If, bizarrely, NML's subpoenas had sought only "information that could not lead to executable assets in the United States or abroad," then Argentina likely would be correct to say that the subpoenas were unenforceable- not because information about nonexecutable assets enjoys a penumbral "discovery immunity" under the Act, but because information that could not possibly lead to executable assets is simply not "relevant" to execution in the first place, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1); N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 5223.4 But of course that is not what the subpoenas seek. They ask for information about Argentina's worldwide assets generally, so that NML can identify where Argentina may be holding property that is subject to execution. To be sure, that request is bound to turn up information about property that Argentina regards as immune. But NML may think the same property not immune. In which case, Argentina's self-serving legal assertion will not automatically prevail; the District Court will have to settle the matter.
Today's decision leaves open what Argentina thinks is a gap in the statute. Could the 1976 Congress really have meant not to protect foreign states from postjudgment discovery "clearinghouses"? The riddle is not ours to solve (if it can be solved at all). It is of course possible that, had Congress anticipated the rather unusual circumstances of this case (foreign sovereign waives immunity; foreign sovereign owes money under valid judgments; foreign sovereign does not pay and apparently has no executable assets in the United States), it would have added to the Act a sentence conferring categorical discovery-in-aid-of-execution immunity on a foreign state's extraterritorial assets. Or, just as possible, it would have done no such thing. Either way, "[t]he question ... is not what Congress 'would have wanted' but what Congress enacted in the FSIA." Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 618, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992). 5
Nonetheless, Argentina and the United States urge us to consider the worrisome international-relations consequences of siding with the lower court. Discovery orders as sweeping as this one, the Government warns, will cause "a substantial invasion of [foreign states'] sovereignty," Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18, and will "[u]ndermin[e] international comity," id., at 19. Worse, such orders might provoke "reciprocal adverse treatment of the United States in foreign courts," id., at 20, and will "threaten harm to the United States' foreign relations more generally," id., at 21. These apprehensions are better directed to that branch of government with authority to amend the Act-which, as it happens, is the same branch that forced our retirement from the immunity-by-factor-balancing business nearly 40 years ago. 6
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates its railroad through Pottawattamie County, Iowa. It was authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to improve its line of railway in that county and by the Iowa State Commerce Commission to acquire by condemnation any land necessary for the improvement.
On January 18, 1952, pursuant to the Iowa Code, the petitioner filed with the sheriff of the county its application to condemn certain lands in the county owned by respondent Stude. The sheriff appointed a commission of six resident freeholders to assess damages. Notice was given by the sheriff to the respondent owner and others interested in the land, and an award of damages in the sum of $23,888.60 was allowed to the owner and $1,000 to the tenant. The amount of the assessment was paid by the petitioner to the sheriff and the petitioner took possession of the land. Such appraisal became final unless appealed from.
On March 6, 1952, the petitioner filed with the sheriff of the county a notice of appeal from the commission’s award. The Iowa Code provides for appeal as follows:
“472.18 Appeal. Any party interested may, within thirty days after the assessment is made, appeal therefrom to the district court, by giving the adverse party, his agent or attorney, and the sheriff, written notice that such appeal has been taken.
“472.21 Appeals — how docketed and tried. The appeal shall be docketed in the name of the owner of the land, or of the party otherwise interested and appealing, as plaintiff, and in the name of the applicant for condemnation as defendant, and be tried as in an action by ordinary proceedings.” Code of Iowa, 1950.
The petitioner then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the respondents in which it alleged diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional amount, authority to make improvements and to condemn therefor, together with a description of the land and that respondent Stude was the owner, and that the assessment proceedings had been instituted in the sheriff’s office, resulting in the assessment of damages of $23,888.60, which was alleged to be excessive, and that appeal was taken by notice duly given. This notice was referred to as Exhibit A to the complaint, which exhibit recited that the appeal was taken to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, and a transcript of the sheriff’s proceeding was filed in that court. The prayer was that the damages for the taking of the land be fixed at not more than $10,000. On this complaint, a summons was issued and served upon the respondents.
The petitioner also filed an appeal from this assessment in the state court, the District Court for Potta-wattamie County. The case was docketed there with the landowner as the plaintiff and the petitioner-con-demnor as defendant, as required by the Iowa Code. Thereafter, a petition to remove the cause to the federal court was filed by the petitioner. The respondents filed in the Federal District Court a motion to dismiss the complaint filed therein and a motion to remand the case removed from the state court.
The federal court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint but denied the motion to remand. The petitioner appealed from the judgment dismissing its complaint. The respondents gave notice of appeal from the order of the District Court denying the motion to remand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and reversed the District Court’s denial of the motion to remand, and ordered the cause remanded to the state court. 204 F. 2d 116, 204 F. 2d 954. We granted certiorari, 346 U. S. 810.
The Order Denying the Motion to Remand. Obviously, such an order is not final and appealable if standing alone. Reed v. Lehman, 91 F. 2d 919; Miller v. Pyrites Co., 71 F. 2d 804. While these two cases were separate actions pending on the docket of the Federal District Court, they both involve the same subject and they were treated by the parties, the District Court and the Court of Appeals as if the dismissal appealed from and the order in the removal case were made in one case. Treating them as one case, the cross-error, challenging the order denying the motion to remand, may be considered as assigned in a case involving an appealable order, the order dismissing the complaint and the action. This is true despite the fact that the order denying the motion to remand standing alone would not be appealable. Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U. S. 282, 287.
We come therefore to the merits of the motion to re- . mand. The question on this motion is whether the petitioner was a defendant nonresident of Iowa and therefore authorized to remove to the Federal District Court as provided by statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (a).
The proceeding before the sheriff is administrative until the appeal has been taken to the district court of the county. Then the proceeding becomes a civil action pending before “those exercising judicial functions” for the purpose of' reviewing the question of damages. Myers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 118 Iowa 312, 315-316, 91 N. W. 1076, 1078. When the proceeding has reached the stage of a perfected appeal and the jurisdiction of the state district court is invoked, it then becomes in its nature a civil action and subject to removal by the defendant to the United States District Court. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 407.
Is the petitioner such a defendant? The petitioner contends it is because the Code of Iowa, § 472.21, provides that on appeal, the case shall be docketed in the district court with the landowner as the plaintiff and the condemnor as the defendant and thereafter tried as in an original proceeding. The Supreme Court of Iowa has construed this statute to mean that in such proceedings on appeal, the condemnor is the defendant. Myers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., supra, at 324, 91 N. W., at 1081. This Court was urged in Mason City R. Co. v. Boynton, 204 U. S. 570, to follow that construction put upon this identical provision of the Iowa statute by the Supreme Court of Iowa. This Court declined to do so, saying:
“It is said that this court is bound by the construction given to the state law by the state court. Indeed the above § 2009 does not need construction; it enacts, in terms, that the landowner shall be plaintiff. As the right to remove a suit is given only to the defendants therein, being non-residents of the State, it is argued that the state decision ends the case.
“But this court must construe the Act of Congress regarding removal. And it is obvious that the word defendant as there used is directed toward more important matters than the burden of proof or the right to open and close. It is quite conceivable that a state enactment might reverse the names which for the purposes of removal this court might think the proper ones to be applied. In condemnation proceedings the words plaintiff and defendant can be used only in an uncommon and liberal sense. The plaintiff complains of nothing. The defendant denies no past or threatened wrong. Both parties are actors: one to acquire title, the other to get as large pay as he can. It is not necessary in order to decide that the present removal was right to say that the state decision was wrong. We leave the latter question where we find it. . . .
“Therefore, in a broad sense, the railroad is the plaintiff, as the institution and continuance of the proceedings depend upon its will. . . .” 204 U. S. 570, at 579-580.
For the purpose of removal, the federal law determines who is plaintiff and who is defendant. It is a question of the construction of the federal statute on removal, and not the state statute. The latter’s procedural provisions cannot control the privilege of removal granted by the federal statute. Shamrock Oil Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 104. Here the railroad is the plaintiff under 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (a) and cannot remove. The remand was proper.
The Motion to Dismiss. We think it was properly granted, and the original complaint in the Federal District Court correctly dismissed. The steps taken by the petitioner were those to perfect an appeal to the Federal District Court. The notice said it was the intention of the petitioner to docket the appeal in the federal court. The transcript on appeal was filed in the federal court, and the complaint filed sought a review of the commission’s assessment of damages. The proceeding makes no sense on any other basis, for the action is brought not by the person injured, namely, the landowner, but by the railroad that inflicted the damage. It will be noticed further that there is no prayer for damages but only for a review of the assessment, in keeping with the Iowa Code, § 472.23, which provides “no judgment shall be rendered except for costs . . . In short, it was an attempt of the petitioner to review the state proceedings on appeal to the Federal District Court.
The petitioner, after giving notice of appeal by filing notice with the sheriff, etc., could not perfect that appeal to any court but the court which the statute of Iowa directed, which was the District Court of that State for the County of Pottawattamie. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa does not sit to review on appeal action taken administratively or judicially in a state proceeding. A state “legislature may not make a federal district court, a court of original jurisdiction, into an appellate tribunal or otherwise expand its jurisdiction . . . Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 317. The Iowa Code does not purport to authorize such an appeal, Congress has provided none by statute, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make no such provision.
We cannot ignore this plain attempt to appeal and treat the complaint as initiating an original action, as if the parties had agreed that the petitioner could take the land, leaving only a controversy as to the amount of compensation. In that instance, there would be an implied agreement that the petitioner would pay the landowner the fair value of the land. Either party might in that posture of the case ask for a declaration as to the amount of compensation owing. The claim for damages would arise in that case from the substantive rights given by the implied contract, and the suit would be one to enforce that contract. We have no such case here. The right to take the land and the ensuing right to damages here spring from the exercise of the power of eminent domain. The petitioner here seems to ignore the means by which it obtained the land and seeks to review only the question of damages. It may not separate the question of damages and try it apart from the substantive right from which the claim for damages arose. Nor can it be said that petitioner has fully exercised its power of eminent domain, leaving nothing to be determined but the question of damages. Petitioner has possession but not title to the land. The land does not belong to the petitioner until the damages are paid. The sheriff, or the clerk of the state district court in case of appeal, must file in the county recorder’s office all the papers filed in the proceeding. Code of Iowa, 1950, § § 472.35, 472.36. The Iowa Code, § 472.41, makes this record presumptive evidence of title in the condemnor. Petitioner is still in the process of trying to get the land by virtue of its power of eminent domain. But obviously the complaint here was not filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court in an eminent domain proceeding.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do have elaborate provisions for procedure in the federal court in condemnation proceedings. It is obvious that the petitioner was not proceeding under these Rules. Whether it could so proceed as an original action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa is not before us.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Jackson concurs in the result.
“471.6 Railways. Any railway, incorporated under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof, may acquire by condemnation or otherwise so much real estate as may be necessary for the location, construction, and convenient use of its railway. . . .
“472.3 Application for condemnation. Such proceedings shall be instituted by a written application filed with the sheriff of the county in which the land sought to be condemned is located. . . .
“472.4 Commission to assess damages. The sheriff shall thereupon, except as otherwise provided, appoint six resident freeholders of his county, none of whom shall be interested in the same or a like question, who shall constitute a commission to assess the damages to all real estate desired by the applicant and located in the county.” Code of Iowa, 1950.
“472.25 Right to take possession of lands. Upon the filing of the commissioners’ report with the sheriff, the applicant may deposit with the sheriff the amount assessed in favor of a claimant, and thereupon the applicant shall, except as otherwise provided, have the right to take possession of the land condemned and proceed with the improvement. No appeal from said assessment shall affect such right, except as otherwise provided.” Code of Iowa, 1950.
In that ease, the power of eminent domain was relied upon from beginning to end.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge federal court declaring unconstitutional and enjoining the enforcement of certain statutes of the State of New York which provide for prejudgment attachment of a defendant’s assets. On April 13, 1973, appellant Curtis Circulation Co. (Curtis) filed a suit against appellees Sugar and Wrestling Revue, Inc. (Wrestling), and Champion Sports Publications, Inc. (Champion), in a New York state court. The complaint alleged that Curtis had advanced over $100,000 — of which $28,588.08 remained unpaid — to Champion under a contract with Champion pursuant to which Champion had agreed to permit Curtis to market certain identified sports magazines. It further alleged that Sugar, who owned and operated Champion, had caused title to the magazines to be transferred to Wrestling, another company owned and operated by Sugar, and had caused Wrestling to transfer the magazines to National Sports Publishing Corp. (National), a corporation not controlled by Sugar, for sale to the public. The consequence was that Champion had been stripped of its assets and that the magazines — out of the sales of which Curtis was to recoup its advance to Champion — had been sold instead by National. The complaint, containing several counts alleging fraud on the part of each defendant, sought a judgment for the $28,588.08 of Curtis’ advances which remained unrepaid.
At the same time, Curtis sought to attach the debt owed by National to Wrestling for the magazines which National had sold and for which it had not yet paid Wrestling. New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules (CPLR) § 6201 (Supp. 1975-1976) provides for attachment on various grounds. The order of attachment maybe granted in favor of a plaintiff by a judge, upon ex parte motion at any time before judgment, § 6211; and must be supported “by affidavit and such other written evidence as may be submitted, [showing] that there is a cause of action and the one or more grounds for attachment . . . that exist and the amount demanded from the defendant above all counterclaims known to the plaintiff.” § 6212 (a). In addition, the plaintiff will be ordered by the judge to give an undertaking in an amount fixed by the court out of which the defendant will be paid legal costs and damages resulting from the attachment if the defendant prevails in the underlying lawsuit. §6212 (b).
Pursuant to these procedures, Curtis filed a detailed affidavit alleging that it had a cause of action against appellees and Champion for fraud justifying a recovery of $28,588.08, and seeking an order of attachment under CPLR §§6201 (4), (5), and (8) (Supp. 1975-1976).
On April 13, 1973, New York Supreme Court Justice Fine granted the motion conditioned on Curtis’ providing a $10,000 undertaking, $8,570 of which was for the purpose of holding the defendants harmless should they prevail in the underlying suit. The undertaking was provided by Curtis and the order of attachment issued. The sheriff then levied on the debt owed by National to Wrestling, and money in the total amount of $24,324.17 was paid to the sheriff by National in April and May 1973, and in April, June, and July 1974.
Under CPLR, a defendant may discharge an attachment by giving an undertaking in an amount equal to the value of the property attached, § 6222, or by successfully moving to vacate the attachment under § 6223. That section provides:
“Prior to the application of property or debt to the satisfaction of a judgment, the defendant, the garnishee or any person having an interest in the property or debt may move, on notice to each party and the sheriff, for an order vacating or modifying the order of attachment. Upon the motion, the court shall give the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to correct any defect. If, after the defendant has appeared in the action, the court determines that the attachment is unnecessary to the security of the plaintiff, it shall vacate the order of attachment. Such a motion shall not of itself constitute an appearance in the action.”
Appellees neither gave an undertaking nor moved to vacate the attachment under § 6223. Instead they waited nine months until January 1974, and filed the instant action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants the sheriff, Judge Fine, the Attorney General, the Governor of New York, and the plaintiffs in the state action. Alleging that the temporary loss, pending decision on the merits of the underlying complaint, of the money owed them by National was injuring them irreparably, they sought a declaration that the attachment provisions of CPLR were unconstitutional, an order enjoining their further enforcement, and an order directing that the attachment of National’s debt to Wrestling be vacated. Appellees asked that a three-judge court be convened under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284.
On June 17, 1974, the single-judge court rejected appellants’ claim that it should abstain from deciding the constitutional issue, and a three-judge court was convened. On November 6, 1974, the three-judge court granted the requested relief “until and unless a meaningful opportunity to vacate an attachment is provided under CPLR, [§] 6223 or by the [cjourts of the State of New York.” The judgment was stayed, however, pending appeal to this Court.
As we understand it, the District Court found the New York prejudgment attachment provisions unconstitutional because it concluded that the opportunity to vacate the attachment provided by CPLR § 6223 was inadequate, under this Court’s cases, to justify the property deprivation involved. In its view, the hearing available on a motion to vacate the attachment was inadequate principally because the hearing would only be concerned with the question whether the “attachment is unnecessary to the security of the plaintiff,” § 6223, and would not require the plaintiff to litigate the question of the likelihood that it would ultimately prevail on the merits.
It may be that the three-judge District Court below was correct in its “forecast,” see Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 499 (1941), that even in light of recent cases in this Court, see, e. g., North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U. S. 601 (1975); Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600 (1974); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972), the New York courts will construe CPLR § 6223 to preclude an adequate preliminary inquiry into the merits of a plaintiff’s underlying claim. Cf. Boehning v. Indiana Employees Assn., 423 U. S. 6, 7-8, n. (1975). On the other hand, as the order of the three-judge court itself recognized, the New York courts could conclude otherwise. The New York Court of Appeals has already held that an attachment may be vacated if it “clearly” appears “that the plaintiffs must ultimately fail” on the merits. Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, 234 N. Y. 372, 377, 138 N. E. 24, 26 (1923). See also Maitrejean v. Levon Properties, 45 App. Div. 2d 1020, 358 N. Y. S. 2d 203 (1974); Richman v. Richman, 41 App. Div. 2d 993, 344 N. Y. S. 2d 52 (1973); Martin Enterprises, Inc. v. M. S. Kaplan Co., 45 App. Div. 2d 883, 358 N. Y. S. 2d 160 (1974). The precise nature of any inquiry into the merits which will be made by the New York courts under this rubric is unclear, but an inquiry consistent with the constitutional standard is by no means automatically precluded. Indeed, two New York trial courts have expressly held, subsequent to the decision below, that where fact issues are raised, on a motion to vacate an attachment, with respect to the merits of the underlying claim, a preliminary hearing will be held on those issues. Regnell v. Page, 82 Misc. 2d 506, 369 N. Y. S. 2d 936 (1975); New York Auction Co. v. Belt, 81 Misc. 2d 1032, 368 N. Y. S. 2d 98 (1975).
Under these circumstances, it would be unwise for this Court to address the constitutionality of the New York attachment statutes, for decision on that issue may be rendered unnecessary by a decision of the New York courts as a matter of state law. City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639, 640 (1959); Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82 (1970); Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528 (1965); Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41 (1970); Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., supra. The court below has declared unconstitutional the statute of a State the continued utilization of which is undoubtedly of importance to that State. If the State construes its statute so as to remove any constitutional problems, friction with the State will have been avoided. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., supra, at 500-501. Finally, injunctive relief against the state officials who were defendants below appears particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that these officials contended below and continue to contend here that New York law does provide an opportunity for a preliminary hearing on the merits of a plaintiff's underlying claim.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand these cases to the three-judge court and direct it to abstain from a decision of the federal constitutional issues until the parties have had an opportunity to obtain a construction of New York law from the New York state courts.
So ordered.
“An order of attachment may be granted in any action, except a matrimonial action, where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled, in whole or in part, or in the alternative, to a money judgment against one or more defendants, when:
“4. the defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors, has assigned, disposed of or secreted property, or removed it from the state or is about to do any of these acts; or
“5. the defendant, in an action upon a contract, express or implied, has been guilty of a fraud in contracting or incurring the liability; or
“8. there is a cause of action to recover damages for the conversion of personal property, or for fraud or deceit.”
The court also concluded that the burden of proof at the hearing would be on the defendant, and noted that the plaintiff, unlike the plaintiff in Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600 (1974), had no special property interest in the property attached.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
New England Electric System (NEES) is a holding company registered under § 5 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Its holdings include both electric and gas utility properties. The electric companies serve retail customers in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The gas companies serve retail customers in Massachusetts alone. The Commission, proceeding under § 11 of the Act, held that the electric utility subsidiaries of NEES constituted an “integrated electric utility system” as defined in § 2 (a)(29) (A). 38 S. E. C. 193. The question in this case does not concern these electric utility subsidiaries but only the gas utility subsidiaries of NEES, which both NEES and the Commission agree constitute an “integrated gas utility system” within the meaning of § 2 (a)(29)(B) of the Act.
By §11 (b)(1) a holding company system is to be limited in operations by the Commission “to a single integrated public-utility system,” provided, however, that it may be permitted to control one or more additional “integrated public-utility systems” if the Commission finds, inter alia, that “[e]ach of such additional systems cannot be operated as an independent system without the loss of substantial economies which can be secured by the retention of control by such holding company of such system.” § 11 (b)(1)(A). (Italics supplied.) It is on the meaning of this proviso that the present controversy depends. The Commission found that divestment of NEES’ gas utilities would not result in a “loss of substantial economies” to these companies within the meaning of § 11 (b) (1) (A). It construed Clause (A) to require a showing that the “additional system cannot be operated under separate ownership without the loss of economies so important as to cause a serious impairment of that system.” The Commission ruled that it was unable “to find that the gas companies could not be soundly and economically operated independently of NEES.” It found that any losses of economies would be offset by the benefits that would flow from the healthy competition between the independently controlled gas and electric companies, promotion of competition between gas utilities and electric utilities being an important purpose of the Act. Accordingly, it ordered that the gas utilities be divested.
On petition for review the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the Commission had misinterpreted the statutory phrase “loss of substantial economies.” 346 F. 2d 399. The court held that Clause (A) “called for a business judgment-of what would be a significant loss, not for a finding of total loss of economy or efficiency” (346 F. 2d, at 406), and, believing that on this record and with the statute so interpreted there could have been a finding in favor of NEES, remanded the case to the Commission. We granted certiorari, 382 U. S. 953.
We agree with the Commission’s reading of Clause (A) and remand the cause to the Court of Appeals so that there may be a review of the challenged order in light of the proper meaning of the statutory term.
The requirement in § 11 of a “single integrated” system is the “very heart” of the Act. The retention of an “additional” integrated system is decidedly the exception. As originally passed by the Senate, § 11 would have limited all registered holding companies to a single “geographically and economically integrated public-utility system.” The House version differed in that it permitted the Commission to make exceptions where limitation of the operations of the holding company was not found to be “in the public interest.” The version with which we deal emerged from a conference committee. The scope of the exception as it appears in the bill’s final form was thus explained to the House:
“Section 11 of both bills [i. e., the House and Senate versions], therefore, authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission to require a holding company to limit its control over operating utility companies to one integrated public-utility system.
“The conference substitute meets the House desire to provide for further flexibility by the statement of additional definite and concrete circumstances under which exception should be made to the form of one integrated system. . . .
“The substitute, therefore, makes provision to meet the situation where a holding company can show a real economic need on the part of additional integrated systems for permitting the holding company to keep these additional systems . . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 1903, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 70-71. (Italics supplied.)
Additional light is shed on the purpose of § 11 by the remarks of Senator Wheeler, a member of the conference committee:
“Since both bills accepted the proposition that a holding company should normally be limited to one integrated system, my colleagues and I conceived it to be our task to find what concrete exceptions, if any, could be made to this rule that would satisfy the demand of the House for some greater flexibility. After considerable discussion the Senate conferees concluded that the furthest concession they could make would be to permit the Commission to allow a holding company to control more than one integrated system if [among other tests] the additional systems were in the same region as the principal system and were so small that they were incapable of independent economical operation . . . .” 79 Cong. Rec. 14479. (Italics supplied.)
As the Commission said in 1948:
“The legislative'history of Section 11 (b)(1) indicates that it was the intent of Congress to create only a limited exception to the general rule confining holding companies to a single system, and that this exception was created to deal with the situation in which the proven inability of the additional system to stand by itself would result in substantial hardship to investors and consumers were its relationship with the holding company terminated.” Philadelphia Co., 28 S. E. C. 35, 46.
While the Commission has variously phrased the rule, it has consistently adhered to that view.
This suggests a much more stringent test than “a business judgment of what would be a significant loss,” to quote the Court of Appeals. 346 F. 2d, at 406. Promotion of “economy of management and operation” and “the integration and coordination of related operating properties” (§ 1 (b)(4), 49 Stat. 804, 15 U. S. C. § 79a (b)(4) (italics supplied)) is a theme that runs throughout the Act. But so does the theme of elimination of “restraint of free and independent competition.” § 1 (b) (2), 49 Stat. 803-804, 15 U. S. C. § 79a (b)(2). One of the evils that had resulted from control of utilities by holding companies was the retention in one system of both gas and electric properties and the favoring of one of these competing forms of energy over the other.
In the present case the Commission said on this phase of the controversy:
“Although the NEES Gas Division handles sales and promotional activities and various other matters for the gas subsidiaries separately from the electric companies, final authority on all important matters rests in the top NEES management. The basic competitive position that exists between gas and electric utility service within the same locality is affected by such vital management decisions as the amount of funds to be raised for or allocated to the expansion or promotion of each type of service.”
Competitive advantages to be gained by a separation are difficult to forecast. The gains to competition might well be in the public interest and might well offset the estimated loss in economies of operation resulting from a separation of the gas properties from the utility system. This is a matter for Commission expertise on the total competitive situation, not merely on a prediction whether, for example, a gas company in a holding company system may make more for investors than a gas company converted into an independent regime.
The phrase “without the loss of substantial economies” is admittedly not crystal clear. But the Commission’s construction seems to us to be well within the permissible range given to those who are charged with the task of giving an intricate statutory scheme practical sense and application. Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, 408. And see Philadelphia Co. v. SEC, 177 F. 2d 720, 725.
Reversed and remanded.
49 Stat. 812, 15 U. S. C. §79e (1964 ed.).
NEES, the electric companies, and the gas companies are all parties respondent and are hereafter referred to as respondent.
49 Stat. 820, 15 U. S. C. § 79k (1964 ed.).
49 Stat. 810, 15 U. S. C. § 79b (a) (29) (A) (1964 ed.). An “integrated public-utility system” as applied to electric utility companies is defined by § 2 (a) (29) (A) as “a system consisting of oiie or more units of generating plants and/or transmission lines and/or distributing facilities, whose utility assets, whether owned by one or more electric utility companies, are physically interconnected or capable of physical interconnection and which under normal conditions may be economically operated as a single interconnected and coordinated system confined in its operations to a single area or region, in one or more States, not so large as to impair (considering the state of the art and the area or region affected) the advantages of localized management, efficient operation, and the effectiveness of regulation.”
49 Stat. 810, 15 U. S. C. § 79b (a) (29) (B) (1964 ed.). An "integrated public-utility system” as applied to gas utility companies is defined by § 2 (a) (29) (B) as “a system consisting of one or more gas utility companies which are so located and related that substantial economies may be effectuated by being operated as a single coordinated system confined in its operations to a single area or region, in one or more States, not so large as to impair (considering the state of the art and the area or region affected) the advantages of localized management, efficient operation, and the effectiveness of regulation.”
49 Stat. 820, 15 U. S. C. § 79k (b)(1) (1964 ed.).
The Commission has long held that a single “integrated public-utility system” cannot include both gas and electric properties. See Columbia Gas & Electric Corp., 8 S. E. C. 443, 462-463; The United Gas Improvement Co., 9 S. E. C. 52, 77-83; Philadelphia Co., 28 S. E. C. 35, 44. Respondent does not contest this aspect of the Commission’s reading of the Act.
North American Co. v. SEC, 327 U. S. 686, 704, n. 14; S. Rep. No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 11.
North American Co. v. SEC, supra, at 696-697.
S. 2796, § 11 (b), 74th Cong., 1st Sess. And see S. Rep. No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 32.
S. 2796, §11 (b), as passed by the House of Representatives, and sent to the Senate on July 9, 1935. And see H. R. Rep. No. 1318, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 17.
Respondent concedes that the Commission has, since 1948, “articulated” a test “like the present test.” See Philadelphia Co., 28 S. E. C. 35, 46-47, 53-74; General Public Utilities Corp., 32 S. E. C. 807, 814-815, 826-827, 831; Middle South Utilities, Inc., 35 S. E. C. 1, 11-13. Respondent contends, however, that previous decisions of the Commission applied a less restrictive standard of “substantial economies.” The Commission disagrees, urging that while there was “some variation in choice of words,” it has maintained a basically consistent position and that any semantic differences are due largely to “the varying contentions with which the Commission was dealing.” The cases referred to are North American Co., 11 S. E. C. 194, 208-213; Engineers Public Service Co., 12 S. E. C. 41; Cities Service Power & Light Co., 14 S. E. C. 28, 37; Middle West Corp., 15 S. E. C. 309, 319; Cities Service Co., 15 S. E. C. 962, 984; American Gas & Electric Co., 21 S. E. C. 575, 596-597. We do not read those eases as being inconsistent with the Commission’s position since 1948. In each of these cases the Commission found no showing of “substantial economies" under whatever test might be applied; thus it was not there compelled to go further. There are, to be sure, a few cases in which the Commission permitted retention of small additional systems on the ground that the requirements of §11 (b)(1) were met; in these, however, the Commission did not articulate any standard. See, e. g., Federal Light & Traction Co., 15 S. E. C. 675, 683; Republic Service Corp., 23 S. E. C. 436, 451. But cf. North American Co., 11 S. E. C. 194, 243-244.
We cannot say that these early decisions show any clear inconsistency with the standard which the Commission today applies, and has applied since 1948. Under these circumstances, we feel justified in regarding the Commission’s reading of the statute as supported by consistent administrative practice.
Section 1 (b) provides “. . . [I]t is hereby declared that the national public interest, the interest of investors in the securities of holding companies and their subsidiary companies and affiliates, and the interest of consumers of electric energy and natural and manufactured gas, are or may be adversely affected ... (2) when subsidiary public-utility companies are subjected to excessive charges for services, construction work, equipment, and materials, or .enter into transactions in which evils result from an absence of arm’s-length bargaining or from restraint of free and independent competition; . . .” (Italics supplied.)
See S. Rep. No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 29; Report of National Power Policy Committee, H. R. Doe. No. 137, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (Appendix to S. Rep. No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.).
Congress was well aware of the anti-competitive potential of corporate structures through which control of gas and electric utility companies rests under the umbrella of a single holding company. That a holding company so situated might retard expansion of the gas utility company in favor of the electric utility company was expressly discussed in the Senate Hearings on an earlier version of the Act. See Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 1725, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 783.
Congress made specific provision in §8 of the Act to prohibit a registered holding company from acquiring an interest in both an electric and a gas utility serving the same territory in a State which prohibits common control, without first obtaining permission from the appropriate state regulatory agency. While § 8 reflects the concern of Congress with this aspect of competition (see S. Rep. No. 621, supra, at 29-30; Report of National Power Policy Committee, supra, at 10), there is no warrant for concluding that §8 was the exclusive legislative effort relating to the problem. The history of the Act reflects the presence of a sophisticated statutory scheme. To some extent, local policy was expected to govern, with § 8 serving to prevent circumvention of that policy by use of the "extra-State device of a holding company.” S. Rep. No. 621, supra, at 29-30. At the same time, § 11 was expected to assist in imposing restrictions with regard to the combination of gas and electricity in one system. . Discussing the interplay between § 8 and § 11, the Senate Committee noted that § 8 only applied to future acquisitions: “The committee felt that while the policy upon which this section was based was essential in the formulation of any Federal legislation on utility holding companies, it did not think that the section should make it unlawful to retain {up to the time that section 11 may require divestment) interests in businesses in which the companies were lawfully engaged on the date of the enactment of the title.” Id., at 7. (Italics supplied.)
By fostering competition between gas and electric utility companies, the Act promotes what has been described as “variegated competition.” Hearings before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, 840 (1965) (statement of Dr. Samuel M. Loescher). “But since the distribution of electricity, following geographical divorcements, was to remain a natural monopoly in every region, the only kind of competition to be enhanced was that of ‘variegated competition.’ ” Ibid.
See, e. g., Hearings before House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H. R. 5423, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1249, 1402-1403, 1530-1531, 2257-2277; Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 1725, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 65. It was only the loss of “substantial economies” that Congress thought would justify an exception from the separation rule of § 11.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 with respect to the constitutionality of petitioner’s conviction (Parts I and II), together with an opinion (Part III), in which Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Stevens joined, on the constitutionality of the statute under which petitioner was sentenced to death, and announced the judgment of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider, among other questions, whether Ohio violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by sentencing Sandra Lockett to death pursuant to a statute that narrowly limits the sentencer’s discretion to consider the circumstances of the crime and the record and character of the offender as mitigating factors.
I
Lockett was charged with aggravated murder with the aggravating specifications (1) that the murder was “committed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment” for aggravated robbery, and (2) that the murder was “committed while... committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit... aggravated robbery.” That offense was punishable by death in Ohio. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2929.03, 2929.04 (1975). She was also charged with aggravated robbery. The State’s case against her depended largely upon the testimony of a coparticipant, one A1 Parker, who gave the following account of her participation in the robbery and murder.
Lockett became acquainted with Parker and Nathan Earl Dew while she and a friend, Joanne Baxter, were in New Jersey. Parker and Dew then accompanied Lockett, Baxter, and Lockett’s brother back to Akron, Ohio, Lockett’s hometown. After they arrived in Akron, Parker and Dew needed money for the trip back to New Jersey. Dew suggested that he pawn his ring. Lockett overheard his suggestion, but felt that the ring was too beautiful to pawn, and suggested instead that they could get some money by robbing a grocery store and a furniture store in the area. She warned that the grocery store’s operator was a “big guy” who carried a “45” and that they would have “to get him real quick.” She also volunteered to get a gun from her father’s basement to aid in carrying out the robberies, but by that time, the two stores had closed and it was too late to proceed with the plan to rob them.
Someone, apparently Lockett’s brother, suggested a plan for robbing a pawnshop. He and Dew would enter the shop and pretend to pawn a ring. Next Parker, who had some bullets, would enter the shop, ask to see a gun, load it, and use it to rob the shop. No one planned to kill the pawnshop operator in the course of the robbery. Because she knew the owner, Lockett was not to be among those entering the pawnshop, though she did guide the others to the shop that night.
The next day Parker, Dew, Lockett, and her brother gathered at Baxter’s apartment. Lockett’s brother asked if they were “still going to do it,” and everyone, including Lockett, agreed to proceed. The four then drove by the pawnshop several times and parked the car. Lockett’s brother and Dew entered the shop. Parker then left the car and told Lockett to start it again in two minutes. The robbery proceeded according to plan until the pawnbroker grabbed the gun when Parker announced the “stickup.” The gun went off with Parker’s finger on the trigger, firing a fatal shot into the pawnbroker.
Parker went back to the car where Lockett waited with the engine running. While driving away from the pawnshop, Parker told Lockett what had happened. She took the gun from the pawnshop and put it into her purse. Lockett and Parker drove to Lockett’s aunt’s house and called a taxicab. Shortly thereafter, while riding away in a taxicab, they were stopped by the police, but by this time Lockett had placed the gun under the front seat. Lockett told the police that Parker rented a room from her mother and lived with her family. After verifying this story with Lockett’s parents, the police released Lockett and Parker. Lockett hid Dew and Parker in the attic when the police arrived at the Lockett household later that evening.
Parker was subsequently apprehended and charged with aggravated murder with specifications, an offense punishable by death, and aggravated robbery. Prior to trial, he pleaded guilty to the murder charge and agreed to testify against Lockett, her brother, and Dew. In return, the prosecutor dropped the aggravated robbery charge and the specifications to the murder charge, thereby eliminating the possibility that Parker could receive the death penalty.
Lockett’s brother and Dew were later convicted of aggravated murder with specifications. Lockett’s brother was sentenced to death, but Dew received a lesser penalty because it was determined that his offense was “primarily the product of mental deficiency,” one of the three mitigating circumstances specified in the Ohio death penalty statute.
Two weeks before Lockett’s separate trial, the prosecutor offered to permit her to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery (offenses which each carried a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of $10,000, see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2903.03, 2911.01, 2929.11 (1975)) if she would cooperate with the State, but she rejected the offer. Just prior to her trial, the prosecutor offered to permit her to plead guilty to aggravated murder without specifications, an offense carrying a mandatory life penalty, with the understanding that the aggravated robbery charge and an outstanding forgery charge would be dismissed. Again she rejected the offer.
At trial, the opening argument of Lockett’s defense counsel summarized what appears to have been Lockett’s version of the events leading to the killing. He asserted the evidence would show that, as far as Lockett knew, Dew and her brother had planned to pawn Dew’s ring for $100 to obtain money for the trip back to New Jersey. Lockett had not waited in the car while the men went into the pawnshop but had gone to a restaurant for lunch and had joined Parker, thinking the ring had been pawned, after she saw him walking back to the car. Lockett’s counsel asserted that the evidence would show further that Parker had placed the gun under the seat in the taxicab and that Lockett had voluntarily gone to the police station when she learned that the police were looking for the pawnbroker’s killers.
Parker was the State’s first witness. His testimony related his version of the robbery and shooting, and he admitted to a prior criminal record of breaking and entering, larceny, and receiving stolen goods, as well as bond jumping. He also acknowledged that his plea to aggravated murder had eliminated the possibility of the death penalty, and that he had agreed to testify against Lockett, her brother, and Dew as part of his plea agreement with the prosecutor. At the end of the major portion of Parker’s testimony, the prosecutor renewed his offer to permit Lockett to plead guilty to aggravated murder without specifications and to drop the other charges against her. For the third time Lockett refused the option of pleading guilty to a lesser offense.
Lockett called Dew and her brother as defense witnesses, but they invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify. In the course of the defense presentation, Lockett’s counsel informed the court, in the presence of the jury, that he believed Lockett was to be the next witness and requested a short recess. After the recess, Lockett’s counsel told the judge that Lockett wished to testify but had decided to accept her mother’s advice to remain silent, despite her counsel’s warning that, if she followed that advice, she would have no defense except the cross-examination of the State's witnesses. Thus, the defense did not introduce any evidence to rebut the prosecutor’s case.
The court instructed the jury that, before it could find Lockett guilty, it had to find that she purposely had killed the pawnbroker while committing or attempting to commit aggravated robbery. The jury was further charged that one who
“purposely aids, helps, associates himself or herself with another for the purpose of committing a crime is regarded as if he or she were the principal offender and is just as guilty as if the person performed every act constituting the offense....”
Regarding the intent requirement, the court instructed:
“A person engaged in a common design with others to rob by force and violence an individual or individuals of their property is presumed to acquiesce in whatever may reasonably be necessary to accomplish the object of their enterprise....
“If the conspired robbery and the manner of its accomplishment would be reasonably likely to produce death, each plotter is equally guilty with the principal offender as an aider and abettor in the homicide.... An intent to kill by an aider and abettor may be found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt under such circumstances.”
The jury found Lockett guilty as charged.
Once a verdict of aggravated murder with specifications had been returned, the Ohio death penalty statute required the trial judge to impose a death sentence unless, after “considering the nature and circumstances of the offense” and Lockett’s “history, character, and condition,” he found by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the victim had induced or facilitated the offense, (2) it was unlikely that Lockett would have committed the offense but for the fact that she “was under duress, coercion, or strong provocation,” or (3) the offense was “primarily the product of [Lockett’s] psychosis or mental deficiency.” Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2929.03-2929.04 (B) (1975).
In accord with the Ohio statute, the trial judge requested a presentence report as well as psychiatric and psychological reports. The reports contained detailed information about Lockett’s intelligence, character, and background. The psychiatric and psychological reports described her as a 21-year-old with low-average or average intelligence, and not suffering from a mental deficiency. One of the psychologists reported that “her prognosis for rehabilitation” if returned to society was favorable. The presentence report showed that Lockett had committed no major offenses although she had a record of several minor ones as a juvenile and two minor offenses as an adult. It also showed that she had once used heroin but was receiving treatment at a drug abuse clinic and seemed to be “on the road to success” as far as her drug problem was concerned. It concluded that Lockett suffered no psychosis and was not mentally deficient.
After considering the reports and hearing argument on the penalty issue, the trial judge concluded that the offense had not been primarily the product of psychosis or mental deficiency. Without specifically addressing the other two statutory mitigating factors, the judge said that he had “no alternative, whether [he] like[d] the law or not” but to impose the death penalty. He then sentenced Lockett to death.
II
A
At the outset, we address Lockett’s various challenges to the validity of her conviction. Her first contention is that the prosecutor’s repeated references in his closing remarks to the State’s evidence as “unrefuted” and “uncontradicted” constituted a comment on her failure to testify and violated her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 615 (1965). We conclude, however, that the prosecutor’s closing comments in this case did not violate constitutional prohibitions.. Lockett’s own counsel had clearly focused the jury’s attention on her silence, first, by outlining her contemplated defense in his opening statement and, second, by stating to the court and jury near the close of the case, that Lockett would be the “next witness.” When viewed against this background, it seems clean that the prosecutor’s closing remarks added nothing to the impression that had already been created by Lockett’s refusal to testify after the jury had been promised a defense by her lawyer and told that Lockett would take the stand.
B
Lockett also contends that four prospective jurors were excluded from the venire in violation of her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the principles established in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968), and Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522, 528 (1975). We do not agree.
On voir dire, the prosecutor told the venire that there was a possibility that the death penalty might be imposed, but that the judge would make the final decision as to punishment. He then asked whether any of the prospective jurors were so opposed to capital punishment that “they could not sit, listen • to the evidence, listen to the law, [and] make their determination solely upon the evidence and the law without considering the fact that capital punishment” might be imposed. Four of the venire responded affirmatively. The trial judge then addressed the following question to those four veniremen:
“[D]o you feel that you could take an oath to well and truely [sic] try this case... and follow the law, or is your conviction so strong that you cannot take an oath, knowing that a possibility exists in regard to capital punishment?”
Each of the four specifically stated twice that he or she would not “take the oath.” They were excused.
In Witherspoon, persons generally opposed to capital punishment had been excluded for cause from the jury that convicted and sentenced the petitioner to death. We did not disturb the conviction but we held that “a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.” 391 U. S., at 522. We specifically noted, however, that nothing in our opinion prevented the execution of a death sentence when the veniremen excluded for cause make it “unmistakably clear... that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant's guilt.” Id., at 522-523, n. 21.
Each of the excluded veniremen in this case made it “unmistakably clear” that they could not be trusted to “abide by existing law” and “to follow conscientiously the instructions” of the trial judge. Boulden v. Holman, 394 U. S. 478, 484 (1969). They were thus properly excluded under Witherspoon, even assuming, arguendo, that Witherspoon provides a basis for attacking the conviction as well as the sentence in a capital case.
Nor was there any violation of the principles of Taylor v. Louisiana, supra. In Taylor, the Court invalidated a jury selection system that operated to exclude a “grossly disproportionate,” 419 U. S., at 525, number of women from jury service thereby depriving the petitioner of a jury chosen from a “fair cross-section” of the community, id., at 530. Nothing in Taylor, however, suggests that the right to a representative jury includes the right to be tried by jurors who have explicitly indicated an inability to follow the law and instructions of the trial judge.
C
Lockett’s final attack on her conviction, as distinguished from her sentence, merits only brief attention. Specifically she contends that the Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of the complicity provision of the statute under which she was convicted, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.03 (A) (1975), was so unexpected that it deprived her of fair warning of the crime with which she was charged. The opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court belies this claim. It shows clearly that the construction given the statute by the Ohio court was consistent with both prior Ohio law and with the legislative history of the statute. In such circumstances, any claim of inadequate notice under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be rejected.
Ill
Lockett challenges the constitutionality of Ohio’s death penalty statute on a number of grounds. We find it necessary to consider only her contention that her death sentence is invalid because the statute under which it was imposed did not permit the sentencing judge to consider, as mitigating factors, her character, prior record, age, lack of specific intent to cause death, and her relatively minor part in the crime. To address her contention from the proper perspective, it is helpful to review the developments in our recent cases where we have applied the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to death penalty statutes. We do not write on a “clean slate.”
A
Prior to Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), every State that authorized capital punishment had abandoned mandatory death penalties, and instead permitted the jury unguided and unrestrained discretion regarding the imposition of the death penalty in a particular capital case. Mandatory death penalties had proved unsatisfactory, as the plurality noted in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 293 (1976), in part because juries, “with some regularity, disregarded their oaths and refused to convict defendants where a death sentence was the automatic consequence of a guilty verdict.”
This Court had never intimated pijior to Furman that discretion in sentencing offended the Constitution. See Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U. S. 51, 55 (1937); Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 247 (1949); Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U. S. 576, 585 (1959). As recently as McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183 (1971), the Court had specifically rejected the contention that discretion in imposing the death penalty violated the fundamental standards of fairness embodied in Fourteenth Amendment due process, id., at 207-208, and had asserted that States were entitled to assume that “jurors confronted with the truly awesome responsibility of decreeing death for a fellow human [would] act with due regard for the consequences of their decision.” Id., at 208.
The constitutional status of discretionary sentencing in capital cases changed abruptly, however, as a result of the separate opinions supporting the judgment in Furman. The question in Furman was whether “the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty [in the cases before the Court] constitute [d] cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” 408 U. S., at 239. Two Justices concluded that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the death penalty altogether and on that ground voted to reverse the judgments sustaining the death penalties. Id., at 305-306 (Brennan, J., concurring); id., at 370-371 (Marshall, J., concurring). Three Justices were unwilling to hold the death penalty per se unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, but voted to reverse the judgments on other grounds. In separate opinions, the three concluded that discretionary sentencing, unguided by legislatively defined standards, violated the Eighth Amendment because it was “pregnant with discrimination/’ id., at 257 (Douglas, J., concurring), because it permitted the death penalty to be “wantonly” and “freakishly” imposed, id., at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring), and because it imposed the death penalty with “great infrequency” and afforded “no meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which it [was] imposed from the many cases in which it [was] not,” id., at 313 (White, J., concurring). Thus, what had been approved under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in McOautha became impermissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by virtue of the judgment in Furman. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 195-196, n. 47 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
Predictably the variety of opinions supporting the judgment in Furman engendered confusion as to what was required in order to impose the death penalty in accord with the Eighth Amendment. Some States responded to what was thought to be the command of Furman by adopting mandatory death penalties for a limited category of specific crimes thus eliminating all discretion from the sentencing process in capital cases. Other States attempted to continue the practice of individually assessing the culpability of each individual defendant convicted of a capital offense and, at the same time, to comply with Furman, by providing standards to guide the sentencing decision.
Four years after Furman, we considered Eighth Amendment issues posed by five of the post-Furman death penalty statutes. Four Justices took the position that all five statutes complied with the Constitution; two Justices took the position that none of them complied. Hence, the disposition of each case varied according to the votes of three Justices who delivered a joint opinion in each of the five cases upholding the constitutionality of the statutes of Georgia, Florida, and Texas, and holding those of North Carolina and Louisiana unconstitutional.
The joint opinion reasoned that, to comply with Furman, sentencing procedures should not create “a substantial risk that the death penalty [will] be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 188. In the view of the three Justices, however, Furman did not require that all sentencing discretion be eliminated, but only that it be “directed and limited,” 428 U. S., at 189, so that the death penalty would be imposed in a more consistent and rational manner and so that there would be a “meaningful basis for distinguishing the... cases in which it is imposed from... the many cases in which it is not.” Id., at 188. The plurality concluded, in the course of invalidating North Carolina’s mandatory death penalty statute, that the sentencing process must permit consideration of the “character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death,” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S., at 304, in order to ensure the reliability, under Eighth Amendment standards, of the determination that “death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.” Id., at 305; see Roberts (Harry) v. Louisiana, 431 U. S. 633, 637 (1977); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262, 271-272 (1976).
In the last decade, many of the States have been obliged to revise their death penalty statutes in response to the various opinions supporting the judgments in Furman and Gregg and its companion cases. The signals from this Court have not, however, always been easy to decipher. The States now deserve the clearest guidance that the Court can provide; we have an obligation to reconcile previously differing views in order to provide that guidance.
B
With that obligation in mind we turn to Lockett’s attack on the Ohio statute. Essentially she contends that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer be given a full opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances in capital cases and that the Ohio statute does not comply with that requirement. She relies, in large part, on the plurality-opinions in Woodson, supra, at 303-305, and Roberts (Stanislaus) v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325, 333-334 (1976), and the joint opinion in Jurek, supra, at 271-272, but she goes beyond them.
We begin by recognizing that the concept of individualized sentencing in criminal cases generally, although not constitutionally required, has long been accepted in this country. See Williams v. New York, 337 U. S., at 247-248; Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U. S., at 55. Consistent with that concept, sentencing judges traditionally have taken a wide range of factors into account. That States have authority to make aiders and abettors equally responsible, as a matter of law, with principals, or to enact felony-murder statutes is beyond constitutional challenge. But the definition of crimes generally has not been thought automatically to dictate what should be the proper penalty. See ibid.; Williams v. New York, supra, at 247-248; Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U. S., at 585. And where sentencing discretion is granted, it generally has been agreed that the sentencing judge’s “possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics” is “[h]ighly relevant — if not essential— [to the] selection of an appropriate sentence... Williams v. New York, supra, at 247 (emphasis added).
The opinions of this Court going back many years in dealing with sentencing in.capital cases have noted the strength of the basis for individualized sentencing. For example, Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court in Williams v. New York, supra, at 247-248 — a capital case — observed that the
“whole country has traveled far from the period in which the death sentence was an automatic and commonplace result of convictions — even for offenses today deemed trivial.”
Ten years later, in Williams v. Oklahoma, supra, at 585, another capital case, the Court echoed Mr. Justice Black, stating that
“[i]n discharging his duty of imposing a proper sentence, the sentencing judge is authorized, if not required, to consider all of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances involved in the crime.” (Emphasis added.)
See also Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S., at 245-246 (Douglas, J., concurring); id., at 297-298 (Brennan, J., concurring); id., at 339 (Marshall, J., concurring); id., at 402-403 (Burger, C. J., dissenting); id., at 413 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) ; McGautha v. California, 402 U. S., at 197-203. Most would agree that “the 19th century movement away from mandatory death sentences marked an enlightened introduction of flexibility into the sentencing process.” Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 402 (Burger, C. J., dissenting).
Although legislatures remain free to decide how much discretion in sentencing should be reposed in the judge or jury in noncapital cases, the plurality opinion in Woodson, after reviewing the historical repudiation of mandatory sentencing in capital cases, 428 U. S., at 289-298, concluded that
“in capital cases the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment... requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.” Id., at 304.
That declaration rested “on the predicate that the penalty of death is qualitatively different” from any other sentence. Id., at 305. We are satisfied that this qualitative difference between death and other penalties calls for a greater degree of reliability when the death sentence is imposed. The mandatory death penalty statute in Woodson was held invalid because it permitted no consideration of “relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender or the circumstances of the particular offense.” Id., at 304. The plurality did not attempt to indicate, however, which facets of an offender or his offense it deemed “relevant” in capital sentencing or what degree of consideration of “relevant facets” it would require.
We are now faced with those questions and we conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case, not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. We recognize that, in noncapital cases, the established practice of individualized sentences rests not on constitutional commands, but on public policy enacted into statutes. The considerations that account for the wide acceptance of individualization of sentences in noncapital cases surely cannot be thought less important in capital cases. Given that the imposition of death by public authority is so profoundly different from all other penalties, we cannot avoid the conclusion that an individualized decision is essential in capital cases. The need for treating each defendant in a capital case with that degree of respect due the uniqueness of the individual is far more important than in noncapital cases. A variety of flexible techniques — probation, parole, work furloughs, to name a few — and various postconviction remedies may be available to modify an initial sentence of confinement in noncapital cases. The nonavailability of corrective or modifying mechanisms with respect to an executed capital sentence underscores the need for individualized consideration as a constitutional requirement in imposing the death sentence.
There is no perfect procedure for deciding in which cases governmental authority should be usqd 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 which may call for a less severe penalty. When the choice is between life and death, that risk is unacceptable and incompatible with the commands of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
c
The Ohio death penalty statute does not permit the type of individualized consideration of mitigating factors we now hold to be required by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in capital cases. Its constitutional infirmities can best be understood by comparing it with the statutes upheld in Gregg, Proffitt, and Jurek.
In upholding the Georgia statute in Gregg, Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens noted that the statute permitted the jury “to consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances,” see Gregg, 428 U. S., at 206, and that the Georgia Supreme Court had approved “open and far-ranging argument” in presentence hearings, id., at 203. Although the Florida statute approved in Proffitt contained a list of mitigating factors, six Members of this Court assumed, in approving the statute, that the range of mitigating factors listed in the statute was not exclusive. Jurek involved a Texas statute which made no explicit reference to mitigating factors. 428 U. S., at 272. Rather, the jury was required to answer three questions in the sentencing process, the second of which was “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 37.071 (b) (Supp. 1975-1976); see 428 U. S., at 269. The statute survived the petitioner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment attack because three Justices concluded that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had broadly interpreted the second question — despite its facial narrowness — so as to permit the sentencer to consider “whatever mitigating circumstances” the defendant might be able to show. Id., at 272-273 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), citing and quoting, Jurek v. State, 522 S. W. 2d 934, 939-940 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). None of the statutes we sustained in Gregg and the companion cases clearly operated at that time to prevent the sentencer from considering any aspect of the defendant’s character and record or any circumstances of his offense as an independently mitigating factor.
In this regard the statute now before us is significantly different. Once a defendant is found guilty of aggravated murder with at least one of seven specified aggravating circumstances, the death penalty must be imposed unless, considering “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history, character, and condition of the offender,” the sentencing judge determines that at least one of the following mitigating circumstances is established by a preponderance of the evidence:
“(1) The victim of the offense induced or facilitated it.
“(2) It is unlikely that the offense would have been committed, but for the fact that the offender was under duress, coercion, or strong provocation.
“(3) The offense was primarily the product of the offender’s psychosis or mental deficiency, though such condition is insufficient to establish the defense of insanity.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.04 (B) (1975).
The Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that there is no constitutional distinction between the statute approved in Proffitt and Ohio’s statute, see State v. Bayless, 48 Ohio St. 2d 73, 86-87, 357 N. E. 2d 1035, 1045-1046 (1976), because the mitigating circumstances in Ohio’s statute are “liberally construed in favor of the accused,” State v. Bell, 48 Ohio St. 2d 270, 281, 358 N. E. 2d 556, 564 (1976); see State v. Bayless, supra, at 86, 357 N. E. 2d, at 1046, and because the sentencing judge or judges may consider factors such as the age and criminal record of the defendant in determining whether any of the mitigating circumstances is established, State v. Bell, supra, at 281, 358 N. E. 2d, at 564. But even under the Ohio court’s construction of the statute, only the three factors specified in the statute can be considered in mitigation of the defendant’s sentence. See, 48 Ohio St. 2d, at 281-282, 358 N. E. 2d, at 564 — 565; State v. Bayless, supra, at 87 n. 2, 357 N. E. 2d, at 1046 n. 2. We see, therefore, that once it is determined that the victim did not induce or facilitate the offense, that the defendant did not act under duress or coercion, and that the offense was not primarily the product of the defendant’s mental deficiency, the Ohio statute mandates the sentence of death. The absence of direct proof that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim is relevant for mitigating purposes only if it is determined that it sheds some light on one of the three statutory mitigating factors. Similarly, consideration of a defendant’s comparatively minor role in the offense, or age, would generally not be permitted, as such, to affect the sentencing decision.
The limited range of mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer under the Ohio statute is incompatible with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. To meet constitutional requirements, a death penalty statute must not preclude consideration of relevant mitigating factors.
Accordingly, the judgment under review is reversed to the extent that it sustains the imposition of the death penalty, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
So ordered.,
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
The pertinent provisions of the Ohio death penalty statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. (1975), are as follows:
§ 2929.03 Imposing sentence for a capital offense.
(A) If the indictment or count in the indictment charging aggravated murder contains no specification of an aggravating circumstance fisted in division (A) of section 2929.04 of the Revised Code, then, following a verdict of guilty of the charge, the trial court shall impose sentence of fife imprisonment on the offender.
(B) If the indictment or count in the indictment charging aggravated murder contains one or more specifications of aggravating circumstances fisted in division (A) of section 2929.04 of the Revised Code, the verdict shall separately state whether the accused is found guilty or not guilty of the principal charge and, if guilty of the principal charge, whether the offender is guilty or not guilty of each specification. The jury shall be instructed on its duties in this regard, which shall include an instruction that a specification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to support a guilty verdict on such specification, but such instruction shall not mention the penalty which may be the consequence of a guilty or not guilty verdict on any charge or specification.
(C) If the indictment or count in the indictment charging aggravated murder contains one or more specifications of aggrav
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal anti-injunction statute provides that a federal.court “may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of. its jurisdiction,, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” An Act of Congress, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, expressly authorizes a “suit in equity” to redress “the deprivation,” under color of state law, “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution....” The question before us is whether this “Act of Congress” comes within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute so as to permit a federal court in a § 1983 suit to grant an injunction to stay a proceeding pending in. a state court. This question, which has divided the federal courts, has lurked in the background of many of our recent cases, but we have not until today explicitly decided it.
I
The prosecuting attorney of Bay County, Florida, brought a proceeding in a Florida court to close down the appellant's’ bookstore as a public nuisance under the claimed authority of Florida law. The state court entered a preliminary order prohibiting continued operation of the bookstore. After further inconclusive proceedings in the state courts, the appellant filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that „ the actions of the state judicial and law enforcement officials were depriving him of rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Relying upon 42 U. S. C..§ 1983, he asked for injunctive and declaratory relief against the state court proceedings, on the. ground that Florida laws were being unconstitutionally applied by the state court so as to cause him great and irreparable harm; A single federal district judge issued temporary restraining orders, and,a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284. After a hearing,.the three-judge court dissolved the temporary restraining orders and refused to. enjoin the state court proceeding, holding that the “injunctive relief sought here as to the proceedings pending in the Florida courts does not come, under any of the exceptions set forth in Section 2283. It is not expressly authorized by Act of Congress,, it is not necessary in the aid of this court’s jurisdiction, and it is not sought in order to protect or effectuate any judgment of this court.” 315 F. Supp. 1387, 1389. An appeal was brought directly here under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 402 U. S. 941.
II
In denying injunctive relief, the District Court relied on this Court’s decision in Atlantic Coast, Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood, of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281. The Atlantic Coast Line case did not deal with the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, but the Court’s opinion in that ease does bring into sharp focus the critical importance of the question now before us. For in that case we expressly rejected the view that the anti-injunction statute merely states a flexible doctrine of comity, and made clear that the statute imposes an absolute ban upon the issuance of a federal injunction against a pending state court proceeding, in the absence of one of the recognized exceptions:
“On its face the present Act is an absolute, prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. The respondents here have intimated that the Act only establishes a ‘principle of comity,’ not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. The argument implies that in certain circumstances a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings even if that action cannot be justified by any of the three exceptions. We cannot accept any such contention.... [We] hold that any injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to § 2283 if it is to be. upheld....” 398 U. S., at 286-287.
It follows, in the present context, that'if 42 U. S. C. § 1983 is not within the. “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, then a federal equity court is wholly without power to grant any relief in a § 1983 suit seeking to stay a state court proceeding. In short, if a § 1983 action is not an “expressly authorized” statutory exception, the anti-injunction law absolutely prohibits in such an action all federal equitable intervention in a pending state court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, and regardless of how extraordinary the particular circumstances may be.
Last Term, in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, and its companion cases, the Court dealt at length with the subject of federal judicial intervention in pending state criminal prosecutions. In Younger a three-judge federal district court in a § 1983 action had enjoined a criminal prosecution pending in. a California court. In. asking us to reverse that judgment, the appellant argued that the injunction.was in violation of the federal anti-injunction statute. 401 U. S., at 40. But the Court carefully eschewed any reliance on the statute in reversing the judgment, basing its decision. instead upon what the Court called “Our Federalism” — upon “the national policy forbidding fedéral courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances.” 401 U. S., at 41, 44.
In Younger, this Court emphatically reaffirmed “the fundamental policy against federal.interference with, state criminal prosecutions.” 401 U. S., at 46. It made clear that even “the' possible' unconstitutionality of a statute ‘on its face’ does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it.” 401 U. S., at 54. At the same time, however, the Court clearly left room for federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution in certain exceptional circumstances — where irreparable injury is “both great and immediate,” 401 U. S., at 46, where the state law is “ ‘flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions,’ ” 401 U. S., at 53, or where there is a showing of “bad faith, harassment, or.'.. other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief.” 401 U. S., at, 54. In the companion case of Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, the Court said that “[o]nly in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.” 401 U. S., at 85. See also Dyson v. Stein, 401 U. S. 200, 203.
While the Court in Younger and its companion cases expressly disavowed deciding the question now before us — whether § 1983 comes within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, 401 U. S., at 54 — it is evident that our decisions in those cases cannot be disregarded in deciding this question. In the first place, if § 1983 is not within the statutory exception,' then the anti-injunction statute would have absolutely barred the injunction issued in Younger, as the appellant in that case argued, and there would have been no occasion whatever for the Court to decide that, case upon the “policy” ground of “Our Federalism.” Secondly, if § 1983 is not within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, then we must overrule Younger and its companion cases insofar as they recognized the permissibility of injunctive relief against pending criminal prosecutions in certain limited and exceptional circumstances. For, under the doctrine of Atlantic Coast Line, the anti-injunction statute would, in a § 1983 case, then be an “absolute prohibition” against federal equity intervention in a pending state criminal or civil proceeding — under any circumstances whatever.
The Atlantic Coast Line and Younger cases thus serve to delineate both the importance and the finality of the question now before us. And it is in the shadow of those cases that the question must be decided.
III
The anti-injunction statute goes back almost to the beginnings of our history as a Nation. In 1793, Congress enacted a law providing that no “writ of injunction be granted [by any federal court] to stay proceedings in any 'court of a state... Act of March' 2, 1793; 1 Stat. 335. The precise origins of • the legislation are shrouded in obscurity,.but the consistent understanding has been that its basic purpose is to prevent “needless friction between state and federal courts.” Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Gas Co., 309 U. S. 4, 9. The law remained unchanged until 1874, when it was amended to permit a federal court to stay state court proceedings that interfered with the administration of a federal bankruptcy proceeding. The present wording of the legislation was adopted with the enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code in 1948.
Despite the seemingly uncompromising language of the anti-injunction statute prior to 1948, the Court soon recognized that exceptions must be made to its blanket prohibition if the import and purpose of other Acts of Congress were to be given their intended scope:. So it was that, in addition to the bankruptcy law exception that Congress explicitly, recognized in 1874, the Court through the years found that federal courts were empowered. to enjoin state court proceedings, despite the anti-injunction.statute,.in carrying.out-.the will.of Congress under at least six. other.federal'-laws.: -These" covered a broad speetrum of congressional-' action:,(l) legislation providing for removal.of litigation from state to federal courts, (2) legislation limiting the liability of shipowners, (3) legislation providing for federal interpleader actions, (4) legislation conferring federal jurisdiction over farm mortgages, (5) legislation governing federal habeas corpus proceedings, and (6) legislation providing for control of prices.
In addition to the exceptions to the anti-injunction statute found to be embodied in these various Acts of Congress- the Court recognized other “implied” exceptions to thé blanket prohibition of' the anti-injunction statute. One was an “in rem” exception, allowing a federal court to enjoin a state court proceeding in order to protect its jurisdiction of a res over which it had first acquired jurisdiction. Another was a “relitiga-tioh” exception, permitting a federal court to enjoin relitigation in a state court of issues already decided in federal litigation. Still a third exception, more recently developed, permits a federal injunction of state court proceedings when the plaintiff in the federal court is the United States itself, or a federal agency asserting “superior federal interests.”
In Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118, the Court in 1941 issued an opinion casting considerable doubt upon the approach to the anti-injunction statute reflected in its previous decisions. The Court’s opinion expressly disavowed the “relitigation” exception to the statute, • and emphasized generally the importance of recognizing the statute’s basic directive “of ‘hands off’ by the federal courts in.the use of the injunction..to stay litigation in a state court.” 314 U. S., at 132. The congressional response to Toucey was the enactment in 1948 of the anti-injunction statute in its present form in 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which, as the Reviser’s Note makes evident, served not only to overrule the specific holding of Toucey, but to restore “the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision.”
. We proceed, then, upon the understanding that in determining whether § 1983 comes within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, the criteria to be applied are those reflected in the Court’s decisions prior to Toucey, A review of those decisions makes reasonably clear what the relevant criteria are. In the first place, it is evident that, in order to qualify under the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, a federal law need not contain an express reference to that statute. As the Court has said, “no prescribed formula is required; an authorization need- not expressly refer to § 2283.” Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U. S. 511, 516. Indeed, none of the previously recognized' statutory exceptions contains any such reférence. Secondly, a federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state.court proceeding in order to qualify as an exception. Three of the six previously recognized statutory exceptions contain no such authorization. Thirdly, it is clear that, in order to qualify as an “expressly authorized” exception to the anti-injunction statute, an Act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely federal right or remedy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, that could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding." This is not to say that in order to come within the exception an Act of Congress must, on its face and in every one of its provisions, be totally incompatible with the prohibition of the anti-injunction statute. The test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only, by the stay of a state court proceeding. See Toucey, supra, at 132-134; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226; Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 599; Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U. S. 66, 78; Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503.
With these criteria in view, we turn to consideration of 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
W
Section 1983 was originally § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 17 Stat. 13. It was.“modeled" on § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 186.6, Í4 Stat. 27; and was enacted for the express purpose of “enforcing] the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 17 Stat. 13. The predecessor of § 1983 was thus an important part of the basic alteration in our federal system wrought in the Reconstruction era through federal legislation and constitutional amendment. As a résult of the new. structure of law that emerged in the post-Civil War era — and especially of the Fourteenth. Amendment, which was its centerpiece — ‘the role of the Federal Government' as a guarantor of basic federal rights against state power was clearly established. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167; McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 245-249; H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908); J. tenBroek, The Anti-Slavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment (1951). Section 1983 opened the federal courts to private citizens, offering a uniquely federal remedy against incursions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the Constitution and Jaws of the.Nation.
It is clear from the legislative debates surrounding passage of § 1983’s predecessor that the Act was intended to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment “against State action,... whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (emphasis supplied). Proponents of the legislation noted that state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.
As Representative Lowe stated, the “records of * the [state] tribunals are searched in vain for evidence of effective redress [of federally secured rights].... What less than this [the Civil Rights Act of 1871] will afford an adequate remedy? The Federal Government cannot serve a writ of mandamus 'upon State Executives or upon State courts- to compel them to protect the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens.... The case has arisen... when the Federal Government must, resort to its own agencies to carry its own authority into execution. Hence this bill throws open the doors of the United States courts to'those whose rights under the Constitution are denied or impaired.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374^376 (1871), This view was echoed by Senator Osborn: “If the State courts had proven themselves competent to suppress the local disorders, or to maintain law and order, we should not have been called upon to legislate..,. We are driven by existing facts to provide for the several states in the South what they have been unable to fully provide for themselves; i. e., the full and complete administration of justice in the courts. And the courts with reference to which we legislate must be the United States courts.” Id., at 653. And Representative Perry concluded: “Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the' truth or falsify it; grand and petit juries act as if they might be accomplices.... [A] 11 the apparatus and machinery of civil government, all the processes of justice, skulk away as if government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most dangerous things an injured party can do is to appeal.to- justice.” Id., at App. 78.
' Those who opposed the Act of 1871 clearly recognized that the proponents, were extending federal power in an attempt to- remedy the state courts’ failure to secure federal rights. The debate was not about whether the predecessor of § 1983 extended to actions of state courts, but whether this innovation was necessary or desirable.
This legislative history makes evident that Congress clearly conceived that it was altering the relationship between the States and the Nation with respect to the protection of federally created rights; it was concerned that state instrumentalities could not protect those rights; it realized that state officers might, in fact, be antipathetic to the vindication of those rights; and it believed that these failings extended to the state courts.-
V
Section 1983 was thus a product of a vast transformation from the concepts of federalism. that had prevailed in the late 18th century when the anti-injunction. statute was enacted. The very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s federal rights — to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, “whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S., at 346. In carrying out that purpose, Congress plainly authorized the federal courts to issue injunctions in § 1983 actions, by expressly authorizing a “suit in equity” as one of the means of redress. And this Court long ago recognized that, federal injunctive relief against a state court proceeding can in some circumstances, be essential to prevent great, immediate, and irreparable loss of a person’s constitutional rights. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123;. cf. Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. For these reasons we conclude that, under the criteria established in our previous decisions construing the anti-injunction statute, § 1983 is an Act of Congress that falls within the “expressly authorized” exception of that law.
In so concluding, we do not question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding. These principles, in the context of state criminal prosecutions, were canvassed at length last Term in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, and its companion cases. They are principles that have been emphasized by this Court many times in the past. Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S..89; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U. S. 45; Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387; Williams v. Miller, 317 U. S. 599; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611. Today we decide only that the District Court in this case was in error in holding that, because.of the anti-injunction statute, it was absolutely without power in this' § 1983 action to enjoin»a.proceeding pending in a state court under any circumstances whatsoever.
■ The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
28 U. S. C. §2283.
The statute provides in full: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom; or usage,, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F. 2d 119 (CA3) (§ 1983 is an “expressly authorized” exception), with Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F. 2d 579 (CA4) (§ 1983 is not an “expressly authorized” exception).
See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 484 n. 2; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 613 n, 3; Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 54. See also Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538, 556; Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U. S. 15.
In Younger, supra, Mr. Justice Douglas was the only member of the Court who took a position on the question now before us. He expressed the view that § 1983 is included in the “expressly authorized exception to § 2283.” 401 U. S., at 62. Cf. id., at 54.(Stewart, J., joined by Harlan, J., concurring); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 120 n. 14 (separate opinion of BreNNAN, J., joined by White and Marshall, JJ.).
Federal jurisdiction was based upon 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). The statute states in relevant part:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to 'be commenced by' any person:
“(3) To- redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for eqúal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of-the United States...
The statute provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or' denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.”
At issue were the other two exceptions of the anti-injunction statute: “where necessa^ in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 288.
See First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Village of Skokie, 173 F. 2d 1; Baines, 337 F. 2d, at 593. See also Taylor & Willis, The Power of Federal Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1194 (1933).
Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66; Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S: 77; Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82; Dyson v. Stein, 401 U. S. 200; Byrne v. Karalexis, 401 U. S. 216.
“The history of this provision in the Judiciary Act of 1793 is not.fully known. We know that on December 31/ 1790, Attorney General Edmund Randolph reported to the House of Representatives on desirable changes in. the Judioiary Act of 1789. Am. State Papers, Mise., vol. 1, No. 17, pp. 21-36. The most serious question, raised by Randolph concerned the arduousness of the -circuit duties imposed on the Supreme Court justices. But the Report also suggested a number of amendments dealing with procedural matters. A section of the proposed bill submitted by him provided that 'no injunction in equity shall be granted by a district court to a judgment at law of a State court.’ Id., p. 26. Randolph explained that this clause 'will debar the district court from interfering with the judgments at. law in the State courts; for if the plaintiff and defendant rely upon the State courts, as far as the judgment, they ought to continue there as they have begun. It is enough to' split the same suit into one1 at law, and another in equity, without adding a further separation, by throwing the common law side of the ques--' tion into the State courts, and the equity side into the federal courts.’ Id., p. 34. The Report was considered by the House sitting as a Committee of the Whole, and then was referred to successive special, committees for further consideration. No action was taken until after Chief Justice Jay and his associates wrote the President that their circuit-riding duties were too burdensome. American State Papers, Misc., vol. 1, No. 32, p. 51. In response to this complaint, which was transmitted to Congress, the Act of March 2, 1793, was passed, containing in § 5, inter alia, the prohibition against staying state court proceedings.
“Charles Warren in his article Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347, suggests that this provision was the direct consequence of Randolph’s report. This seéfns doubtful,.in view of the very narrow purpose of Randolph’s proposal, namely, that federal courts of equity should not interfere with the enforcrnent- of judgments at law rendered in the state courts. See Taylor and Willis, The Power of Federal Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1171, n. 14.
“There is no record of any debates over the statute. See 3 Annals of Congress (1791-93). It has been suggested that'the provision reflected the then strong feeling against the unwarranted intrusion'of federal courts upon state sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dali. 419, was decided on February 18, 1793, less.than two weeks before the provision was enacted into law. The significance of this-proximity is doubtful. Compare Warren Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347-348, with Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200.U. S. 273, 291-292. Much more probable is the suggestion that the provision' reflected the prevailing prejudices against equity jurisdiction. The Journal of William Monday (1927 ed.), chronicling the piroceedings of the Senate while he was one of its members (1789-1791), contains abundant evidence of a widespread hostility to chancery practice. See especially, pp. 92-94, 101-06 (debate on/the bill that became Judiciary Act of 1789). Moreover, Senator Ellsworth (soon, to become Chief Justice of the United Statesjy the principal draftsman of both the 1789 and 1793 Judiciary-Acts, often indicated a dislike for equity jurisdiction. See Brown, Life of Oliver Ellsworth (1905 ed.) 194; Journal of William Maclay (1927 ed.) 103-04; Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 96-100.” Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118, 130-132.
See also Note, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 612 (1971); 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302 (1965); H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1075-1078 (1953); Durfee & Sloss, Federal Injunction Against Proceedings in State Courts: The Life History of a Statute, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 1145 (1932).
As so amended, the- statute provided that state court proceedings could be enjoined “where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.” Rev. Stat. § 720 (1874).
See French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S.. 226. The federal' removal provisions, both.civil and criminal, 28 U. S..C. §§ 1441-1450, provide that once a copy of the removal petition is filed with the clerk of the state court, the “State court^shall proceed no further unless and until the case, is remanded.” 28 TJ. S. C." § 1446 (e).
See Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. HiU Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578. The Act of 1851, 9 Stat. 635,.as amended, provides that once a shipowner has deposited with the court an amount equal to the value of his interest in the ship, “all claims and* proceedings, against th.e owner with respect to the matter in question shall cease.” 46 U. S: C. § 185.
See Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U. S. 66. The inter-pleader Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 416, as currently written provides that in “any civil action of interpleader... a district court may... enter its order restraining [all claimants]... from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in ány. State or United States court affecting, the property, instrument or obligation involved in the interpleader action.” 28 U. S. C. §2361.
See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433. The Frazier-Lemke Farm- ■ Mortgage Act, as amended in 1935, 49 Stat, 944, provides that in situations to which it is applicable a federal court shall “stay all judicial or official proceedings in any court.” 11 U. S. C. § 203 (s) (2) (1940 ed.).
See Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 248-249, The Federal Habeas Corpus Act provides that a federal court before which a habeas corpus proceeding is pending may “stay any proceeding against the person detained in any State Court... for any matter involved in the habeas corpus, proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. §2251.
Section 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 33, provided that the Price Administrator could request a federal district court to enjoin acts that violated or threatened to violate the Act. In Porter v. Dicken, 328 U. S. 252, we held that this authority was broad enough to justify an injunction to restrain state court procéedings. Id., at 255. The Emergency Price Control Act was thus considered a congressionally authorized exception to the anti-injunction statute. Ibid.; see also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503. Section 205 (a) expired in 1947. Act of July 25. 1946, 60 Stat. 664.
See, e. g., Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S., at 135— 136; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226.
See, e. g., Toucey, supra, at 137-141; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U. S. 356. See generally 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302-2311 (1965).
Letter Minerals Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220; NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U. S. 138.
The Reviser’s Note states in part: “The exceptions specifically include the words 'to protect or effectuate' its judgments,’ for lack of which the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts are without pow;er to enjoin relitigation of casés and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co.,... 314 U. S. 118....) "A vigorous dissenting opinion [314 U. S, 141] notes that at the time of the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts... of the United States to protect-their judgments was unquestioned and that the revisers of that code noted no change and Congress intended no change.” H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A181-182 (1947).
Ibid.
Cf. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U. S. 511, 521 (dissenting opinion).
See nn. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, supra.
See nn. 12, 13, and 17, supra. The federal courts have found
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
As a sanction for failing to identify a defense witness in response to a pretrial discovery request, an Illinois trial judge refused to allow the undisclosed witness to testify. The question presented is whether that refusal violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to obtain the testimony of favorable witnesses. We hold that such a sanction is not absolutely prohibited by the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and find no constitutional error on the specific facts of this case.
I
A jury convicted petitioner in 1984 of attempting to murder Jack Bridges in a street fight on the south side of Chicago on August 6,1981. The conviction was supported by the testimony of Bridges, his brother, and three other witnesses. They described a 20-minute argument between Bridges and a young man named Derrick Travis, and a violent encounter that occurred over an hour later between several friends of Travis, including petitioner, on the one hand, and Bridges, belatedly aided by his brother, on the other. The incident was witnessed by 20 or 30 bystanders. It is undisputed that at least three members of the group which included Travis and petitioner were carrying pipes and clubs that they used to beat Bridges. Prosecution witnesses also testified that petitioner had a gun, that he shot Bridges in the back as he attempted to flee, and that, after Bridges fell, petitioner pointed the gun at Bridges’ head but the weapon misfired.
Two sisters, who are friends of petitioner, testified on his behalf. In many respects their version of the incident was consistent with the prosecution’s case, but they testified that it was Bridges’ brother, rather than petitioner, who possessed a firearm and that he had fired into the group hitting his brother by mistake. No other witnesses testified for the defense.
Well in advance of trial, the prosecutor filed a discovery motion requesting a list of defense witnesses. In his original response, petitioner’s attorney identified the two sisters who later testified and two men who did not testify. On the first day of trial, defense counsel was allowed to amend his answer by adding the names of Derrick Travis and a Chicago police officer; neither of them actually testified.
On the second day of trial, after the prosecution’s two principal witnesses had completed their testimony, defense counsel made an oral motion to amend his “Answer to Discovery” to include two more witnesses, Alfred Wormley and Pam Berkhalter. In support of the motion, counsel represented that he had just been informed about them and that they had probably seen the “entire incident.”
In response to the court’s inquiry about defendant’s failure to tell him about the two witnesses earlier, counsel acknowledged that defendant had done so, but then represented that he had been unable to locate Wormley. After noting that the witnesses’ names could have been supplied even if their addresses were unknown, the trial judge directed counsel to bring them in the next day, at which time he would decide whether they could testify. The judge indicated that he was concerned about the possibility “that witnesses are being found that really weren’t there.”
The next morning Wormley appeared in court with defense counsel. After further colloquy about the consequences of a violation of discovery rules, counsel was permitted to make an offer of proof in the form of Wormley’s testimony outside the presence of the jury. It developed that Wormley had not been a witness to the incident itself. He testified that prior to the incident he saw Jack Bridges and his brother with two guns in a blanket, that he heard them say “they were after Ray [petitioner] and the other people,” and that on his way home he “happened to run into Ray and them” and warned them “to watch out because they got weapons.” On cross-examination, Wormley acknowledged that he had first met defendant “about four months ago” (i e., over two years after the incident). He also acknowledged that defense counsel had visited him at his home on the Wednesday of the week before the trial began. Thus, his testimony rather dramatically contradicted defense counsel’s representations to the trial court.
After hearing Wormley testify, the trial judge concluded that the appropriate sanction for the discovery violation was to exclude his testimony. The judge explained:
“THE COURT: All right, I am going to deny Wormley an opportunity to testify here. He is not going to testify. I find this is a blatent [sic] violation of the discovery rules, willful violation of the rules. I also feel that defense attorneys have been violating discovery in this courtroom in the last three or four cases blatantly and I am going to put a stop to it and this is one way to do so.
“Further, for whatever value it is, because this is a jury trial, I have a great deal of doubt in my mind as to the veracity of this young man that testified as to whether he was an eyewitness on the scene, sees guns that are wrapped up. He doesn’t know Ray but he stops Ray.
“At any rate, Mr. Wormley is not going to testify, be a witness in this courtroom.” App. 28.
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction. 141 Ill. App. 3d 839, 491 N. E. 2d 3 (1986). It held that when “discovery rules are violated, the trial judge may exclude the evidence which the violating party wishes to introduce” and that “[t]he decision of the severity of the sanction to impose on a party who violates discovery rules rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” The court concluded that in this case “the trial court was within its discretion in refusing to allow the additional witnesses to testify.” Id., at 844-845, 491 N. E. 2d, at 7. The Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal and we granted the petition for certiorari, 479 U. S. 1063 (1987).
In this Court petitioner makes two arguments. He first contends that the Sixth Amendment bars a court from ever ordering the preclusion of defense evidence as a sanction for violating a discovery rule. Alternatively, he contends that even if the right to present witnesses is not absolute, on the facts of this case the preclusion of Wormley’s testimony was constitutional error. Before addressing these contentions, we consider the State’s argument that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment is merely a guarantee that the accused shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and simply does not apply to rulings on the admissibility of evidence.
II
In the State’s view, no Compulsory Process Clause concerns are even raised by authorizing preclusion as a discovery sanction, or by the application of the Illinois rule in this case. The State’s argument is supported by the plain language of the Clause, see n. 1, supra, by the historical evidence that it was intended to provide defendants with subpoena power that they lacked at common law, by some scholarly comment, and by a brief excerpt from the legislative history of the Clause. We have, however, consistently given the Clause the broader reading reflected in contemporaneous state constitutional provisions.
As we noted just last Term, “[o]ur cases establish, at a minimum, that criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury-evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.” Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U. S. 39, 56 (1987). Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense, see, e. g., Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284, 302 (1973). Indeed, this right is an essential attribute of the adversary system itself.
“We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 709 (1974).
The right to compel a witness’ presence in the courtroom could not protect the integrity of the adversary process if it did not embrace the right to have the witness’ testimony heard by the trier of fact. The right to offer testimony is thus grounded in the Sixth Amendment even though it is not expressly described in so many words:
“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 19 (1967).
The right of the defendant to present evidence “stands on no lesser footing than the other Sixth Amendment rights that we have previously held applicable to the States.” Id., at 18. We cannot accept the State’s argument that this constitutional right may never be offended by the imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defense witness.
Ill
Petitioner’s claim that the Sixth Amendment creates an absolute bar to the preclusion of the testimony of a surprise witness is just as extreme and just as unacceptable as the State’s position that the Amendment is simply irrelevant. The accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence. The Compulsory Process Clause provides him with an effective weapon, but it is a weapon that cannot be used irresponsibly.
There is a significant difference between the Compulsory Process Clause weapon and other rights that are protected by the Sixth Amendment — its availability is dependent entirely on the defendant’s initiative. Most other Sixth Amendment rights arise automatically on the initiation of the adversary process and no action by the defendant is necessary to make them active in his or her case. While those rights shield the defendant from potential prosecutorial abuses, the right to compel the presence and present the testimony of witnesses provides the defendant with a sword that may be employed to rebut the prosecution’s case. The decision whether to employ it in a particular case rests solely with the defendant. The very nature of the right requires that its effective use be preceded by deliberate planning and affirmative conduct.
The principle that undergirds the defendant’s right to present exculpatory evidence is also the source of essential limitations on the right. The adversary process could not function effectively without adherence to rules of procedure that govern the orderly presentation of facts and arguments to provide each party with a fair opportunity to assemble and submit evidence to contradict or explain the opponent’s case. The trial process would be a shambles if either party had an absolute right to control the time and content of his witnesses’ testimony. Neither may insist on the right to interrupt the opposing party’s case, and obviously there is no absolute right to interrupt the deliberations of the jury to present newly discovered evidence. The State’s interest in the orderly conduct of a criminal trial is sufficient to justify the imposition and enforcement of firm, though not always inflexible, rules relating to the identification and presentation of evidence.
The defendant’s right to compulsory process is itself designed to vindicate the principle that the “ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 709. Rules that provide for pretrial discovery of an opponent’s witnesses serve the same high purpose. Discovery, like cross-examination, minimizes the risk that a judgment will be predicated on incompíete, misleading, or even deliberately fabricated testimony. The “State’s interest in protecting itself against an eleventh-hour defense” is merely one component of the broader public interest in a full and truthful disclosure of critical facts.
To vindicate that interest we have held that even the defendant may not testify without being subjected to cross-examination. Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148, 156 (1958). Moreover, in United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225 (1975), we upheld an order excluding the testimony of an expert witness tendered by the defendant because he had refused to permit discovery of a “highly relevant” report. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell explained:
“The court’s preclusion sanction was an entirely proper method of assuring compliance with its order. Respondent’s argument that this ruling deprived him of the Sixth Amendment rights to compulsory process and cross-examination misconceives the issue. The District Court did not bar the investigator’s testimony. Cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 19 (1967). It merely prevented respondent from presenting to the jury a partial view of the credibility issue by adducing the investigator’s testimony and thereafter refusing to disclose the contemporaneous report that might offer further critical insights. The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth. Deciding, as we do, that it was within the court’s discretion to assure that the jury would hear the full testimony of the investigator rather than a truncated portion favorable to respondent, we think it would be artificial indeed to deprive the court of the power to effectuate that judgment. Nor do we find constitutional significance in the fact that the court in this instance was able to exclude the testimony in advance rather than receive it in evidence and thereafter charge the jury to disregard it when respondent’s counsel refused, as he said he would, to produce the report.” Id., at 241 (emphasis added).
Petitioner does not question the legitimacy of a rule requiring pretrial disclosure of defense witnesses, but he argues that the sanction of preclusion of the testimony of a previously undisclosed witness is so drastic that it should never be imposed. He argues, correctly, that a less drastic sanction is always available. Prejudice to the prosecution could be minimized by granting a continuance or a mistrial to provide time for further investigation; moreover, further violations can be deterred by disciplinary sanctions against the defendant or defense counsel.
It may well be true that alternative sanctions are adequate and appropriate in most cases, but it is equally clear that they would be less effective than the preclusion sanction and that there are instances in which they would perpetuate rather than limit the prejudice to the State and the harm to the adversary process. One of the purposes of the discovery rule itself is to minimize the risk that fabricated testimony will be believed. Defendants who are willing to fabricate a defense may also be willing to fabricate excuses for failing to comply with a discovery requirement. The risk of a contempt violation may seem trivial to a defendant facing the threat of imprisonment for a term of years. A dishonest client can mislead an honest attorney, and there are occasions when an attorney assumes that the duty of loyalty to the client outweighs elementary obligations to the court.
We presume that evidence that is not discovered until after the trial is over would not have affected the outcome. It is equally reasonable to presume that there is something suspect about a defense witness who is not identified until after the 11th hour has passed. If a pattern of discovery violations is explicable only on the assumption that the violations were designed to conceal a plan to present fabricated testimony, it would be entirely appropriate to exclude the tainted evidence regardless of whether other sanctions would also be merited.
In order to reject petitioner’s argument that preclusion is never a permissible sanction for a discovery violation it is neither necessary nor appropriate for us to attempt to draft a comprehensive set of standards to guide the exercise of discretion in every possible case. It is elementary, of course, that a trial court may not ignore the fundamental character of the defendant’s right to offer the testimony of witnesses in his favor. But the mere invocation of that right cannot automatically and invariably outweigh countervailing public interests. The integrity of the adversary process, which depends both on the presentation of reliable evidence and the rejection of unreliable evidence, the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and the potential prejudice to the truth-determining function of the trial process must also weigh in the balance.
A trial judge may certainly insist on an explanation for a party’s failure to comply with a request to identify his or her witnesses in advance of trial. If that explanation reveals that the omission was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the Compulsory Process Clause simply to exclude the witness’ testimony. Cf. United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225 (1975).
The simplicity of compliance with the discovery rule is also relevant. As we have noted, the Compulsory Process Clause cannot be invoked without the prior planning and affirmative conduct of the defendant. Lawyers are accustomed to meeting deadlines. Routine preparation involves location and interrogation of potential witnesses and the serving of subpoenas on those whose testimony will be offered at trial. The burden of identifying them in advance of trial adds little to these routine demands of trial preparation.
It would demean the high purpose of the Compulsory Process Clause to construe it as encompassing an absolute right to an automatic continuance or mistrial to allow presumptively perjured testimony to be presented to a jury. We reject petitioner’s argument that a preclusion sanction is never appropriate no matter how serious the defendant’s discovery violation may be.
IV
Petitioner argues that the preclusion sanction was unnecessarily harsh in this case because the voir dire examination of Wormley adequately protected the prosecution from any possible prejudice resulting from surprise. Petitioner also contends that it is unfair to visit the sins of the lawyer upon his client. Neither argument has merit.
More is at stake than possible prejudice to the prosecution. We are also concerned with the impact of this kind of conduct on the integrity of the judicial process itself. The trial judge found that the discovery violation in this case was both willful and blatant. In view of the fact that petitioner’s counsel had actually interviewed Wormley during the week before the trial began and the further fact that he amended his Answer to Discovery on the first day of trial without identifying Wormley while he did identify two actual eyewitnesses whom he did not place on the stand, the inference that he was deliberately seeking a tactical advantage is inescapable. Regardless of whether prejudice to the prosecution could have been avoided in this particular case, it is plain that the case fits into the category of willful misconduct in which the severest sanction is appropriate. After all, the court, as well as the prosecutor, has a vital interest in protecting the trial process from the pollution of perjured testimony. Evidentiary rules which apply to categories of inadmissible evidence — ranging from hearsay to the fruits of illegal searches — may properly be enforced even though the particular testimony being offered is not prejudicial. The pretrial conduct revealed by the record in this case gives rise to a sufficiently strong inference that “witnesses are being found that really weren’t there,” to justify the sanction of preclusion.
The argument that the client should not be held responsible for his lawyer’s misconduct strikes at the heart of the attorney-client relationship. Although there are basic rights that the attorney cannot waive without the fully informed and publicly acknowledged consent of the client, the lawyer has — and must have — full authority to manage the conduct of the trial. The adversary process could not function effectively if every tactical decision required client approval. Moreover, given the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and the fact that extreme cases may involve unscrupulous conduct by both the client and the lawyer, it would be highly impracticable to require an investigation into their relative responsibilities before applying the sanction of preclusion. In responding to discovery, the client has a duty to be candid and forthcoming with the lawyer, and when the lawyer responds, he or she speaks for the client. Putting to one side the exceptional cases in which counsel is ineffective, the client must accept the consequences of the lawyer’s decision to forgo cross-examination, to decide not to put certain witnesses on the stand, or to decide not to disclose the identity of certain witnesses in advance of trial. In this case, petitioner has no greater right to disavow his lawyer’s decision to conceal Wormley’s identity until after the trial had commenced than he has to disavow the decision to refrain from adducing testimony from the eyewitnesses who were identified in the Answer to Discovery. Whenever a lawyer makes use of the sword provided by the Compulsory Process Clause, there is some risk that he may wound his own client.
The judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court is
Affirmed.
The Sixth Amendment provides, in part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor....” This right is applicable in state as well as federal prosecutions. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 17-19 (1967).
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 413(d) provides in pertinent part:
“Subject to constitutional limitations and within a reasonable time after the filing of a written motion by the State, defense counsel shall inform the State of any defenses which he intends to make at a hearing or trial and shall furnish the State with the following material and information within his possession or control:
“(i) the names and last known addresses of persons he intends to call as witnesses together with their relevant written or recorded statements, including memoranda reporting or summarizing their oral statements, any record of prior criminal convictions known to him.. (emphasis added).
These two men, Earl Travis, the brother of Derrick Travis, and Luther Taylor, petitioner’s brother, were identified by prosecution witnesses as participants in the street fight.
“During the direct testimony of the witnesses, your Honor, called by the State, I was informed of some additional witnesses which could have and probably did, in fact, see this entire incident. We at this time would ask to amend our Answer to include two additional witnesses.
“THE COURT: Who are they?
“MR. VAN: One is a guy named Alfred Wrdely of which—
“THE DEFENDANT: Excuse me, W-r-d-e-l-y.
“MR. VAN: Whose address I do not have. I’m going to have to see if I can locate him tonight. And Pam Berkhalter.” App. 12.
“THE COURT: Yeah, but the defendant was there, and the defendant is now telling you Pam Berkhalter, and he’s now telling you Alfred Wrdely. Why didn’t he tell you that sometime ago? He’s got an obligation to tell you.
“MR. VAN: That is correct, Judge. He, in fact, told me about Alfred sometime ago. The problem was that he could not locate Alfred.” Id., at 12-13.
“There’s all sorts of people on the scene, and all of these people should have been disclosed before.
“When you bring up these witnesses at the very last moment, there’s always the allegation and the thought process that witnesses are being found that really weren’t there. And it’s a problem in these types of cases, and it should be — should have been put on that sheet a long time ago.
“At any rate, I’ll worry about it tomorrow.” Id., at 13-14.
The record does not explain why Pam Berkhalter did not appear.
“Q. What, if anything did you learn by standing there in the crowd?
“A. Well, Jack had a blanket. It was two pistols in there and he gave it to—
“Q. And then what, if anything, did they say at that time, if you can recall?
“A. Well, they were saying what they were going to do to the people. Say they were after Ray and the other people.
“Q. What, if anything, did you do at that time?
“A. At that time I left. I was on my way home and I happened to run into Ray and them and so I told them what was happening and to watch out because they got weapons.” Id., at 19.
The State also argues that we should decline to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim because it was inadequately presented in the state court. As respondent points out, petitioner did not specifically articulate his claim as based on the Compulsory Process Clause until he filed a petition for rehearing in the Illinois Appellate Court. Moreover, at trial petitioner merely argued that the trial court erred by not letting his witness testify. On appeal, however, petitioner asserted that the error was constitutional: “The trial judge abused his discretion and denied [petitioner] due process by excluding a material defense witness from testifying as a sanction for a discovery violation.” Brief and Argument For Appellant in No. 84-1073 (App. Ct. Ill.), p. 28. Although petitioner expressly asserted only a due process violation, his reliance on the Sixth Amendment was clear. He cited and relied upon, through a quotation from an Illinois Appellate Court decision, two of our Compulsory Process Clause eases, Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967), and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284 (1973). The state-court decision from which petitioner quoted, People v. Rayford, 43 Ill. App. 3d 283, 356 N. E. 2d 1274 (1976), was also a Compulsory Process Clause case. The court in Rayford asserted that use of the preclusion sanction in criminal cases should be limited to extreme situations because in criminal cases “due process requires that a defendant be permitted to offer testimony of witnesses in his defense,” id., at 286-287, 356 N. E. 2d, at 1277 (emphasis added), citing Washington, supra.
A generic reference to the Fourteenth Amendment is not sufficient to preserve a constitutional claim based on an unidentified provision of the Bill of Rights, but in this case the authority cited by petitioner and the manner in which the fundamental right at issue has been described and understood by the Illinois courts make it appropriate to conclude that the constitutional question was sufficiently well presented to the state courts to support our jurisdiction.
See Clinton, The Right to Present a Defense: An Emergent Constitutional Guarantee In Criminal Trials, 9 Ind. L. Rev. 711, 767 (1976).
8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2191, pp. 68-70 (J. McNaughton rev. 1961).
“Mr. Burke moved to amend this proposition in such a manner as to leave it in the power of the accused to put off the trial to the next session, provided he made it appear to the court that the evidence of the witnesses, for whom process was granted but not served, was material to his defence.
“Mr. Hartley said, that in securing him the right of compulsory process, the Government did all it could; the remainder must lie in the discretion of the court.
“Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, thought the regulation would come properly in, as part of the Judicial system.
“The question on MR. BURKE’s motion was taken and lost; ayes 9, noes 41.” 1 Annals of Cong. 756 (1789).
“Particulars varied from state to state, but the provisions reflected a common principle. Three states emphasized the right to present evidence, guaranteeing the accused the right ‘to call for evidence in his favour.’ Two emphasized the subpoena power, giving the defendant the right to produce ‘all proofs that may be favorable’ to him. North Carolina combined the right to put on a defense with the right of confrontation, guaranteeing the right ‘to confront the accusers and witnesses with other testimony.’ Delaware emphasized the defendant’s interest in sworn testimony, giving him the right ‘to examine evidence on oath in his favour.’ New Jersey opted for a principle of equality between the parties: ‘[A]ll criminals shall be admitted to the same privileges of witnesses and counsel, as their prosecutors are or shall be entitled to.’ Maryland consolidated several interests, guaranteeing the defendant the right ‘to examine [his] witnesses... on oath,’ and ‘to have process for his witnesses.’
“Some of the state provisions originated in English statutes, some in colonial enactments, and some were original. Regardless, they all reflected the principle that the defendant must have a meaningful opportunity, at least as advantageous as that possessed by the prosecution, to establish the essential elements of his ease. The states pressed the principle so vigorously that the framers of the federal Bill of Rights included it in the sixth amendment in a distinctive formulation of their own.” Westen, The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich. L. Rev. 71, 94-95 (1974) (footnotes omitted).
As one commentator has noted:
“The defendant’s rights to be informed of the charges against him, to receive a speedy and public trial, to be tried by a jury, to be assisted by counsel, and to be confronted with adverse witnesses are designed to restrain the prosecution by regulating the procedures by which it presents its case against the accused. They apply in every case, whether or not the defendant seeks to rebut the case against him or to present a case of his own. Compulsory process, on the other hand, comes into play at the close of the prosecution’s case. It operates exclusively at the defendant’s initiative and provides him with affirmative aid in presenting his defense.” Id., at 74.
“In the exercise of [the right to present witnesses], the accused, as is required of the State, must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S., at 302.
“Notice-of-alibi rules, now in use in a large and growing number of States, are based on the proposition that the ends of justice will best be served by a system of liberal discovery which gives both parties the maximum possible amount of information with which to prepare their cases and thereby reduces the possibility of surprise at trial. See, e. g., Brennan, The Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or Quest for Truth?, 1963 Wash. U. L. Q. 279; American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial 23-43 (Approved Draft 1970); Goldstein, The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure, 69 Yale L. J. 1149 (1960). The growth of such discovery devices is a salutary development which, by increasing the evidence available to both parties, enhances the fairness of the adversary system.” Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U. S. 470, 473-474 (1973).
“Given the ease with which an alibi can be fabricated, the State’s interest in protecting itself against an eleventh-hour defense is both obvious and legitimate. Reflecting this interest, notice-of-alibi provisions, dating at least from 1927, are now in existence in a substantial number of States. The adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played. We find ample room in that system, at least as far as ‘due process’ is concerned, for the instant Florida rule, which is designed to enhance the search for truth in the criminal trial by insuring both the defendant and the State ample opportunity to investigate certain facts crucial to the determination of guilt or innocence.” Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 81-82 (1970) (footnotes omitted).
Lloyd v. Gill, 406 F. 2d 585, 587 (CA5 1969) (motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence “may not be granted unless... the facts discovered are of such nature that they will probably change the result if a new trial is granted,... they have been discovered since the trial and could not by the exercise of due diligence have been discovered earlier, and... they are not merely cumulative or impeaching”); Ragnar Benson, Inc. v. Kassab, 325 F. 2d 591, 594 (CA3 1963) (“[C]ourts will indulge all presumptions in favor of the validity of a verdict”); Rowlik v. Greenfield, 87 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (ED Pa. 1949) (“[N]ew trials should not be allowed simply because after the verdict the losing party has come upon some witness or information theretofore unknown to him or his attorney”).
See, e. g., Fendler v. Goldsmith, 728 F. 2d 1181, 1188-1190 (CA9 1983) (giving consideration to the effectiveness of less severe sanctions, the impact of preclusion on the evidence at trial and the outcome of the case, the extent of prosecutorial surprise or prejudice, and whether the violation was willful).
There may be eases in which a defendant has legitimate objections to disclosing the identity of a potential witness. See Note, The Preclusion Sanction — A Violation of the Constitutional Right to Present a Defense, 81 Yale L. J. 1342, 1350 (1972). Such objections, however, should be raised in advance of trial in response to the discovery request and, if the parties are unable to agree on a resolution, presented to the court. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and under the rules adopted by most States, a party may request a protective order if he or she has just cause for objecting to a discovery request. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16(d)(1); Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 412(i). In this case, there is no issue concerning the validity of the discovery requirement or petitioner’s duty to comply with it. There is also no indication that petitioner ever objected to the prosecution’s discovery request.
“In the ease before us, the notice-of-alibi rule by itself in no way affected petitioner’s crucial decision to call alibi witnesses or added to the legitimate pressures leading to that course of action. At most, the rule only compelled petitioner to accelerate the timing of his disclosure, forcing him to divulge at an earlier date information that the petitioner from the beginning planned to divulge at trial. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment privilege entitles a defendant as a matter of constitutional right to await the end of the State’s case before announcing the nature of his defense, any more than it entitles him to await the jury’s verdict on the State’s case-in-chief before deciding whether or not to take the stand himself.” Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S., at 85.
The trial judge also expressed concern about discovery violations in other trials. If those violations involved the same attorney, or otherwise contributed to a concern about the trustworthiness of Wormley’s llth-hour testimony, they were relevant. Unrelated discovery violations in other litigation would not, however, normally provide a proper basis for curtailing the defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense.
It should be noted that in Illinois, the sanction of preclusion is reserved for only the most extreme cases. In People v. Rayford, the Illinois Appellate Court explained:
“The exclusion of evidence is a drastic measure; and the rule in civil cases limits its application to flagrant violations, where the uncooperative party demonstrates a ‘deliberate contumacious or unwarranted disregard of the court’s authority.’ (Schwartz v. Moats, 3 Ill. App. 3d 596, 599, 277 N. E. 2d 529, 531; Department of Transportation v. Mainline Center, Inc., 38 Ill. App. 3d 538, 347 N. E. 2d 837.) The reasons for restricting the use of the exclusion sanction to only the most extreme
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
DECREE
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that:
1. Taking into consideration Sections 1, 2, and 5 of the decree of this Court entered May 22, 1972, Utah v. United States, 406 U. S. 484, 485-486, Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the decree of this Court entered February 19, 1975, Utah v. United States, 420 U. S. 304, 305-306, and the further proceedings had herein pursuant to the decree of this Court entered February 19, 1975, Utah v. United States, 420 U. S. 304, and
2. Subject to any federal regulatory authority that may extend to the Great Salt Lake or its shorelands, the United States of America, its departments and agencies, are enjoined from asserting against the State of Utah any claim of right, title and interest:
(a) to any lands within the meander line of the Great Salt Lake (as duly surveyed prior to or in accordance with Section 1 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192), with the exception of any lands within the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, the Weber Basin Federal Reclamation Project, and the Hill Air Force Range (as bounded by water’s edge June 15, 1967), the title to which last-named parcel is not decided by this decree;
(b) to the natural resources and living organisms in or beneath the lands delineated in (a) above; and
(c) to the natural resources and living organisms either within the waters of the Great Salt Lake, or extracted therefrom, as delineated in (a) above.
3. The State of Utah is not required to pay the United States for the lands, including the minerals, delineated in paragraph 2 above of this decree.
4. The prayer of the United States in its answer to the State of Utah’s Complaint that this Court “confirm, declare and establish that the United States is the owner of all right, title and interest in all of the lands described in Section 2 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192, as amended by the Act of August 23, 1966, 80 Stat. 349, and that the State of Utah is without any right, title or interest in such lands, save for the right to have these lands conveyed to it by the United States, and to pay for them, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 3,1966, as amended,” is denied.
Me. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this decree.
When “lands” appears in this decree to describe the interests involved, the word is used to include the brines and minerals in solution in the brines or precipitated or extracted therefrom.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to consider petitioner’s claim that the California statute requiring payment of a filing fee of $701.60 in order to be placed on the ballot in the primary election for nomination to the position of County Supervisor, while providing no alternative means of access to the ballot, deprived him, as an indigent person unable to pay the fee, and others similarly situated, of the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and rights of expression and association guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The California Elections Code provides that forms required for nomination and election to congressional, state, and county offices are to be issued to candidates only upon prepayment of a nonrefundable filing fee. Cal. Elections Code § 6551. Generally, the required fees are fixed at a percentage of the salary for the office sought. The fee for candidates for United States Senator, Governor, and other state offices and some county offices, is 2% of the annual salary. Candidates for Representative to Congress, State Senator or Assemblyman, or for judicial office or district attorney, must pay 1%. No filing fee is required of candidates in the presidential primary, or for offices which pay either no fixed salary or not more than $600 annually. §§ 6551, 6552, and 6554.
Under the California statutes in effect at the time this suit was commenced, the required candidate filing fees ranged from $192 for State Assembly, $425 for Congress, $701.60 for Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, $850 for United States Senator, to $982 for Governor.
The California statute provides for the counting of write-in votes subject to certain conditions. § 18600 et seq. (Supp. 1974). Write-in votes are not counted, however, unless the person desiring to be a write-in candidate files a statement to that effect with the Registrar-Recorder at least eight days prior to the election, § 18602, and pays the requisite filing fee, § 18603. The latter section provides that “[n]o name written upon a ballot in any state, county, city, city and county, or district election shall be counted for an office or nomination unless . . . [t]he fee required by Section 6555 is paid when the declaration of write-in candidacy is filed . . . .” Thus, the contested filing fees must be satisfied even under the write-in nomination procedures.
Petitioner commenced this class action on February 17, 1972, by petitioning the Los Angeles Superior Court for a writ of mandate against the Secretary of State and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder. The suit was filed on behalf of petitioner and all those similarly situated persons who were unable to pay the filing fees and who desired to be nominated for public office. In his complaint, petitioner maintained that he was a citizen and a voter and that he had sought nomination as a candidate for membership on the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County. Petitioner asserted that on February 15, 1972, he had appeared at the office of James S. Allison, then Registrar-Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, to apply for and secure all necessary nomination papers requisite to his proposed candidacy. Petitioner was denied the requested nomination papers orally and in writing solely because he was unable to pay the $701.60 filing fee required of all would-be candidates for the office of Board of Supervisors.
The Los Angeles Superior Court denied the requested writ of mandate on March 6, 1972. Petitioner alleged that he was a serious candidate, that he was indigent, and that he was unable to pay the $701.60 filing fee; no evidence was taken during the hearing. The Superior Court found the fees to be “reasonable, as a matter of law.” Accordingly, the court made no attempt to determine whether the fees charged were necessary to the State’s purpose, or whether the fees, in addition to deterring some frivolous candidates, also prohibited serious but indigent candidates from entering their names on the ballot. The Superior Court also rejected the argument that the State was required by Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134 (1972), to provide an alternative means of access to the ballot which did not discriminate on the basis of economic factors.
On March 9, 1972, a second petition for writ of mandate was denied by the Court of Appeal, Second District, and on March 22, 1972, after the deadline for filing nomination papers had passed, the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s third application for a writ of mandate.
Historically, since the Progressive movement of the early 20th century, there has been a steady trend toward limiting the size of the ballot in order to “concentrate the attention of the electorate on the selection of a much smaller number of officials and so afford to the voters the opportunity of exercising more discrimination in their use of the franchise.” This desire to limit the size of the ballot has been variously phrased as a desire to minimize voter confusion, Thomas v. Mims, 317 F. Supp. 179, 181 (SD Ala. 1970), to limit the number of runoff elections, Spillers v. Slaughter, 325 F. Supp. 550, 553 (MD Fla. 1971), to curb “ballot flooding,” Jenness v. Little, 306 F. Supp. 925, 927 (ND Ga. 1969), appeal dismissed sub nom. Matthews v. Little, 397 U. S. 94 (1970), and to prevent the overwhelming of voting machines — the modern counterpart of ballot flooding, Wetherington v. Adams, 309 F. Supp. 318, 321 (ND Fla. 1970). A majority of States have long required the payment of some form of filing fee, in part to limit the ballot and in part to have candidates pay some of the administrative costs.
In sharp contrast to this fear of an unduly lengthy ballot is an increasing pressure for broader access to the ballot. Thus, while progressive thought in the first half of the century was concerned with restricting the ballot to achieve voting rationality, recent decades brought an enlarged demand for an expansion of political opportunity. The Twenty-fifth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq., reflect this shift in emphasis. There has also been a gradual enlargement of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection provision in the area of voting rights:
“It has been established in recent years that the Equal Protection Clause confers the substantive right to participate on an equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the State has adopted an electoral process for determining who will represent any segment of the State’s population. See, e. g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533; Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U. S. 621; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336.” San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 59 n. 2 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring).
This principle flows naturally from our recognition that
“ [legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964) (Warren, C. J.).
The present case draws these two means of achieving an effective, representative political system into apparent conflict and presents the question of how to accommodate the desire for increased ballot access with the imperative of protecting the integrity of the electoral system from the recognized dangers of ballots listing so many candidates as to undermine the process of giving expression to the will of the majority. The petitioner stated on oath that he is without assets or income and cannot pay the $701.60 filing fee although he is otherwise legally eligible to be a candidate on the primary ballot. Since his affidavit of indigency states that he has no resources and earned no income whatever in 1972, it would appear that he would make the same claim whether the filing fee had been fixed at $1, $100, or $700. The State accepts this as true but defends the statutory fee as necessary to keep the ballot from being overwhelmed with frivolous or otherwise nonserious candidates, arguing that as to indigents the filing fee is not intended as a test of his pocketbook but the extent of his political support and hence the seriousness of his candidacy.
In Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134 (1972), we recognized that the State’s interest in keeping its ballots within manageable, understandable limits is of the highest order. Id., at 144-145. The role of the primary-election process in California is underscored by its importance as a component of the total electoral process and its special function to assure that fragmentation of voter choice is minimized. That function is served, not frustrated, by a procedure that tends to regulate the filing of frivolous candidates. A procedure inviting or permitting every citizen to present himself to the voters on the ballot without some means of measuring the seriousness of the candidate’s desire and motivation would make rational voter choices more difficult because of the size of the ballot and hence would tend to impede the electoral process. That no device can be conjured to eliminate every frivolous candidacy does not undermine the State’s effort to eliminate as many such as possible.
That “laundry list” ballots discourage voter participation and confuse and frustrate those who do participate is too obvious to call for extended discussion. The means of testing the seriousness of a given candidacy may be open to debate; the fundamental importance of ballots of reasonable size limited to serious candidates with some prospects of public support is not. Rational results within the framework of our system are not likely to be reached if the ballot for a single office must list a dozen or more aspirants who are relatively unknown or have no prospects of success.
This legitimate state interest, however, must be achieved by a means that does not unfairly or unnecessarily burden either a minority party’s or an individual candidate’s equally important interest in the continued availability of political opportunity. The interests involved are not merely those of parties or individual candidates; the voters can assert their preferences only through candidates or parties or both and it is this broad interest that must be weighed in the balance. The right of a party or an individual to a place on a ballot is entitled to protection and is intertwined with the rights of voters.
“[T]he right to vote is heavily burdened if that vote may be cast only for one of two parties at a time when other parties are clamoring for a place on the ballot.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 31 (1968).
This must also mean that the right to vote is “heavily burdened” if that vote may be cast only for one of two candidates in a primary election at a time when other candidates are clamoring for a place on the ballot. It is to be expected that a voter hopes to find on the ballot a candidate who comes near to reflecting his policy preferences on contemporary issues. This does not mean every voter can be assured that a candidate to his liking will be on the ballot, but the process of qualifying candidates for a place on the ballot may not constitutionally be measured solely in dollars.
In Bullock, supra, we expressly rejected the validity of filing fees as the sole means of determining a candidate’s “seriousness”:
“To say that the filing fee requirement tends to limit the ballot to the more serious candidates is not enough. There may well be some rational relationship between a candidate’s willingness to pay a filing fee and the seriousness with which he takes his candidacy, but the candidates in this case affirmatively alleged that they were unable, not simply unwilling, to pay the assessed fees, and there was no contrary evidence. It is uncontested that the filing fees exclude legitimate as well as frivolous candidates. . . . If the Texas fee requirement is intended to regulate the ballot by weeding out spurious candidates, it is extraordinarily ill-fitted to that goal; other means to protect those valid interests are available.” 405 U. S., at 145-146. (Emphasis in original.) (Footnotes omitted.)
Filing fees, however large, do not, in and of themselves, test the genuineness of a candidacy or the extent of the voter support of an aspirant for public office. A large filing fee may serve the legitimate function of keeping ballots manageable but, standing alone, it is not a certain test of whether the candidacy is serious or spurious. A wealthy candidate with not the remotest chance of election may secure a place on the ballot by writing a check. Merchants and other entrepreneurs have been known to run for public office simply to make their names known to the public. We have also noted that prohibitive filing fees, such as those in Bullock, can effectively exclude serious candidates. Conversely, if the filing fee is more moderate, as here, impecunious but serious candidates may be prevented from running. Even in this day of high-budget political campaigns some candidates have demonstrated that direct contact with thousands of voters by “walking tours” is a route to success. Whatever may be the political mood at any given time, our tradition has been one of hospitality toward all candidates without regard to their economic status.
The absence of any alternative means of gaining access to the ballot inevitably renders the California system exclusionary as to some aspirants. As we have noted, the payment of a fee is an absolute, not an alternative, condition, and failure to meet it is a disqualification from running for office. Thus, California has chosen to achieve the important and legitimate interest of maintaining the integrity of elections by means which can operate to exclude some potentially serious candidates from the ballot without providing them with any alternative means of coming before the voters. Selection of candidates solely on the basis of ability to pay a fixed fee without providing any alternative means is not reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the State’s legitimate election interests. Accordingly, we hold that in the absence of reasonable alternative means of ballot access, a State may not, consistent with constitutional standards, require from an indigent candidate filing fees he cannot pay.
In so holding, we note that there are obvious and well-known means of testing the “seriousness” of a candidacy which do not measure the probability of attracting significant voter support solely by the. neutral fact of payment of a filing fee. States may, for example, impose on minor political parties the precondition of demonstrating the existence of some reasonable quantum of voter support by requiring such parties to file petitions for a place on the ballot signed by a percentage of those who voted in a prior election. See American Party of Texas v. White, post, p. 767. Similarly, a candidate who establishes that he cannot pay the filing fee required for a place on the primary ballot may be required to demonstrate the “seriousness” of his candidacy by persuading a substantial number of voters to sign a petition in his behalf. The point, of course, is that ballot access must be genuinely open to all, subject to reasonable requirements. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S. 431, 439 (1971). California’s present system has not met this standard.
Reversed and remanded for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County is the governing body for Los Angeles County, California. The term is four years, the annual salary $35,080.
H. Croly, Progressive Democracy 289 (1914).
See Comment, The Constitutionality of Qualifying Fees for Political Candidates, 120 U. Pa. L. Rev. 109 (1971), for a detailed description of each State’s filing-fee requirements.
Bullock, of course, does not completely resolve the present attack upon the California election statutes because it involved filing fees that were so patently exclusionary as to violate traditional equal protection concepts. Cf. Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752, 760 (1973); James v. Strange, 407 U. S. 128 (1972); Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U. S. 305 (1966). Under attack in Bullock was a Texas statute that required candidates to pay a flat fee of $50 plus their pro rata share of the costs of the election in order to get on the primary ballot. Tex. Election Code, Art. 13.07a (Supp. 1974). The assessment of costs involved sums as high as $8,900.
It is suggested that a write-in procedure, under § 18600 et seq., without a filing fee would be an adequate alternative to California's present filing-fee requirement. The realities of the electoral process, however, strongly suggest that “access” via write-in votes falls far short of access in terms of having the name of the candidate on the ballot. It would allow an affluent candidate to put his name before the voters on the ballot by paying a filing fee while the indigent, relegated to the write-in provision, would be forced to rest his chances solely upon those voters who would remember his name and take the affirmative step of writing it on the ballot. That disparity would, itself, give rise to constitutional questions and, although we need not decide the issue, the intimation that a write-in provision without the filing fee required by § 18600 et seq. would constitute “an acceptable alternative” appears dubious at best.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.
Petitioner and a companion, Boblit, were found guilty of murder in the first degree and were sentenced to death, their convictions being affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. 220 Md. 454, 154 A. 2d 434. Their trials were separate, petitioner' being tried first. At his trial Brady took the stand and admitted his participation in the crime, but he claimed that Boblit did the actual killing. And, in his summation to the jury, Brady’s counsel conceded that Brady was guilty of murder in thé first degree, asking only that the jury return that verdict “without capital punishment.” Prior to the trial petitioner’s counsel had requested the prosecution to allow him to examine Boblit’s extrajudicial statements. Several of those statements were shown to him; but one dated July 9, 1958, in which Boblit admitted the actual homicide, was withheld by the prosecution and did not come to petitioner’s notice until after he had been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and after his conviction had been affirmed.
Petitioner moved the trial court for a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence' that had been suppressed by the prosecution. Petitioner’s appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without prejudice to relief under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act. 222 Md. 442, 160 A. 2d 912. The petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A. 2d 167. The case is here on certiorari, 371 U. S. 812.
The crime in question was murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery. Punishment for that crime in Maryland is life imprisonment or death, the jury being empowered to restrict the punishment to life by addition of the words “without capital punishment.” 3 Md. Ann. Code, 1957, Art. 27, § 413. In Maryland, by reason of the state constitution, the jury in a criminal case are “the Judges of Law, as well as of fact.” Art. XV, § 5. The question presented is whether petitioner was denied a federal right when the Court of Appeals restricted the new trial to the question of punishment.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that suppression of this confession was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals relied in the, main on two decisions from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi, 195 F. 2d 815, and United States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F. 2d 763 — which, we agree, state the correct constitutional rule.
This ruling is an extension of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112, where the Court ruled on what nondisclosure by a prosecutor violates due process:
“It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived, a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a State to procure the conviction and imprisonment' of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation.”
In Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216, we phrased the.rule in broader terms:
“Petitioner’s papers- are inexpertly drawn, but they do set forth - allegations that his imprisonment resulted from perjured testimony, knowingly used by the State authorities to obtain his conviction, and fróm the deliberate suppression by those same authorities of evidence favorable to him. These allegations sufficiently charge a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and, if proven, would entitle petitioner to release from his present custody. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.”
The Third Circuit in the Baldi case construed that statement in Pyle v. Kansas to mean that the '“suppression of evidence favorable” to the accused was itself sufficient to amount to a denial of due process. 195 F. 2d, at 820. In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, 269, we extended, the test formulated in Mooney v. Holohan when we said: “The same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go' uncorrected when it appears.” And see Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U. S. 28; Wilde v. Wyoming, 362 U. S. 607. Cf. Burley v. Mayo, 351 U. S. 277, 285 (dissenting opinion).
We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
The principle of Mooney v. tiolohan is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused, Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; o.ur system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused .is treated unfairly. An inscription on the walls of the Department of Justice states the proposition candidly for the federal domain: “The United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.” A prosecution that withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would tend to excúlpate him or reduce the penalty-helps shape a trial that bears heavily-on .the defendant.That- casts the prosecutor in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice, even though, as.in the present case, his action is not “the-result of guile,” to use the words of the Court of Appeals. 226 Md., at 427, 174 A. 2d, at 169.
The question rernains whether petitioner was denied a constitutional right'when the Court of Appeals restricted his new trial to the qúestion of punishment. In justification of that ruling the Court of Appeals stated:
“There is considerable doubt as to how much good Boblit’s undisclosed confession would have done' Brady if it had been before- the jury. It clearly implicated Brady as being the one who wanted to strangle the victim, Brooks. Boblit, according to this statement, also favored killing him, -but he wanted to do it by shooting. We cannot put ourselves in the place of the jury and assume what their views would have been as to whether it did or did riot matter whether it was Brady’s hands or Boblit’s hands that twisted’ the shirt about the victim’s neck. ... [I]t would be 'too dogmatic’ for us to say that the jury would not have attached any significance to this evidence in considering the punishment of the defendant Brady.
“Not without some doubt, we conclude that the withholding of this particular confession of Boblit’s was prejudicial to the defendant Brady. . . .
“The appellant’s sole claim of prejudice goes to the punishment imposed. • If Boblit’s withheld confession had been before the jury, nothing in it could have reduced the appellant Brady’.s offense below murder in the first degree. We, therefore, see no occasion to retry that issue.” 226 Md., at 429-430, 174 A. 2d, at 171. (Italics added.)
If this were a jurisdiction where the jury was not the judge of the law, a different question would be presented. But since it is, how can the Maryland Court of Appeals state that nothing in the suppressed confession could have reduced petitioner’s offense “below murder in the first degree”? If, as a matter of Maryland law, juries in criminal cases could determine the admissibility of such evidence on the issue of innocence or guilt, the question would seem to be foreclosed.
But Maryland’s cqnstitutional provision making the jury in criminal cases “the Judges of Law” does not mean precisely what it seems to say. The present status of that provision was reviewed recently in Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 183 A. 2d 359, appeal dismissed, 372 U. S. 767, where the several exceptions, added by statute or carved out by judicial construction, are reviewed. One of those exceptions, material here, is that “Trial courts have always passed and still pass upon the admissibility of evidence the jury may consider on the issue of the innocence or guilt of the accused.” 229 Md., at 383, 183 A. 2d, at 365. The cases cited make up a long line going back nearly a century. Wheeler v. State, 42 Md. 563, 570, stated that instructions to the jury were advisory only, “except in regard to questions as to what shall be considered as evidence.” And the court “having such right, it follows of course, that it also has the right to prevent counsel from arguing against such an instruction.” Bell v. State, 57 Md. 108, 120. And see Beard v. State, 71 Md. 275, 280, 17 A. 1044, 1045; Dick v. State, 107 Md. 11, 21, 68 A. 286, 290. Cf. Vogel v. State, 163 Md. 267, 462 A. 705.
We usually walk on- treacherous ground when we explore state law, for state courts, state agencies, and state legislatures are its final expositors under our federal regime. But, as we read the Maryland decisions, it is the court, not the jury, that passes on the “admissibility of evidence” pertinent to “the issue of the innocence or guilt of the accused.” Giles v. State, supra. In the present case a unanimous Court of Appeals has said that nothing in the suppressed copfession.“could have reduced the appel-]ant Brady’s offense below murder in the first degree.” We read that statement as a ruling on the admissibility of the confession on the issue of innocence or guilt. A sporting theory of justice might assume that if the. suppressed. confession had been used at the first trial, the judge’s ruling that it was not admissible on the issue of innocence or guilt might have been flouted by the jury just as might have been done if the court had first admitted a confession and then stricken it from the record. But we cannot raise that trial strategy to the dignity of a constitutional right and say that the deprival of this defendant of that sporting chance, through the use of a bifurcated trial (cf. Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241) denies him due process or violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Affirmed.
Separate opinion of
Mr. Justice White.
.1. The Maryland Court of Appeals declared, “The suppression or withholding by the State of material evidence exculpatory to an accused is a violation, of due process” without citing the United States Constitution or the Maryland Constitution which also has a due process clause. We therefore cannot be sure which Constitution was invoked by the court below and thus whether the State, the only party aggrieved by this portion of the judgment, could even bring the issue here if it desired to do so. See New York City v. Central Savings Bank, 306 U. S. 661; Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551. But in any event, there is no cross-petition by the. State, nor has it challenged the correctness of the ruling below that a new trial on punishment' was called for by the requirements of due process. In my view, therefore, the Court should not reach the due process question which it decides. It certainly is not the case, as it may be suggested, that without it we would have only a state law question, for assuming the court below was correct in finding a violation of petitioner’s rights in the suppression of evidence, the federal question he wants decided here still remains, namely, whether denying him a new trial on guilt as well as punishment deprives him of equal protection. There is thus a federal question to. deal with in this Court, cf. Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, wholly aside from the due process question involving the suppression of evidence. The majority opinion makes this unmistakably clear. Before dealing with the due process issue it says, “The question presented is whether petitioner was denied a federal right when the Court of Appeals restricted the new trial to the question of punishment.” After discussing at some length and disposing of the suppression matter in federal constitutional terms it says the question still to be decided is the same as it was before: “The question remains whether petitioner was denied a constitutional right when the Court of Appeals restricted his new trial to the- question of punishment.”
The result, of course, is that the due process discussion by the Court is wholly advisory.
2¿ In Any event the Court's due process advice goes substantially beyond the holding below. I would employ more confining language and would not cast in constitutional form a broad rule of criminal discovery. Instead, I would leave this task, at least for now, to the rule-rnakiñg or legislative process after full consideration by legislators, bench, and bar.
3. I concur in the Court’s disposition of petitioner’s equal protection argument.
Neither party suggests that the decision below is not a “final judgment” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3), and no attack on the reviewability of the lower court’s judgment could be successfully maintained. For the general rule that “Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment” (Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 212) cannot be applied here. If in fact the Fourteenth Amendment entitles petitioner to a new trial on the issue of guilt as well as punishment the ruling below has seriously prejudiced him. It is the right to a trial on the issue of guilt “that presents a serious and unsettled question” (Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 547) that “is fundamental to the further conduct of the case” (United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373, 377). This question is “independent of, and unaffected by” (Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 126) what may transpire in a trial at which petitioner can receive only a life imprisonment or death sentence. It cannot be mooted by such a proceeding. See Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418, 421-422. Cf. Local No. 438 v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542, 549.
Judge Simon E. Sobeloff when Solicitor General put the idea as follows in an address before the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit on June 29,1954:
“The Solicitor General is hot a neutral, he is an advocate; but an advocate for a client whose business is not merely to prevail in the instant case. ■ My client’s chief business is not to achieve victory but to establish justice. We are constantly reminded of the now classic words penned by one of my illustrious predecessors, Frederick. William Lehmann, that the Government wins its point when justice is done in its courts.”
See Dennis, Maryland’s Antique Constitutional Thorn, 92 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 34, 39, 43; Prescott, Juries as Judges of the Law: Should the Practice be Continued, 60 hid. St. Bar Assn. Rept. 246, 253-254.
For one unhappy incident of recent vintage see Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 309 U. S. 4, that replaced an earlier opinion in the same case, 309 U. S. 703.
“In the matter of confessions a hybrid situation exists., It is the duty of the' Court to determine from the proof, usually taken out of the presence ■ of the jury, if they were freely and voluntarily made, etc., and admissible. If admitted, the jury is entitled to hear and consider proof of the circumstances surrounding their obtention, the -better to determine their weight and sufficiency. The fact that the Court-admits them'clothes them with no presumption for the jury’s purposes that they are either true or were freely and voluntarily made. However, after a confession has been admitted and read to the jury the judge may change his mind and strike it out of the record. Does he strike it out of the jury’s mind?” Dennis, Maryland’s Antique Constitutional Thorn, 92 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 34, 39. See also Bell v. State, supra, at 120; Vogel v. State, 163 Md., at 272, 162 A., at 706-707.
Md. Const., Art. 23; Home Utilities Co., Inc., v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., 209 Md. 610, 122 A. 2d 109; Raymond v. State, 192 Md. 602, 65 A. 2d 285; County Comm'rs of Anne Arundel County v. English, 182 Md. 514, 35 A. 2d 135; Oursler v. Tawes, 178 Md. 471, 13 A. 2d 763.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners, both Negro ministers, were tried and convicted in the Birmingham, Alabama, Recorder’s Court for aiding and abetting a violation of the city criminal trespass ordinance. The complaint filed with respect to Shuttlesworth. charged:
“Comes the City of Birmingham, Alabama, a municipal corporation, and complains that F. L. Shuttlesworth, within twelve months before the beginning of this prosecution, and within the City of Birmingham or the police jurisdiction thereof, did incite or aid or abet in the violation of an ordinance of the. City, to-wit, Section 1436 of - the General City Code of Birmingham of 1944, in that F. L. Shuttlesworth did incite or aid or abet another person to go or remain on the premises of another after being warned not to do so, contrary to and in violation of Section 824 of the General City Code of Birmingham of 1944.” (Footnotes added.)
An identical complaint was filed charging Billups.
On appeal to the Circuit Court petitioners received a trial de novo and were again convicted. Petitioner Shut-tlesworth was sentenced to 180 days in jail at hard labor and a fine of $100. Petitioner Billups was sentenced to 30.days and a fine of $25. On-further appeal to the Alabama Court of Appeals the convictions were affirmed. 41 Ala. App. 318, 319, 134 So. 2d 213, 215. The Alabama Supreme Court denied writs of certiorari. 273 Ala. 704, 713, 134 So. 2d 214, 215. Because of the grave constitutional questions involved, we granted certiorari. 370 U. S. 934.
Though petitioners topk separate appeals, they were jointly tried in the Circuit Court. The evidence is sketchy in' character. Only one witness testified, a city detective who had listened to petitioners’ trial in the Recorder’s Court. . The detective testified to his recollection of the testimony of two college boys whom (among others) petitioners were alleged to have incited to commit the criminal trespass. ■
, These two boys were James E. Gober and James Albert Davis. They were convicted of criminal trespass in a separate proceeding subsequent to petitioners’ trial. In Gober v. City of Birmingham, post, p. 374, .decided this day, we hold on the authority of Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 244, that the convictions of Gober and Davis are constitutionally invalid. The detective stated that in the Recorder’s Court Gober and Davis had testified as follows:
' James' Gober and James Albert Davis, both Negro college students, went to the home, of petitioner, Rev. Shuttlesworth; on March 30, 1960, where there were other college students. Petitioner, Rev. Billups, drove Davis there, and Billups was present when Shuttlesworth asked for volunteers to participate in “sit-down demonstrations.” Gober “testified that in response to Rev. Shut-tlesworth asking for volunteers to participate in the sit down strikes that he volunteered to go to Pizitz at 10:30 and take part in the sit down demonstrations.” A list was made by someone; and Shuttlesworth announced he would get them out of jail. Gober and Davis participated in sit-down demonstrations on the following day as did others who were present.
This is the sole evidence upon which the petitioners were convicted. There was no evidence that any of the. demonstrations which resulted from the meeting were disorderly or otherwise in violation of law.
Petitioners contend that there is no evidence to show-guilt of the charged offense. See Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157; Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199. We need not reach that question sinqe there is a more compelling reason why these convictions cannot stand.
Petitioners were convicted for inciting, aiding,- and abetting a violation of the city trespass ordinance. The trespass “violation” was that committed by the petitioners in Gober v. City of Birmingham, post, p. 374. Since the convictions in Gober have been set aside, it follows that the present petitioners did not incite or aid and abet any crime, and that therefore their own convictions must be set aside.
It is generally recognized that there can be no conviction for aiding and abetting someone to do an innocent act. See, e. g., Edwards v. United States, 286 F. 2d 681 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1960); Meredith v. United States, 238 F. 2d 535 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1956); Colosacco v. United States, 196 F. 2d 165, (C. A. 10th Cir. 1952); Karrell v. United States, 181 F. 2d 981, 985 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1950); Manning v. Biddle, 14 F. 2d 518 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1926); Kelley v. Florida, 79 Fla. 182, 83 So. 909 (1920); Commonwealth v. Long, 246 Ky. 809, 811-812, 56 S. W. 2d 524, 525 (1933) ; Cummings v. Commonwealth, 221 Ky. 301, 313, 298 S. W. 943, 948 (1927); State v. St. Philip, 169 La. 468, 471-472, 125 So. 451, 452 (1929); State v. Haines, 51 La. Ann. 731, 25 So. 372 (1899); Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187, 190, 49 So. 2d 246, 248 (1950); State v. Cushing, 61 Nev. 132, 146, 120 P. 2d 208, 215 (1941); State v. Hess, 233 Wis. 4, 8-9, 288 N. W. 275, 277 (1939); cf. Langham v. State, 243 Ala. 564, 571, 11 So. 2d 131, 137 (1942).
Reversed.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see ante-, p. 248.]
Birmingham General CityCpde, 1944, § 1436, provides:
“After Warning — Any person who enters into the dwelling house, or goes or remains on the premises of another, after being warned not to do so, shall on conviction, be punished as provided in Section 4, provided, that this Section shall not apply to police officers in the discharge of official duties.”
Birmingham General City Code, 1944, §824, provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to incite, or aid or abet in, the violation of any law or ordinance of the city, or any provisipn of • state law, the violation of which is á misdemeanor.” ■
Petitioners objected to all of this testimony as hearsay and on constitutional grounds, but these objections were overruled.
The trial court stated, “[Y]ou have here the ten students and the Court thinks they were misused and misled into a violation of - a City Ordinance and has so ruled.” As we understand the record, these convictions were baséd upon the inciting of the 10 students who are the petitioners in Gober.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsbueg
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-A.
This case concerns the standard of causation applicable in cases arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA or Act), 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq. FELA renders railroads liable for employees’ injuries or deaths “resulting in whole or in part from [carrier] negligence.” § 51. In accord with the text and purpose of the Act, this Court’s decision in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500 (1957), and the uniform view of federal appellate courts, we conclude that the Act does not incorporate “proximate cause” standards developed in nonstatutory common-law tort actions. The charge proper in FELA cases, we hold, simply tracks the language Congress employed, informing juries that a defendant railroad caused or contributed to a plaintiff employee’s injury if the railroad’s negligence played any part in bringing about the injury.
Respondent Robert McBride worked as a locomotive engineer for petitioner CSX Transportation, Inc., which operates an interstate system of railroads. On April 12, 2004, CSX assigned McBride to assist oh a local run between Evansville, Indiana, and Mount Vernon, Illinois. The run involved frequent starts and stops to add and remove individual rail cars, a process known as “switching.” The train McBride was to operate had an unusual engine configuration: two “wide-body” engines followed by three smaller conventional cabs. McBride protested that the configuration was unsafe, because switching with heavy, wide-body engines required constant use of a hand-operated independent brake. But he was told to take the train as is. About ten hours into the run, McBride injured his hand while using the independent brake. Despite two surgeries and extensive physical therapy, he never regained full use of the hand.
Seeking compensation for his injury, McBride commenced a FELA action against CSX in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. He alleged that CSX was twice negligent: First, the railroad required him to use equipment unsafe for switching; second, CSX failed to train him to operate that equipment. App. 24a-26a. A verdict for McBride would be in order, the District Court instructed, if the jury found that CSX “was negligent” and that the “negligence caused or contributed to” McBride’s injury. Id., at 23a.
CSX sought additional charges that the court declined to give. One of the rejected instructions would have required “the plaintiff [to] show that... the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the injury.” Id., at 34a. Another would have defined “proximate cause” to mean “any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury complained of,” with the qualification that a proximate cause “need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause.” Id., at 32a.
■ Instead, the District Court employed, as McBride requested, the Seventh Circuit’s pattern instruction for FELA cases, which reads:
“Defendant ‘caused or contributed to’ Plaintiff’s injury if Defendant’s negligence played a part — no matter how small — in bringing about the injury. The mere fact that an injury occurred does not necessarily mean that the injury was caused by negligence.” Id., at 31a.
For this instruction, the Seventh Circuit relied upon this Court’s decision in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500 (1957). The jury returned a verdict for McBride, setting total damages at $275,000, but reducing that amount by one-third, the percentage the jury attributed to plaintiff’s negligence. App. 29a.
CSX appealed to the Seventh Circuit, renewing its objection to the failure to instruct on “proximate cause.” Before the appellate court, CSX “maintain[ed] that the correct definition of proximate causation is a ‘direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.’ ” 598 F. 3d 388, 393, n. 3 (2010) (quoting Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U. S. 258, 268 (1992)). A properly instructed jury, CSX contended, might have found that the chain of causation was too indirect, or that the engine configuration was unsafe because of its propensity to cause crashes during switching, not because of any risk to an engineer’s hands. Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 08-3557 (CA7), pp. 49-52.
The Court of Appeals approved the District Court’s instruction and affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict. Rogers had “relaxed the proximate cause requirement” in FELA cases, the Seventh Circuit concluded, a view of Rogers “echoed by every other court of appeals.” 598 F. 3d, at 399. While acknowledging that a handful of state courts “still applied] traditional formulations of proximate cause in FELA cases,” id., at 404, n. 7, the Seventh Circuit said it could hardly declare erroneous an instruction that “simply paraphrased] the Supreme Court's own words in Rogers,” id., at 406.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the causation instruction endorsed by the Seventh Circuit is proper in FELA cases. 562 U. S. 1060 (2010). That instruction does not include the term “proximate cause,” but does tell the jury defendant’s negligence must “pla[y] a part — no matter how small — in bringing about the [plaintiff’s] injury.” App. 31a.
II
A
The railroad business was exceptionally hazardous at the dawn of the 20th eentury. As we have recounted, “the physical dangers of railroading... resulted in the death or maiming of thousands of workers every year,” Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, 512 U. S. 532, 542 (1994), including 281,645 casualties in the year 1908 alone, S. Rep. No. 432, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1910). Enacted that same year in an effort to “shif[t] part of the human overhead of doing business from employees to their employers,” Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 542 (internal quotation marks omitted), FELA prescribes:
“Every common carrier by railroad... shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier... 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....” 45 U. S. C. § 51 (emphasis added).
Liability under FELA is limited in these key respects: Railroads are hable only to their employees, and only for injuries sustained in the course of employment. FELA’s language on causation, however, “is as broad as could be framed.” Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163, 181 (1949). Given the breadth of the phrase “resulting in whole or in part from the [railroad’s] negligence,” and Congress’ “humanitarian” and “remedial goal[s],” we have recognized that, in comparison to tort litigation at common law, “a relaxed standard of causation applies under FELA.” Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 542-543. In our 1957 decision in Rogers, we described that relaxed standard as follows:
“Under [FELA] the test of a jury case is simply whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought.” 352 U. S., at 506.
As the Seventh Circuit emphasized, the instruction the District Court gave in this case, permitting a verdict for McBride if “[railroad] negligence played a part — no matter how small — in bringing about the injury,” App. 31a, tracked the language of Rogers. If Rogers prescribes the definition of causation applicable under FELA, that instruction was plainly proper. See Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 49.1 U. S. 164, 172 (1989) (“Considerations of stare decisis have special force in the area of statutory interpretation....”). While CSX does not ask us to disturb Rogers, the railroad contends that lower courts have overread that opinion. In CSX’s view, shared by the dissent, post, at 713-714, Rogers was a narrowly focused decision that did not touch, concern, much less displace common-law formulations of “proximate cause.”
Understanding this argument requires some background. The term “proximate cause” is shorthand for a concept: Injuries have countless causes, and not all should give rise to legal liability. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 42, p. 273 (5th ed. 1984) (hereinafter Prosser and Keeton). “What we... mean by the word ‘proximate,’” one noted jurist has explained, is simply this: “[B]ecause of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point.” Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N. Y. 339, 352, 162 N. E. 99, 103 (1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting). Common-law “proximate cause” formulations varied, and were often both constricted and difficult to comprehend. See T. Cooley, Law of Torts 73-77, 812-813 (2d ed. 1888) (describing, for example, prescriptions precluding recovery in the event of any “intervening” cause or any contributory negligence). Some courts cut off liability if a “proximate cause” was not the sole proximate cause. Prosser and Keeton §65, p. 452 (noting “tendency... to look for some single, principal, dominant, ‘proximate’ cause of every injury”). Many used definitions resembling those CSX proposed to the District Court or urged in the Court of Appeals. See supra, at 689-690 (CSX proposed key words “natural or probable” or “direct” to describe required relationship between injury and alleged negligent conduct); Prosser and Keeton § 43, pp. 282-283.
Drawing largely on Justice Souter’s concurring opinion in Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U. S. 158,173 (2007), CSX contends that the Rogers “any part” test displaced only common-law restrictions on recovery for injuries involving contributory negligence or other “multiple causes.” Brief for Petitioner 35 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rogers “did not address the requisite directness of a cause,” CSX argues, hence that question continues to be governed by restrictive common-law formulations. Brief for Petitioner 35.
B
To evaluate CSX’s argument, we turn first to the facts of Rogers. The employee in that case was injured while burning off weeds and vegetation that lined the defendant’s railroad tracks. A passing train had fanned the flames, which spread from the vegetation to the top of a culvert where the employee was standing. Attempting to escape, the employee slipped and fell on the sloping gravel covering the culvert, sustaining serious injuries. 352 U. S., at 501-503. A Missouri state-court jury returned a verdict for the employee, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed. Even if the railroad had been negligent in failing to maintain a flat surface, the court reasoned, the employee was at fault because of his lack of attention to the spreading fire. Rogers v. Thompson, 284 S. W. 2d 467, 472 (1955). As the fire “was something extraordinary, unrelated to, and disconnected from the incline of the gravel,” the court felt “obliged to say [that] plaintiff's injury was not the natural and probable consequence of any negligence of defendant.” Ibid.
We held that the jury's verdict should not have been upset. Describing two potential readings of the Missouri Supreme Court’s opinion, we condemned both. First, the court erred in concluding that the employee’s negligence was the “sole” cause of the injury, for the jury reasonably found that railroad negligence played a part. Rogers, 352 U. S., at 504-505. Second, the court erred insofar as it held that the railroad’s negligence was not a sufficient cause unless it was the more “probable” cause of the injury. Id., at 505. FELA, we affirmed, did not incorporate any traditional common-law formulation of “proximate causation[,] which [requires] the jury [to] find that the defendant’s negligence was the sole, efficient, producing cause of injury.” Id., at 506. Whether the railroad’s negligent act was the “immediate reason” for the fall, we added, was “an irrelevant consideration.” Id., at 503. We then announced the “any part” test, id., at 506, and reiterated it several times. See, e. g., id., at 507 (“narro[w]” and “single inquiry” is whether “negligence of the employer played any part at all” in bringing about the injury); id., at 508 (FELA case “rarely presents more than the single question whether negligence of the employer played any part, however small, in the injury”).
Rogers is most sensibly read as a comprehensive statement of the FELA causation standard. Notably, the Missouri Supreme Court in Rogers did not doubt that a FELA injury might have multiple causes, including railroad negligence and employee negligence. See 284 S. W. 2d, at 472 (reciting FELA’s “in whole or in part” language). But the railroad’s part, according to the state court, was too indirect, not sufficiently “natural and probable,” to establish the requisite causation. Ibid. That is the very reasoning the Court rejected in Rogers. It is also the reasoning CSX asks us to resurrect.
Our understanding is informed by the statutory history and precedent on which Rogers drew. Before FELA was enacted, the “harsh and technical” rules of state common law had “made recovery difficult or even impossible” for injured railroad workers. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U. S. 1,3 (1964). “[Dissatisfied with the [railroad’s] common-law duty,” Congress sought to “supplan[t] that duty with [FELA's] far more drastic duty of paying damages for injury or death at work due in whole or in part to the employer’s negligence.” Rogers, 352 U. S., at 507. Yet, Rogers observed, the Missouri court and other lower courts continued to ignore FELA’s “significan[t]” departures from the “ordinary common-law negligence” scheme, to reinsert common-law formulations of causation involving “probabilities,” and consequently to “deprive litigants of their right to a jury determination.” Id., at 507, 509-510. Aiming to end lower court disregard of congressional purpose, the Rogers Court repeatedly called the “any part” test the “single” inquiry determining causation in FELA cases. Id., at 507, 508 (emphasis added). In short, CSX’s argument that the Rogers standard concerns only division of responsibility among multiple actors, and not causation more generally, misses the thrust of our decision in that case.
Tellingly, in announcing the “any part... in producing the injury” test, Rogers cited Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., 335 U. S. 520 (1949), a decision emphasizing that FELA had parted from traditional common-law formulations of causation. What qualified as a “proximate” or legally sufficient cause in FELA cases, Coray had explained, was determined by the statutory phrase “resulting in whole or in part,” which Congress “selected... to fix liability” in language that was “simple and direct.” Id., at 524. That straightforward phrase, Coray observed, was incompatible with “dialectical subtleties” that common-law courts employed to determine whether a particular cause was sufficiently “substantial” to constitute a proximate cause. Id., at 523-524.
Our subsequent decisions have confirmed that Rogers announced a general standard for causation in FELA cases, not one addressed exclusively to injuries involving multiple potentially cognizable causes. The very day Rogers was announeed, we applied its “any part” instruction in a case in which the sole causation issue was the directness or foreseeability of the connection between the carrier’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injury. See Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U. S. 521, 523-524 (1957) (plurality opinion).
A few years later, in Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U. S. 108 (1963), we held jury findings for the plaintiff proper in a case presenting the following facts: For years, the railroad had allowed a fetid pool, containing “dead and decayed rats and pigeons,” to accumulate near its right-of-way; while standing near the pool, the plaintiff-employee suffered an insect bite that became infected and required amputation of his legs. Id., at 109. The appellate court had concluded there was insufficient evidence of causation to warrant submission of the ease to the jury. Id., at 112. We reversed, reciting the causation standard Rogers announced. 372 U. S., at 116-117, 120-121. See also Crane v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City R. Co., 395 U. S. 164, 166-167 (1969) (contrasting suit by railroad employee, who “is not required to prove common-law proximate causation but only that his injury resulted fin whole or in part’ from the railroad’s violation,” with suit by nonemployee, where “definition of causation... [is] left to state law”); Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 543 (“relaxed standard of causation applies under FELA”).
In reliance on Rogers, every Court of Appeals that reviews judgments in FELA cases has approved jury instructions on causation identical or substantively equivalent to the Seventh Circuit’s instruction. Each appellate court has rejected common-law formulations of proximate cause of the kind CSX requested in this case. See supra, at 689-690. The current model federal instruction, recognizing that the “FELA causation standard is distinct from the usual proximate cause standard,” reads:
“The fourth element [of a FELA action] is whether an injury to the plaintiff resulted in whole or part from the negligence of the railroad or its employees or agents. In other words, did such negligence play any part, even the slightest, in bringing about an injury to the plaintiff?” 5 L. Sand et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil ¶ 89.02, pp. 89-38, 89-40, and comment (2010) (hereinafter Sand).
Since shortly after Rogers was decided, charges of this order have been accepted as the federal model. See W. Mathes & E. Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §84.12, p. 517 (1965) (under FELA, injury “is proximately caused by” the defendant’s negligence if the negligence “played any part, no matter how small, in bringing about or actually causing the injury”). The overwhelming majority of state courts' and scholars similarly comprehend FELA’s causation standard.
In sum, the understanding of Rogers we here affirm “has been accepted as settled law for several decades.” IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U. S. 21, 32 (2005). “Congress has had [more than 50] years in which it could have corrected our decision in [Rogers] if it disagreed with it, and has not chosen to do so.” Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm’n, 502 U. S. 197, 202 (1991). Countless judges have instructed countless juries in language drawn from Rogers. To discard or restrict the Rogers instruction now would ill serve the goals of “stability” and “predictability” that the doctrine of statutory stare decisis aims to ensure. 502 U. S., at 202.
III
CSX nonetheless insists that proximate causation, as captured in the charge and definitions CSX requested, is a concept fundamental to actions sounding in negligence. The Rogers “any part” instruction opens the door to unlimited liability, CSX worries, inviting juries to impose liability on the basis of “but for” causation. The dissent shares these fears. Post, at 710-711, 719-720. But a half century’s ex-perienee with Rogers gives us little cause for concern: CSX’s briefs did not identify even one trial in which the instruction generated an absurd or untoward award. Nor has the dissent managed to uncover such a case. Post, at 717-718 (citing no actual case but conjuring up images of falling pianos and spilled coffee).
While some courts have said that Rogers eliminated the concept of proximate cause in FELA cases, we think it “more accurate... to recognize that Rogers describes the test for proximate causation applicable in FELA suits.” Sorrell, 549 U. S., at 178 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment). That understanding was expressed by the drafters of the 1965 federal model instructions, see supra, at 698-699: Under FELA, injury “is proximately caused” by the railroad’s negligence if that negligence “played any part... in... causing the injury.” Avoiding “dialectical subtleties” that confound attempts to convey intelligibly to juries just what “proximate cause” means, see Coray, 385 U. S., at 524, the Rogers instruction uses the everyday words contained in the statute itself. Jurors can comprehend those words and apply them in light of their experience and common sense. Unless and until Congress orders otherwise, we see no good reason to tamper with an instruction tied to FELA’s text, long employed by lower courts, and hardly shown to be unfair or unworkable,
A
As we have noted, see supra, at 692-693, the phrase “proximate cause” is shorthand for the policy-based judgment that not all factual causes contributing to an injury should be legally cognizable causes. Prosser and Keeton explain: “In a philosophical sense, the consequences of an act go forward to eternity, and the causes of an event go back to the dawn of human events, and beyond.” §41, p. 264. To prevent “infinite liability,” ibid., courts and legislatures appropriately place limits on the chain of causation that may support recovery on any particular claim.
The term “proximate cause” itself is hardly essential to the imposition of such limits. It is a term notoriously confusing. See, e. g., id., §42, p. 273 (“The word ‘proximate’ is a legacy of Lord Chancellor Bacon, who in his time committed other sins.... It is an unfortunate word, which places an entirely wrong emphasis upon the factor of physical or mechanical closeness. For this reason ‘legal cause’ or perhaps even ‘responsible cause’ would be a more appropriate term.” (footnotes omitted)).
And the lack of consensus on any one definition of “proximate cause” is manifest. Id., § 41, p. 263. Common-law formulations include, inter alia, the “immediate” or “nearest” antecedent test; the “efficient, producing cause” test; the “substantial factor” test; and the “probable,” or “natural and probable,” or “foreseeable” consequence test. Smith, Legal Cause in Actions of Tort, 25 Harv. L. Rev. 103, 106-121 (1911); Smith, Legal Cause in Actions of Tort (Concluded), 25 Harv. L. Rev. 303, 311 (1912).
Notably, CSX itself did not settle on a uniform definition of the term “proximate cause” in this litigation, nor does the dissent. In the District Court, CSX requested a jury instruction defining “proximate cause” to mean “any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury complained of.” App. 32a. On appeal, “CSX maintain[ed] that the correct definition... is a ‘direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged/ ” 598 F. 3d, at 393, n. 3. Before this Court, CSX called for “a demonstration that the plaintiff’s injury resulted from the wrongful conduct in a way that was natural, probable, and foreseeable.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 9-10.
Lay triers, studies show, are scarcely aided by charges so phrased. See Steele 6; Thornburg, Jury Instructions: A Persistent Failure To Communicate, 67 N. C. L. Rev. 77, 88-92, 110 (1988) (85% of actual and potential jurors were unable to understand a pattern proximate-cause instruction similar to the one requested by CSX); Charrow & Charrow, Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions, 79 Colum. L. Rev. 1306, 1353 (1979) (nearly one-quarter of subjects misunderstood proximate cause to mean “approximate cause” or “estimated cause”). In light of the potential of “proximate cause” instructions to leave jurors at sea, it is not surprising that the drafters of the Restatement (Third) of Torts avoided the term altogether. See 1 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 29 (2005) (confining liability to “harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious”); id., Comment b.
Congress, it is true, has written the words “proximate cause” into a number of statutes. But when the legislative text uses less legalistic language, e. g., “caused by,” “occasioned by,” “in consequence of,” or, as in FELA, “resulting in whole or in part from,” and the legislative purpose is to loosen constraints on recovery, there is little reason for courts to hark back to stock, judge-made proximate-cause formulations. See Smith, Legal Cause in Actions of Tort (Continued), 25 Harv. L. Rev. 223, 235 (1912).
B
FELA’s language is straightforward: Railroads are made answerable in damages for an employee’s “injury or death resulting in whole or in part from [carrier] negligence.” 45 U. S. C. § 51. The argument for importing into FELA’s text “previous judicial definitions or dicta” originating in non-statutory common-law actions, see Smith, Legal Cause in Actions of Tort (Continued), supra, at 235, misapprehends how foreseeability figures in FELA cases.
“[Reasonable foreseeability of harm,” we clarified in Gallick, is indeed “an essential ingredient of [FELA] negligence” 372 U. S., at 117 (emphasis added). The jury, therefore, must be asked, initially: Did the carrier “fai[l] to observe that degree of care which people of ordinary prudence and sagacity would use under the same or similar circumstances[?]” Id., at 118. In that regard, the jury may be told that “[the railroad’s] duties are measured by what is reasonably foreseeable under like circumstances.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[i]f a person has no reasonable ground to anticipate that a particular condition... would or might result in a mishap and injury, then the party is not required to do anything to correct [the] condition.” Id., at 118, n. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). If negligence is proved, however, and is shown to have “played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury,” Rogers, 352 U. S., at 506 (emphasis added), then the carrier is answerable in damages even if “the extent of the [injury] or the manner in which it occurred” was not “probable” or “foreseeable.” Gallick, 372 U. S., at 120-121, and n. 8 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 4 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Law of Torts §20.5(6), p. 203 (3d ed. 2007); 5 Sand 89-21.
Properly instructed on negligence and causation, and told, as is standard practice in FELA cases, to use their“common sense” in reviewing the evidence, see Tr. 205 (Aug. 19, 2008), juries would have no warrant to award damages in far out “but for” scenarios. Indeed, judges would have no warrant to submit such eases to the jury. See Nicholson v. Erie R. Co., 253 F. 2d 939, 940-941 (CA2 1958) (alleged negligence was failure to provide lavatory for female employee; employee was injured by a suitcase while looking for a lavatory in a passenger car; applying Rogers, appellate court affirmed lower court's dismissal for lack of causation); Moody v. Boston & Maine Corp., 921 F. 2d 1, 2-5 (CA1 1990) (employee suffered stress-related heart attack after railroad forced him to work more than 12 hours with inadequate breaks; applying Rogers, appellate court affirmed grant of summary judgment for lack of causation). See also supra, at 699-700 (Rogers has generated no extravagant jury awards or appellate court decisions).
In addition to the constraints of common sense, FELA’s limitations on who may sue, and for what, reduce the risk of exorbitant liability. As earlier noted, see supra, at 691, the statute confines the universe of compensable injuries to those sustained by employees, during employment. §51. Hence there are no unforeseeable plaintiffs in FELA cases. And the statute weeds out the injuries most likely to bear only a tenuous relationship to railroad negligence, namely, those occurring outside the workplace.
There is a real risk, on the other hand, that the “in natural or probable sequence” charge sought by CSX would mislead. If taken to mean the plaintiff’s injury must probably (“more likely than not”) follow from the railroad’s negligent conduct, then the force of FELA’s “resulting in whole or in part” language would be blunted. Railroad negligence would “probably” cause a worker’s injury only if that negligence was a dominant contributor to the injury, not merely a contributor in any part.
* * *
For the reasons stated, it is not error in a FELA case to refuse a charge embracing stock proximate-cause terminology. Juries in such cases are properly instructed that a defendant railroad “caused or contributed to” a railroad worker’s injury “if [the railroad’s] negligence played a part — no matter how small — in bringing about the injury.” That, indeed, is the test Congress prescribed for proximate causation in FELA cases. See supra, at 696, 700. As the courts below so held, the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is
Affirmed.
Justice Thomas joins all but Part III-A of this opinion.
In Sorroll, tho Court hold that the causation standard was the same for railroad negligence and employee contributory negligence, but said nothing about what that standard should be. 549 U. S., at 164-165.
In face of Rogers’ repeated admonition that the “any part... in producing the injury” test was the single test for causation under FELA, the dissent speculates that Rogare waa oimply making a veiled reference to a particular form of modified comparative negligence, i. e., allowing plaintiff to prevail on showing that her negligence was “slight” while the railroad’s was “gross.” Post, at 713-714. That is not what Rogers conveyed. To repeat, Rogers instructed that “the test of a jury ease [under FELA] is simply whether... employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury.” 352 U. S., at 506.
The dissent, while recognizing “the variety of formulations” courts have employed to define “proximate cause,” post, at 707, does not say which of the many formulations it would declare applicable in FELA cases. We regard the phrase “negligence played a part — no matter how small,” see Rogers, 352 U. S., at 508, as synonymous with “negligence played any part, even the slightest,” see id., at 506, and the phrase “in producing the injury” as synonymous with the phrase “in bringing about the injury.” We therefore approve both the Seventh Circuit’s instruction and the “any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury” formulation. The host of definitions of proximate cause, in contrast, are hardly synonymous.
CSX and the dissent observe, corroctly, that some of our pre -Rogers decisions invoked common-law formulations of proximate cause. See, e. g., Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U. S. 476, 483 (1943) (injury must be “the natural and probable consequence of the negligence” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, the “natural or probable” charge that CSX requested was drawn from Brady, which in turn relied on a pre-FELA ease, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469,- 475 (1877). But other pre-Rogers FELA, decisions invoked no common-law formulations. See, e. g., Union Pacific R. Co. v. Huxoll, 245 U. S. 535, 537 (1918) (approving instruction asking whether negligence “contribute[d] ‘in whole or in part’ to cause the death”); Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., 335 U. S. 520, 524 (1949) (rejecting use of common-law “dialectical subtleties” concerning the term “proximate cause,” and approving use of “simple and direct” statutory language). We rely on Rogers not because “time begins in 1957,” post, at 711, but because Rogers stated a clear instruction, comprehensible by juries: Did the railroad’s “negligence pla[y] any part, even the slightest, in producing [the plaintiff’s] injury?” 352 U. S., at 506. In so instructing, Rogers replaced the array of formulationo then prevalent. We have repeated the Rogers instruction in subsequent opinions, and lower courts have employed it for over 60 years. To unsettle the law as the diasent urges would show scant rospeot for the principio of stars decisis.
See Moody v. Maine General R. Co., 823 F. 2d 693,696 696 (CA1 1987); Ulf
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in the case is whether petitioner, by virtue of a vesting order issued under § 5 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, 40 Stat. 411, 50 U. S. C. App. § 5, is entitled to the res of a trust established in 1928 by one Cobb and administered by respondent under an indenture. The trust was created for the benefit of the descendants of Bruno Reinicke who, by reason of his powers over the trust and his ownership of the right of reversion, was the real settlor.
In 1945, when this Nation was at war with Germany, the Alien Property Custodian issued an order vesting “all right, title, interest and claim of any kind or character whatsoever” of the beneficiaries of the trust, declaring that they were nationals of Germany. Subsequently the Custodian (for whom the Attorney General was later substituted) intervened in an action brought by the trustee in the New York courts for a construction of the indenture and for an accounting. Relief sought by that intervention was that the income of the trust be paid to the Attorney General and that the powers reserved to the settlor be held to have passed by virtue of the vesting order to the Attorney General. We are also advised by the report of the case in the Court of Appeals that the Attorney General also claimed that, if the vesting order had not transferred the settlor’s powers to the Attorney General, “then the trust had failed and all of the trust property should pass to the Attorney General under the vesting order as being property of alien enemies.” Chase National Bank v. McGrath, 301 N. Y. 602, 603-604, 93 N. E. 2d 495.
The New York Supreme Court denied the relief asked by the Attorney General, holding he was not entitled to the income of the trust, that he had not succeeded to the powers of the settlor, and that those powers were vested in the trustee as long as the settlor was barred from asserting them. On appeal the Appellate Division affirmed. Chase National Bank v. McGrath, 276 App. Div. 831, 93 N. Y. S. 2d 724. The Court of Appeals in turn affirmed. Chase National Bank v. McGrath, 301 N. Y. 602, 93 N. E. 2d 495. No review of that order was sought here.
Some years passed, when, in 1953, the Attorney General amended the vesting order by undertaking to appropriate “all property in the possession, custody or control” of the trustee. In a suit in the New York courts he asked, among other things, that the principal of the trust be transferred to him. The Supreme Court of New York denied the relief. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion. Chase National Bank v. Reinicke, 286 App. Div. 808, 143 N. Y. S. 2d 623. The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Chase National Bank v. Reinicke, 309 N. Y. 1030, 129 N. E. 2d 790. The case is here on certiorari. 350 U. S. 964.
We do not reach the several questions presented under the Trading with the Enemy Act for we are of the view that the principles of res judicata require an affirmance. In the first litigation, the Attorney General sought to reach the equitable interests in the trust and the powers of the settlor. When the Attorney General now seeks the entire bundle of rights, he is claiming for the most part what was denied him in the first suit. That is not all. In the first suit he claimed that if he were denied the powers which the settlor had over the trust, the trust must fail and all the trust property must be transferred to him. In other words, the Attorney General tendered in the first suit his claim to the entire property. Cf. Young v. Higbee Co., 324 U. S. 204, 208-209. Under familiar principles of res judicata, the claim so tendered may not be relitigated. Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 352; Tait v. Western Maryland R. Co., 289 U. S. 620, 623. If he was not content with the first ruling, his remedy was by certiorari to this Court. Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183, 189. Having failed to seek and obtain that review, he is barred from relitigating the issues tendered in the first suit.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
The state of war between this country and Germany was declared ended by the Joint Resolution of October 19, 1951, 65 Stat. 451. That Resolution contained, however, a proviso that all property, which, prior to January 1, 1947, was subject to seizure under the Act, continued to be subject to the Act. The 1953 vesting order preceded by a few days the termination of the vesting program of German-owned properties announced by the President on April 17, 1953.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the courts of appeals denying applications for certificates of appealability. The Court, we hold, does have jurisdiction.
I
In 1992, petitioner Arnold Hohn was charged with a number of drug-related offenses, including the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). Over defense counsel’s objection, the District Court instructed the jury that “use” of a firearm meant having the firearm “available to aid in the commission of” the offense. App. 7,82. The jury convicted Hohn on all counts. Hohn did not challenge the instruction in his direct appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. United States v. Hohn, 8 F. 3d 1301 (CA8 1993).
Two years after Hohn’s conviction became final, we held the term “use” in § 924(c)(1) required active employment of the firearm. Proximity and accessibility alone were not sufficient. Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137 (1995). Hohn filed a pro se motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 to vacate his 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1) conviction in light of Bailey on the grounds the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove use of a firearm. Although the Government conceded the jury instruction given at Hohn’s trial did not comply with Bailey, the District Court denied relief because, in its view, Hohn had waived the claim by failing to challenge the instruction on direct appeal.
While Hohn’s motion was pending before the District Court, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214. Section 102 of AEDPA amends the statutory provision, which had required state prisoners to obtain a certificate of probable cause before appealing the denial of a habeas petition. The amended provision provides:
“Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—
“(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or
“(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” 28 U. S. C. § 2253(e)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. II).
Certificates of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right/’ § 2253(c)(2).
Hohn filed a notice of appeal on July 29,1996, three months after AEDPA’s enactment. The Court of Appeals treated the notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of ap-pealability and referred it to a three-judge panel. The panel decided Hohn’s application did. not meet the standard for a § 2253(e) certificate. In the panel’s view, “Bailey did no more than interpret a statute, and an incorrect application of a statute by a district court, or any other court, does not violate the Constitution.” 99 F. 3d 892, 893 (CA8 1996). Given this determination, the panel declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Judge McMillian dissented. In his view, Bailey cast doubt on whether Hohn’s conduct in fact violated 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). The Due Process Clause, he reasoned, does not “toleratfe] convictions for conduct that was never criminal,” so Hohn had made a sufficient showing of a constitutional deprivation. 99 F. 3d, at 895. When the Court of Appeals denied Hohn’s rehearing petition and a suggestion for rehearing en bane, four judges noted they would have granted the suggestion.
Hohn petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the denial of the certificate, seeking to invoke our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). The Government now found itself in agreement with Hohn, saying his claim was, in fact, constitutional in nature. It asked us to vacate the judgment and remand so the Court of Appeals could, reconsider in light of this concession. We may not vacate and remand, of course, unless we first have jurisdiction over the ease; and since Hohn and the Government both argue in favor of our jurisdiction, we appointed an amicus curiae to argue the contrary position. 522 U. S. 944 (1997).
h-i
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1254 is the statute most often invoked for jurisdiction in this Court. It provides in relevant part:
“Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by the following methods:
“(1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree.”
The first phrase of the quoted statute confines our jurisdiction to “[c]ases in” the courts of appeals. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 741-742 (1982). The question is whether an application for a certificate meets the description.
There can be little doubt that Hohn’s application for a certificate of appealability constitutes a ease under § 1254(1). As we have noted, “[t]he words ‘case’ and ‘cause’ are constantly used as synonyms in statutes . . . , each meaning a proceeding in court, a suit, or action.” Blyew v. United States, 13 Wall. 581, 595 (1872). The dispute over Hohn’s entitlement to a certificate falls within this definition. It is a proceeding seeking relief for an immediate and redressable injury, i. e., wrongful detention in violation of the Constitution. There is adversity as well as the other requisite qualities of a “ease” as the term is used in both Article III of the Constitution and the statute here under consideration. This is significant, we think, for eases are addressed in the ordinary course of the judicial process, and, as a general rule, when the district court has denied relief and applicable requirements of finality have been satisfied, the next step is . review in the court of appeals. That the statute permits the certificate to be issued by a “circuit justice or judge” does not mean the action of the circuit judge in denying the eer-tificate is his or her own action, rather than the action of the court of appeals to whom the judge is appointed.
The course of events here illustrates the point. The application moved through the Eighth Circuit in the same manner as cases in general do. The matter was entered on the docket of the Court of Appeals, submitted to a panel, and decided in a published opinion, including a dissent. App. 4-5. The court entered judgment on it, issued a mandate, and entertained a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en bane. Id., at 5-6. The Eighth Circuit has since acknowledged its rejection of Hohn’s application made Circuit law. United States v. Apker, 101 F. 3d 75 (CA8 1996), cert, pending, No. 97-5460. One judge specifically indicated he was bound by the decision even though he believed it was wrongly decided. 101 F. 3d, at 75-76 (Henley, J., concurring in result). These factors suggest Hohn’s certificate application was as much a ease in the Court of Appeals as are the other matters decided by it.
We also draw guidance from the fact that every Court of Appeals except the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has adopted Rules to govern the disposition of certificate applications. E. g., Rules 22, 22.1 (CA1 1998); Rules 22, 27(b) and (f) (CA2 1998); Rules 3.4, 22.1, 111.3(b) and (c), 111.4(a) and (b)(vii) (CA3 1998); Rules 22(a) and (b)(3)(g), 34(b) (CA4 1998); Rules 8.1(g), 8.6, 8.10, 22, 27.2.3 (CA5 1998); Rules 28(f), (g), and (j) (CA6 1998); Rules 22(a)(2), (h)(2), and (h)(3)(i), 22.1 (CA7 1998); Rules 22A(d), 27B(b)(2) and (c)(2) (CA8 1998); Rules 3-l(b), 22-2,22~3(a)(3) and (b)(4), 22-4(e), 22-5(c), (d)(1), (d)(3), and (e) (CA9 1998); Rules 11.2(b), 22.1,22.2.3 (CA10 1998); Rules 22-1,22-3(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), and (a)(7), and (b), 27-l(d)(3) (CA11 1998). We also note the Internal Operating Procedures for the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit require certificate applications to be heard as a general matter by three-judge administrative panels. Internal Operating Procedures, pt. I.D.3 (1998); see also Interim Processing Guidelines for Certificates of Appealability under 28 U. S. C. §2258 and for Motions under 28 U.S.C. §2244, pt. I (CA1), 28 U.S.C.A., p. 135 (1998 Pamphlet); Internal Operating Procedures 10.3.2, 15.1 (CA3 1998); Criminal Justice Act Implementation Plan, pt. 1.2 (CA4), 28 ü. S. C. A., p. 576 (1998 Pamphlet); Internal Operating Procedures 1(a)(1) and (e)(7) (CA7 1998); Rule 27-1, Advisory Committee Note (1) (CA9), 28 U. S. C. A., p. 290 (1998 Pamphlet); Emergency General Order in re Procedures Regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (CA10), 28 U. S. C. A., p. 487 (1998 Pamphlet); Internal Operating Procedure 11, following Rule 47-6 (CAll 1998). These directives would be meaningless if applications for certificates of appealability were not matters subject to the control and disposition of the courts of appeals.
It is true the President appoints “circuit judges for the several circuits,” 28 U. S. C. §44, but it is true as well the court of appeals “eonsist[s] of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular aetive service,” §43. In this instance, as in all other eases of which we are aware, the order denying the certificate was issued in the name of the court and under its seal. That is as it should be, for the order was judicial in character and had consequences with respect to the finality of the order of the District Court and the continuing jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure make specific provision for consideration of applications for certificates of appealability by the entire court. Rule 22(b) states:
“In a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, an appeal by the applicant for the writ may not proceed unless a district or a circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability pursuant to section 2253(c) of title 28, United States Code.... If the district judge has denied the certificate, the applicant for the writ may then request issuance of the certificate by a circuit judge. If such a request is addressed to the court of appeals, it shall be deemed addressed to the judges thereof and shall be considered by a circuit judge or judges as the court deems appropriate. If no express request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request addressed to the judges of the court of appeals.”
On its face, the Rule applies only to state, and not federal, prisoners. It is nonetheless instructive on the proper construction of § 2253(c).
Rule 22(b) by no means prohibits application to an individual judge, nor could it, given the language of the statute. There would be incongruity, nevertheless, were the same ruling deemed in one instance the order of a judge acting ex curia and in a second the action of the court, depending upon the caption of the application or the style of the order.
Our conclusion is further confirmed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(e). It states:
“In addition to the authority expressly conferred by these rules or by law, a single judge of a court of appeals may entertain and may grant or deny any request for relief which under these rules may properly be sought by motion, except that a single judge may not dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or other proceeding, and except that a court of appeals may provide by order or rule that any motion or class of motions must be acted upon by the court. The action of a single judge may be reviewed by the court.”
As the Rule makes clear, even when individual judges are authorized under the Rules to entertain certain requests for relief, the court may review their decisions. The Eighth Circuit’s Rules are even more explicit, specifically listing grants of certificates of probable cause by an individual judge as one of the decisions subject to revision by the court under Federal Rule 27(e). Rule 27B(b)(2) (CA8 1998). The recognition that decisions made by individual circuit judges remain subject to correction by the entire court of appeals reinforces our determination that decisions with regard to an application for a certificate of appealability should be regarded as an action of the court itself and not of the individual judge. We must reject the suggestion contained in the Advisory Committee’s Notes on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) that “28 U. S. C. §2253 does not authorize the court of appeals as a court to grant a certificate of probable cause.” 28 U. S. C. App., p. 609. It is more consistent with the Federal Rules and the uniform practice of the courts of appeals to construe § 2253(e)(1) as conferring the jurisdiction to issue certificates of appealability upon the court of appeals rather than by a judge acting under his or her own seal. See In re Burwell, 350 U. S. 521, 522 (1956).
Some early cases from this Court acknowledged a distinction between acting in an administrative and a judicial capacity. When judges perform administrative functions, their decisions are not subject to our review. United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 51-52 (1852); see also Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. Appx. 697, 702, 704 (1864). Those opinions were careful to say it was the nonjudicial character of the judges’ actions which deprived this Court of jurisdiction. Ferreira, supra, at 46-47 (tribunal not judicial when the proceedings were ex parte and did not involve the issuance of process, summoning of witnesses, or entry of a judgment); Gordon, supra, at 699, 702 (tribunal not judicial when it lacks power to enter and enforce judgments). Decisions regarding applications for certificates of appealability, in contrast, are judicial in nature. It is typical for both parties to enter appearances and to submit briefs at appropriate times and for the court of appeals to enter a judgment and to issue a mandate at the end of the proceedings, as happened here. App. 4-6. Construing the issuance of a certificate of appeal-ability as an administrative function, moreover, would suggest an entity not wielding judicial power might review the decision of an Article III -court. In light of the constitutional questions which would surround such an arrangement, see Gordon, supra; Rayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), we should avoid any such implication.
We further disagree with the contention, advanced by the dissent and by Court-appointed amicus, that a request to proceed before a court of appeals should be regarded as a threshold inquiry separate from the merits which, if denied, prevents the ease from ever being in the court of appeals. Precedent forecloses this argument. In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942), we confronted the analogous question whether a request for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was a case in a district court for the purposes of the then-extant statute governing court of appeals review of district court decisions. See 28 U. S. C. § 225(a) First (1940 ed.) (courts of appeals had jurisdiction to review final decisions “[i]n the district courts, in all cases save where a direct review of the decision may be had in the Supreme Court”). We held the request for leave constituted a case in the district court over which the court of appeals could assert jurisdiction, even though the district court had denied the request. We reasoned, “[presentation of the petition for judicial action is the institution of a suit. Hence the denial by the district court of leave to file the petitions in these causes was the judicial determination of a ease or controversy, reviewable on appeal to the Court of Appeals.” 317 U. S., at 24.
We reached a similar conclusion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. There President Nixon sought to appeal an interlocutory District Court order rejecting his claim of absolute immunity. The Court of Appeals summarily dismissed the appeal because, in its view, the order failed to present a “serious and unsettled question” of law sufficient to bring the case within the collateral order doctrine announced in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 547 (1949). Because the Court of Appeals had dismissed for failure to satisfy this threshold jurisdictional requirement, respondent Fitzgerald argued, “the District Court’s order was not an appealable ‘case’ properly ‘in’ the Court of Appeals within the meaning of § 1254.” 457 U. S., at 742. Turning aside this argument, we ruled “petitioner did present a ‘serious and unsettled’ and therefore appealable question to the Court of Appeals. It followed] that the case was ‘in’ the Court of Appeals under §1254 and properly within our certiorari jurisdiction.” Id., at 743. We elaborated: “There can be no serious doubt concerning our power to review a court of appeals’ decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction .... If we lacked authority to do so, decisions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction would be insulated entirely from review by this Court.” Id., at 743, n. 23; see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 692 (1974) (holding appeal of District Court’s denial of motion to quash sutypoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254(1)).
We have shown no doubts about our jurisdiction to review dismissals by the Courts of Appeals for failure to file a timely notice of appeal under §1254(1). The filing of a proper notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312, 315 (1988); United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 224 (1960); Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule App. Proe. 3, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 589. The failure to satisfy this jurisdictional prerequisite has not kept the case from entering the Court of Appeals, however. We have reviewed these dismissals often and without insisting the petitioner satisfy the requirements for an extraordinary writ and without suggesting our lack of jurisdiction to do so. E. g., Houston v. Lack, 487 U. S. 266 (1988); Torres, supra; Fallen v. United States, 378 U. S. 139 (1964); United States v. Robinson, supra; Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Elec. Co., 318 U. S. 203 (1943).
We have also held that § 1254(1) permits us to review denials of motions for leave to intervene in the Court of Appeals in proceedings to review the decision of an administrative agency. Automobile Workers v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205, 208-209 (1965); see also Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U S. Philips Corp., 510 U. S. 27, 30 (1993) (per curiam). Together these decisions foreclose the proposition that the failure to satisfy a threshold prerequisite for court of appeals jurisdiction, such as the issuance of a certificate of appealability, prevents a case from being in the court of appeals for purposes of § 1254(1).
It would have made no difference had the Government declined to oppose Hohn’s application for a certificate of appeal-ability. In Scofield, we held that § 1254(1) gave us jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeals’ denial of a motion for leave to intervene despite the fact that neither the agency nor any of the other parties opposed intervention. 382 U. S., at 207. In the same manner, petitions for certiorari to this Court are often met with silence or even acquiescence; yet no one would suggest this deprives the petitions of the adversity needed to constitute a case. Assuming, of course, the underlying action satisfies the other requisites of a case, including injury in fact, the circumstance that the question before the court is a preliminary issue, such as the denial of a certificate of appealability or venue, does not oust appellate courts of the jurisdiction to review a ruling on the matter. For instance, a case does not lack adversity simply because the remedy sought from a particular court is dismissal for improper venue rather than resolution of the merits. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) specifically permits a party to move to dismiss for improper venue before joining issue on any substantive point through the filing of a responsive pleading, and we have long treated appeals of dismissals for improper venue as cases in the courts of appeals, see, e. g., Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 151 (1976); Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U. S. 706, 707 (1972); Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc., 365 U. S. 260, 261 (1961); Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 223 (1957); Mis sissippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 440 (1946). It is true we have held appellate jurisdiction improper when district courts have denied, rather than granted, motions to dismiss for improper venue. The jurisdictional problem in those eases, however, was the interlocutory nature of the appeal, not the absence of a proper ease. Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U. S. 495 (1989); Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517 (1988). In any event, concerns about adversity are misplaced in this case. Here the Government entered an appearance in response to the initial application and filed a response opposing Hohn’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en bane. App. 4, 5.
The argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction under §1254(1) to review threshold jurisdictional inquiries is further refuted by the recent amendment to 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3). The statute requires state prisoners filing second or successive habeas applications under §2254 to first “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (1994 ed„ Supp. II). The statute further provides “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” § 2244(b)(3)(E). It would have been unnecessary to include a provision barring certiorari review if a motion to file a second or successive application would not otherwise have constituted a case in the court of appeals for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). We are reluctant to adopt a construction making another statutory provision superfluous. See, e. g., Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U. S. 57, 62 (1998); United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955).
Inclusion of a specific provision barring certiorari review of denials of motions to file second or successive applications is instructive for another reason. The requirements for cer-tifieates of appealability and motions for second or successive applications were enacted in the same statute. The clear limit on this Court’s jurisdiction to review denials of motions to file second or successive petitions by writ of certiorari contrasts with the absence of an analogous limitation to cer-tiorari review of denials of applications for certificates of ap-pealability. True, the phrase concerning the grant or denial of second or successive applications refers to an action “by a court of appeals”; still, we think a Congress concerned enough to bar our jurisdiction in one instance would have been just as explicit in denying it in the other, were that its intention. See, e. g., Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29-30 (1997) (“‘[Wjhere Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion’ ”) (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (other internal quotation marks omitted)). The dissent claims the absence of similar language in § 2253(e) can be explained by Congress’ reliance on the rule holding certificate applications unreviewable under § 1254(1). Post, at 261-262. As we later discuss, any such reliance is lessened by the Court’s consistent practice of treating denials of certificate applications as falling within its statutory cer-tiorari jurisdiction. See infra, at 252.
Today’s holding conforms our eommonsense practice to the statutory scheme, making it unnecessary to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction in routine eases, which present important and meritorious claims. The United States does not dispute that Hohn’s claim has considerable merit and acknowledges that the trial court committed an error of constitutional magnitude. The only contested issue is whether the constitutional violation was a substantial one. Brief in Opposition 7-8. Were we to adopt the position advanced by the dissent, the only way we could consider his meritorious claim would be through the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a). Our rule permits us to carry out our normal function of reviewing possible misapplications of law by the courts of appeals without having to resort to extraordinary remedies.
Our decision, we must acknowledge, is in direct conflict with the portion of our decision in House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 44 (1945) (per curiam), holding that we lack statutory certiorari jurisdiction to review refusals to issue certificates of probable cause. Given the number and frequency of the cases, and the difficulty of reconciling our practice with a requirement that only an extraordinary writ can be used to address them, we do not think stare decisis concerns require us to adhere to that decision. Its conclusion was erroneous, and it should not be followed.
Stare decisis is “the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991). “Considerations of stare decisis have special force in the area of statutory interpretation, for here, unlike in the context of constitutional interpretation, the legislative power is implicated, and Congress remains free to alter what we have done.” Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172-173 (1989).
We have recognized, however, that stare decisis is a “principle of policy” rather than “an inexorable command.” Payne, supra, at 828. For example, we have felt less constrained to follow precedent where, as here, the opinion was rendered without full briefing or argument. Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U. S. 648, 651, n. 1 (1987) (questioning the prece-dential value of Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122 (1976) (per curiam)). The role of stare decisis, furthermore, is “somewhat reduced ... in the case of a procedural rule ... which does not serve as a guide to lawful behavior.” United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 521 (1995) (citing Payne, supra, at 828). Here we have a rule of procedure that does not alter primary conduct. And what is more, the rule of procedure announced in House v. Mayo has often been disregarded in our own practice. Both Hohn and the United States cite numerous instances in which we have granted writs of certiorari to review denials of certificate applications without requiring the petitioner to move for leave to file for an extraordinary writ, as previously required by our rules, and without requiring any extraordinary showing or exhibiting any doubts about our jurisdiction to do so. 17 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4036, pp. 15-16 (2d ed. 1988) (collecting cases). Included among these examples are several noteworthy decisions which resolved significant issues of federal law. See, e. g., Allen v. Hardy, 478 U. S. 255, 257-258 (1986) (per curiam) (refusing to permit retroactive application of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), on collateral attack); Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U. S. 433, 436 (1997) (holding the cancellation of early release credits violated the Ex Post Facto Clause). These deviations have led litigants and the legal community to question the vitality of the rule announced in House v. Mayo. As commentators have observed: “More recent cases . . . have regularly granted certiorari following denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or refusal to certify probable cause, without any indication that review was by common law writ rather than statutory certiorari. At least as to these two questions, statutory certiorari should be available.” Wright, Miller, & Cooper, supra, at 15-16 (footnotes omitted). Our frequent disregard for the rule announced in House v. Mayo weakens the suggestion that Congress could have placed significant reliance on it, especially in light of the commentary on our practice in the legal literature.
This is not to say opinions passing on jurisdictional issues sub silentio may be said to have overruled an opinion addressing the issue directly. See, e. g., United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172 (1805) (Marshall, C. J.). Our decisions remain binding precedent until we see fit to reconsider them, regardless of whether subsequent cases have raised doubts about' their continuing vitality. Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989). Once we have decided to reconsider a particular rule, however, we would be remiss if we did not consider the consistency with which it has been applied in practice. Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 116 (1965); see also Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 307 (1962). This consideration, when combined with our analysis of the legal issue in question, convinces us the contrary holding of House v. Mayo cannot stand.
We hold this Court has jurisdiction under § 1254(1) to review denials of applications for certificates of appealability by a circuit judge or a panel of a court of appeals. The portion of House v. Mayo holding this Court lacks statutory cer-tiorari jurisdiction over denials of certificates of probable cause is overruled. In light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General nr the brief for the United States filed August 18, 1997, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration 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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal, 38 Stat. 219, 220, 28 U. S. C. §§ 45 and 47a, 43 Stat. 938, 28 U. S. C. § 345 (4), from a decree of a three-judge District Court, which dismissed as without merit two complaints seeking to set aside a rate order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Bituminous coal is produced in great quantities in Indiana, Illinois and western Kentucky. In each State there are producing areas that have long been grouped for rate-making purposes. These groups or districts are the Brazil-Clinton, the Linton-Sullivan, the Princeton-Ayrshire, and the Boonville in Indiana; the Northern Illinois, the Fulton-Peoria, the Springfield, the Belleville, and the Southern in Illinois; and the Western in Kentucky. Group rates have been established by the carriers so that all mines within each producing area are accorded the same rates to the same consuming destinations. The result is that comparative distances of the mines in one producing area from a particular consuming destination are commonly disregarded in fixing the group rate. But the Commission has long concluded that such a system of rate making for coal and other natural resources encourages competitive production and a more even development of an area.
The present litigation involves group rates for carload lots from the foregoing groups in Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky to Rockford, Freeport, Dixon and other points in northern Illinois and to Beloit, Wisconsin.
The order under attack in this case resulted from two proceedings before the Commission which were heard and considered together on the same record. One was an investigation in which carriers proposed certain increases in rates for carload lots of bituminous coal from some of the Indiana groups to Beloit, Wisconsin, and from all of the Indiana groups to designated Illinois destinations. Like increases in the Illinois intrastate rates to the same Illinois destinations were also sought. These proposed increases have been suspended until disposition of the proceeding. The other proceeding was an investigation instituted by the Commission, on complaint, into the intrastate carload rates from the Illinois groups to the same Illinois destinations to determine whether they were discriminatory, preferential, and prejudicial against interstate commerce and in favor of intrastate commerce.
These proceedings are only a recent chapter in the problem of adjustment of the coal rates for this region.
The Illinois Commerce Commission ordered a reduction of the intrastate rates in 1930. This resulted in a reduction of certain interstate rates from Indiana and western Kentucky to Rockford and other northern Illinois points. The Interstate Commerce Commission refused to require an increase in intrastate rates to the important Illinois destinations involved here unless the rates from the Indiana groups to the same destinations were increased. Subsequently the Commission found that the rates from the Illinois, Indiana and western Kentucky groups to Beloit, Wisconsin, were in the main not unreasonable but that they were unduly prejudicial to Beloit and unduly preferential to Rockford, if they exceeded the rates from the same origins to Rockford by more than 25 cents. The Commission also found on further hearing that the rates from certain of the Illinois groups to Beloit, Wisconsin, were not unreasonable but that they were unduly prejudicial to Beloit and unduly preferential to Rockford to the extent that they exceeded the Rockford rates by more than 15 cents. The Commission allowed the carriers to increase the rates to Rockford or to reduce the rates to Beloit, or both, in order to relate the rates to Beloit 15 cents over Rockford. But the intrastate rates to Rockford had been prescribed as a maximum by the Illinois Commission and therefore could not be increased. Also to increase the interstate rates without similar increases from the Illinois groups would be disruptive of the rate structure built on the group basis. Accordingly the rates to Beloit were reduced.
The carriers subsequently proposed increases in the rates from the Indiana groups and the Illinois groups to Rockford and other Illinois points and, with certain exceptions, from the Indiana groups to Beloit, Wisconsin. These increases conformed to the 15-cent relation between Rockford and Beloit but placed the rates (both interstate and intrastate) more nearly at the general level of interstate rates in that territory.
One other fact must be mentioned if the present posture of this rate problem is to be understood. After the Illinois intrastate rates were reduced in 1930 and after the carriers’ unsuccessful effort to have the earlier ones reestablished, the Milwaukee road proposed to reduce its single-line rates from mines in the Brazil and Linton groups which it serves to Rockford, Freeport and other intermediate Illinois points by the amount of the Illinois intrastate reduction. The Commission ordered the proposed rate to be cancelled. The Court affirmed a decree of a District Court which permanently enjoined the order of the Commission. United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499.
Since that time the rates of the Milwaukee from origins on its line in the Brazil and Linton groups to Rockford and other intermediate points in Illinois have been lower than the contemporaneous rates of carriers serving other origins in these respective groups to the same destinations, with the exception of the Illinois Central which in 1936 published rates from the Linton group to Rockford and other intermediate Illinois points on its lines on the same basis as the Milwaukee’s single-line rates.
The Milwaukee and the Illinois Central serve only a part of the mines in the Brazil and Linton groups. But they carry coal from other mines in those groups even though their lines do not reach them, since they are either connecting carriers of lines that do or destination carriers. They are therefore parties to many joint rates. But the joint rates do not reflect reductions which the Milwaukee and Illinois Central made in their single-line rates. And the rate increases proposed, and suspended by the Commission on the present proceedings, continued that previous relationship. Moreover the proposed dual basis of rates to Rockford and other Illinois destinations reached by the Milwaukee was proposed to be extended to Beloit, which previously had enjoyed the same rates from all the mines in the Brazil and Linton groups.
As we have noted, the new proposed rates respected the 15-cent differential of Beloit over Rockford. The result was a substantial increase in the joint-line rates from the Brazil and Linton groups to Beloit as well as to Rockford. But Milwaukee’s single-line rates were increased 15 cents to Rockford and none to Beloit. The result would be to accord to mines in the Brazil and Linton groups that were on the Milwaukee lines rates lower to Beloit by 17 and 12 cents, respectively, than accorded the other mines in the two groups. Furthermore the new proposed rates would establish a dual basis of rates to Beloit from the Princeton group as well.
The Commission disapproved the dual basis of rates. It considered what would be the fair and reasonable rate relations as between the respective origins in the several groups and as between the groups themselves. It found that present and proposed rates of the Milwaukee and Illinois Central from Indiana to the northern Illinois destinations would result in unjust discrimination as between shippers and receivers of coal and undue preference and prejudice as between the origins in the Brazil and Linton groups and as between the respective Indiana groups. It made the same findings as respects the Milwaukee’s proposed rates from the Brazil, Linton and Princeton groups to Beloit; and in that connection it also found that those rates would result in undue preference and privilege as between the Indiana groups on the one hand and the Illinois groups on the other. The Commission went on to specify rates which it approved. It ruled that the proposed rates would be unreasonable to the extent that they were above the approved rates. 263 I. C. C. 179.
We agree with the District Court that the complaints must be dismissed.
First. It is contended that the Commission in this proceeding had authority to determine the lawfulness only of the proposed rates, not of the present rates.
This proceeding is an investigation and suspension proceeding under § 15 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 44 Stat. 1447, 49 Ú. S. C. § 15 (7). That section, which gives the Commission broad authority upon complaint or its own initiative to investigate and determine the lawfulness of any new rate, provides that "after full hearing, whether completed before or after the rate... goes into effect, the commission may make such order with reference thereto as would be proper in a proceeding initiated after it had become effective.”
The power of the Commission to deal with the situation as if the proposed new rates had become effective is necessarily a comprehensive one. It seems too plain for argument that such broad authority is ample for the modification of either proposed or existing rates or both. The power granted the Commission under § 15 (1) to deal with rate schedules already effective supports that view. For once the Commission finds the rate to be unjust or unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory or unduly preferential or prejudicial or otherwise unlawful, the Commission is granted the power under § 15 (1) to determine and prescribe the just and reasonable rate. The Commission is not bound either to approve or disapprove in toto the new rates that are proposed. It can modify the proposal in any respect and require that the proposed rates as modified or wholly different rates be substituted for the present ones. That has been the view of the Commission since the beginning; and we think it is the correct one.
The same result obtains as respects the Milwaukee’s single-line rates from origins on its lines in the Brazil and Linton groups to Beloit, Wisconsin. The Milwaukee had not proposed any change in those rates. But those rates had been republished in the proposed schedules. They were among the rates suspended by the Commission. And the Commission’s order of investigation cited the Milwaukee tariff that contains those rates. Hence the Commission sought to bring them into the investigation and gave Milwaukee all the notice to which it was entitled. That the Commission had authority to include them seems clear to us. Even though we assume they are not “new” rates within the meaning of § 15 (7), they are rates “demanded, charged, or collected” within the meaning of § 15 (1).
Second. Section 2 of the Act makes it unlawful for a carrier to receive from one person a greater or less compensation for transporting property than it receives from another for doing a “like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.” It is pointed out that the purpose of this section is to enforce equality between shippers of like commodities over the same line or haul for the same distance and between the same points. This requirement, it is argued, has not been met in the present case since there is no finding that any of the coal from any origin point to any destination was being charged a higher rate than other coal from the same origin point to the same destination moving over the same line under substantially similar circumstances and conditions. The contention would be well taken if the Commission was not warranted in treating all places within a particular group or district as one origin point. Whether or not the Commission was warranted in doing so, depends primarily on the legality of its action in gathering together various origin points into one rate group for rate-making purposes.
As we have noted that has been an historic method of building coal rate structures. The Commission followed that method in this case because in its opinion such a rate structure was necessary to afford consumers, coal operators, and carriers a fair opportunity to compete in the purchase, sale and transportation of coal from the mines in the various groups or districts to the destinations in question. The Commission’s power so to act is not challenged here. Yet once the legality of the grouping of mines for rate purposes is accepted, the result is clear. For the protection of one shipper against unjust discrimination in favor of another within the same group is as clearly within the purpose of § 2 as the protection of one factory against unjust discrimination in favor of another in the same community.
The Milwaukee and Illinois Central were granting more favorable rates to some origins than to others in the same groups or districts. Their single-line rates from mines on their own lines were much lower than joint-line rates from other mines in the same group to the same destinations. The latter are rates published by other carriers and in which Milwaukee and Illinois Central join. Milwaukee and Illinois Central therefore are parties to an arrangement which results in some mines getting lower rates than other mines in the same group on shipments to the same destinations.
The question remains whether that preferential treatment of shippers at some origins was an unjust discrimination within the meaning of § 2.
The single-line rates of Milwaukee and Illinois Central from the Linton group to northern Illinois destinations were 12 cents lower than the joint-line rates to the same points from other mines in the Linton group. The like differential as respects the Brazil group was 17 cents. The proposed schedules continued that dual basis of rates and extended it to Beloit, Wisconsin. The Commission made what seems to us a permissible inference, that rates favorable to the mines on the single-rate routes played an important part in getting the great bulk of the tonnage from the roads having the higher joint rates. Thus Milwaukee served only 4 of the 30 mines in the Brazil group and only 9 of the 31 in the Linton group. But in what the Commission called a representative period, Milwaukee handled under its single-line rates over 95 per cent of the tonnage moving from Brazil to Rockford and over 78 per cent of that from Linton to Rockford. The Commission concluded that the maintenance of the dual basis of rates therefore had an important bearing on the future opportunities of shippers within the respective groups to market their coal in the destination territory. It found that there was severe competition in marketing coal in this territory and that a differentially related and finely balanced rate structure on the coal was necessary in order to meet the needs of the consuming public, the mine operators, and the carriers. For, in general, all of the mines in these groups produce coal of the same quality and grade. A difference of a few cents per ton in the transportation charge is normally sufficient to divert a coal contract from one mine to another. Yet the Commission found that the transportation conditions over the single-line routes do not differ materially from those over the joint-line routes to the same destinations from other mines in the same group; that there is no important difference in the average distances over those respective routes.
The latter findings, especially the one respecting the similarity of transportation conditions, are severely challenged as being without any support in the evidence. These findings, when judged by the classic examples of unjust discrimination between shippers, leave much to be desired. But we think they are adequate in this case. They reflect an intimate acquaintance by the Commission with the grouping of mines for rate-making purposes. See 263 I. C. C., p. 196. The groups are themselves designed to equalize competitive opportunities. The location of the mines, their distances from destination territory, the transportation conditions over the lines that serve the various origins within a group — these are all factors which bear on the determination of what mines shall be pulled together into one group. The Commission can draw from its long experience with these groupings to determine whether any variables in transportation conditions warrant a difference of rates as between mines within one group to a common destination. Or to state it otherwise, the attack here could not succeed unless it were on the respective groupings themselves. The appellants, of course, claim the right to initiate rates within the zone of reasonableness. See United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., supra. But the Commission holds that when that power is used to establish a dual basis of rates for this coal mining region, it defeats the system of grouping by unjustly discriminating against some shippers and in favor of others in the same group. The Commission’s conclusion that only by the establishment and maintenance of a single-rate basis can that unjust discrimination be avoided is an informed judgment based on a complex of many factors. It cannot be successfully challenged on this record unless the whole system of rate making on a group basis is undermined. But no such major project is undertaken.
What we have just said also disposes of the attack which is made on the findings and conclusion of the Commission that the present and proposed system of dual rates creates an undue preference and prejudice as between the origins in the Brazil and Linton groups in violation of §3(1) of the Act.
Third. The Commission found that the differentials maintained by the Milwaukee and Illinois Central as between certain of the Indiana groups constituted an undue preference and prejudice in violation of §3(1) of the Act.
The Commission found that the differential, Linton over Brazil, should be 10 cents. This is the standard differential, in effect generally to the northwest. It found that the standard differential, Princeton over Linton, was 7 cents. Milwaukee's differential in the former would be 22 cents; and the differential of the Milwaukee and Illinois Central in the latter would be 19 cents. The main attack of appellants on this phase of the case is the Commission’s conclusion that these differentials are greater than those warranted by the/respective differences in distances. Facts are adduced to show that they fairly reflect differences in distances.
But the Commission made plain that in considering the whole problem of rate relations presented by this case it did not rely strictly upon distance. Distance was a factor but it was not controlling. The Commission deemed its task to be the creation of a rate structure that would afford a fair opportunity to compete in the purchase, sale and transportation of the coal from the various mines to the destinations in question.
The propriety of that action of the Commission is determinative of another phase of the case as well. It goes to the heart of appellants’ objections to the differentials prescribed by the Commission as fair and reasonable as between the Indiana groups and the Illinois groups.
The Commission approved rates from the Indiana groups to twelve Illinois destinations which averaged $1.95 from Brazil, $2.05 from Linton, and $2.12 from Princeton-Boonville. These rates, the Commission found, compared favorably with the proposed rates to the same destinations from the Illinois groups, apart from exceptions not now material.
The chief problem of the Commission in this case was to provide a rate structure which would afford fair and reasonable relations of rates to northern Illinois destinations, both as between the respective origin groups and as between Indiana groups and Illinois groups. There had been historically no fixed relation either between the former or the latter. And the appearance of a dual basis of rates greatly distorted the picture. The Commission did in this case what the Court pointed out in United, States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., supra, at 510, it had not done there, viz, it adjudged the fairness of the relation subsisting between Illinois and Indiana rates.
Appellants however contend that what the Commission did was wholly arbitrary. They point to instances where the rate from an Indiana group is more than the rate from an Illinois group even though the haul is shorter. They say that what the Commission did was to adjust the rates not to compensate for the transportation service rendered but to favor Illinois groups over Indiana groups. They give illustration after illustration of the inconsistencies between the specific rates, assuming, as the Commission found, that the transportation conditions which were involved were the same. From that argument appellants seek to make two points — (1) that the rates approved by the Commission do not reflect group differentials designed to eliminate discrimination and preference and (2) that, even though they do, individual rates are established that are wholly arbitrary in violation of the principle that each destination is entitled to a reasonable rate.
We cannot deny the Commission authority to use averages as a measure of the relationship between the rates of the Indiana groups on the one hand and the Illinois groups on the other. The averages would be some indication of the closeness of the alignment. The important comparison here is in the regional or group differentials. These differentials in the present case were not designed so as to be faithful to the factor of distance. The Commission followed the common practice in giving diminishing weight to distance and increasing weight to competition as the length of the haul increased. The Commission said, 263 I. C. C. at 204,
“In approving the foregoing rate relations, we have kept in mind the importance to consumers, coal operators, and railroads of relating these differentially related coal rates, not strictly upon distance, but so as to afford all concerned a fair opportunity to compete in the purchase, sale, and transportation of coal from Illinois and Indiana mines to these destinations. The rates between the various origin groups in these fields have never been made with primary regard for distance, and to so make them now would have the effect eventually of eliminating practically all competition between most of them, a result which would be highly undesirable to the consumer, whose interests we may not disregard.”
There is no doubt, therefore, that the Commission believed that the competitive factor was an important one in considering this problem of rate relationships. The result may, as appellants contend, favor some Illinois mines over Indiana as respects certain markets. That would seem to follow, for example, from the elimination of the low single-line rate that the Commission found to be disruptive of rate relations between these groups. But it does not indicate that the rates approved by the Commission were unlawful. That might be established by showing, for example, that the Commission gave weight only to the competitive factor. Yet all that appellants attempt here is to show that discrepancies in rates are not warranted by any difference in transportation conditions or in distance. That is not enough provided the Commission was justified in considering the element of competition.
We think it was. Rate structures are not designed merely to favor the revenues of producers and carriers. The Commission has the consumer interest to safeguard as well. And when it undertakes to rationalize the interests of the three, great complexities are often encountered. The economics of the bituminous coal industry have baffled even experts. We would depart from our competence and our limited function in this field if we undertook to accommodate the factors of transportation conditions, distance and competition differently than the Commission has done in this case. That is a task peculiarly for it. In fashioning what the Commission called a differentially related and finely balanced rate structure for this coal, there is no place for dogma or rigid formulae. The problem calls for an expert, informed judgment on a multitude of facts. The result is that the administrative rate-maker is left with broad discretion as long as no statutory requirement is overlooked. Yet that is, of course, precisely the nature of the administrative process in this field. See Board of Trade v. United States, 314 U. S. 534, 548; New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284, 347-349.
Fourth. Appellants argue that the Commission acted beyond its authority because it did not afford the carriers alternative methods of removing the discrimination which was found to exist. See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 289 U. S. 627. And Milwaukee argues that the Commission was without power to direct it to cease from granting the undue preference found to exist between its single-line rate and the higher joint-line rates, since it had no control over the latter.
This is not a case like Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. United States, supra, where the Commission issues a so-called alternative order directing the carriers to remove an unjust discrimination or undue preference which has been found. That kind of order leaves a choice to the carriers whether to eliminate the unlawful practice by raising one rate, lowering the other, or altering both. But as we recently held in New York v. United States, supra, at 342, that rule is not applicable where the Commission itself undertakes to correct the unlawful practice by prescribing the just and reasonable rate. The Commission has taken that action here. As we noted above, the present proceeding was one under § 15 (1) and § 15 (7). Section 15 (1) gives the Commission power to determine and prescribe the just and reasonable rate once it finds, inter alia, that any rate charged is unjustly discriminating or unduly preferential or prejudicial. The Commission in the present case has exercised that power. It has prescribed approved rates. They are rates which in the Commission’s judgment will eliminate the unjust discrimination and undue preference found to exist in this rate structure. - Hence the question whether Milwaukee effectively controlled the higher joint-line rates is irrelevant here. New York v. United States, supra.
Finally it is suggested that the order is invalid because the Commission did not find that the preferential rates were noncompensatory. But once a forbidden discrim-' ination or preference in rates is found, the Commission may remove it even though the rates are within the zone of reasonableness. New York v. United States, supra, at 344.
Affirmed.
A prior decree sustaining this order of the Commission was reversed by the Court because one member of the three-judge District Court had not participated in the decision. Ayrshire Corp. v. United States, 331 U. S. 132.
Another characteristic of coal rate structures has been the rate differentials. For example, Brazil is the base group in Indiana on coal traffic to the Illinois and Wisconsin destinations involved in this litigation. Hence the rates, expressed in cents per ton, from the other Indiana groups are stated in terms of differences from the Brazil group rate.
See Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 512, 520; Waukesha Lime & Stone Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 515, 518; Wisconsin & Arkansas Lbr. Co. v. Si. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 33 I. C. C. 33, 37-38; Public Utilities Commission v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 33 I. C. C. 103, 106; Southwestern Interstate Coal Operators’ Assn. v. Arkansas W. R. Co., 89 I. C. C. 73, 84-85. And see New York Harbor Case, 47 I. C. C. 643, 712; Illinois Commerce Commission v. United States, 292 U. S. 474, 486.
See Intrastate Rates on Bituminous Coal in Illinois, 182 I. C. C. 537, 549-550.
The history of this rate problem is briefly summarized by the Commission in its report on the present case. 263 I. C. C. 179. For earlier aspects of it see Intrastate Rates on Bituminous Coal in Illinois, 182 I. C. C. 537; Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Alton & S. R., 195 I. C. C. 365, 251 I. C. C. 181; Illinois Coal Traffic Bureau v. Ahnapee & W. R. Co., 204 I. C. C. 225; Coal to Illinois and Wisconsin, 232 I. C. C. 151. And see Coal from Indiana to Illinois, 197 I. C. C. 245, 200 I. C. C. 609, the order in which, as we discuss hereafter in the opinion, was held invalid by United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499.
The order entered by the Commission in the proceeding to determine whether the intrastate rates were unjustly discriminatory against interstate commerce is not under attack here. It required the carriers to desist from practices which the Commission found to be discriminatory and to establish and maintain, for the intrastate transportation of coal, rates no lower than the approved rates.
“Whenever there shall be filed with the commission any schedule stating a new individual or joint rate, fare, or charge, or any new individual or joint classification, or any new individual or joint regulation or practice affecting any rate, fare, or charge, the commission shall have, and it is hereby given, authority, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, at once, and if it so orders without answer or other formal pleading by the interested carrier or carriers, but upon reasonable notice, to enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice; and pending such hearing and the decision thereon the commission, upon filing with such schedule and delivering to the carrier or carriers affected thereby a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension, may from time to time suspend the operation of such schedule and defer the use of such rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice, but not for a longer period than seven months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect; and after full hearing, whether completed before or after the rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice goes into effect, the commission may make such order with reference thereto as would be proper in a proceeding initiated after it had become effective.”
“That whenever, after full hearing, upon a complaint made as provided in section 13 of this part, or after full hearing under an order for investigation and hearing made by the Commission on its own initiative, either in extension of any pending complaint or without any complaint whatever, the Commission shall be of opinion that any individual or joint rate, fare, or charge whatsoever demanded, charged, or collected by any common carrier or carriers subject to this part for the transportation of persons or property as defined in the first section of this part, or that any individual or joint classification, regulation, or practice whatsoever of such carrier or carriers subject to the provisions of this part, is or will be unjust or unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory or unduly preferential or prejudicial, or otherwise in violation of any of the provisions of this part, the Commission is hereby authorized and empowered to determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable individual or joint rate, fare, or charge, or rates, fares, or charges, to be thereafter observed in such case, or the maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, to be charged, and what individual or joint classification, regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair, and reasonable, to be thereafter followed, and to make an order that the carrier or carriers shall cease and desist from such violation to the extent to which the Commission finds that the same does or will exist, and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any rate, fare, or charge for such transportation other than the rate, fare, or charge so prescribed, or in excess of the maximum or less than the minimum so prescribed, as the case may be, and shall adopt the classification and shall conform to and observe the regulation or practice so prescribed.”
See Advances in Rates — Western Case, 20 I. C. C. 307, 314; Lignite Coal from N. Dakota, 1261. C. C. 243, 244.
“That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this part shall, directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this part, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful.”
See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 280; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 166; Barringer & Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 1, 6.
See note 3, supra.
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this part to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, association, locality, port, port district, gateway, transit point, region, district, territory, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever; or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, association, locality, port, port district, gateway, transit point, region, district, territory, or any particular description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever....”
“The Milwaukee and the Illinois Central join in rates from the Princeton and Boonville groups to these northern Illinois destinations which reflect differences between those groups on the one hand, and the Brazil and Linton points served by those two respondents on the other, that are substantially greater than the so-called standard differentials and greater than are warranted by the respective differences in distance.”
The Commission in determining maximum reasonable rates from the Fulton-Peoria group to Iowa destinations developed the so-called Midland scale. See Midland Electric Coal Corp. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 232 I. C. C. 5. It used the so-called Indiana-Illinois scale for the same purpose in connection with certain Indiana groups to eastern-central Illinois destinations. See Coal Trade Assn. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 190 I. C. C. 743. In the present case the Commission made certain adjustments in those scales, see 263 I. C. C. at 186, and used them in the comparison of the approved Indiana rates with the approved Illinois rates. Those combined rates for Indiana to twelve northern Illinois destinations average 86.1 per cent of the Indiana-Illinois scale and 70.7 per cent of the Midland scale, while the combined rates for the Illinois groups to those destinations averaged 85.4 per cent and 70.3 per cent of those scales.
The Commission approved rates of $2.22 from Brazil to Beloit, Wisconsin, $2.32 from Linton, and $2.39 from Princeton-Boonville, rates which the Commission found compared favorably with the present rates from the Illinois groups to Beloit. Taken as a whole, the approved rates from Indiana to Beloit averaged 94.3 per cent of the Indiana-Illinois scale and 77.1 per cent of the Midland scale, while the combined present rates from the Illinois groups to Beloit average 92.9 per cent and 76.6 per cent of the respective scales.
The Commission made this additional observation concerning the weight it gave to distance, 263 I. C. C. at 204,
“And in according such weight to distance as seemed to us to be fair and reasonable, we have also kept in mind that the average distances of record, and as used in this report, especially from Illinois mines, frequently reflect seeming inconsistencies from the same group to destinations in close proximity to each other. For example, Am-boy is located south of and about 12 miles over the Illinois Central and across country less distant from the Illinois groups than Dixon, but the average shortest tariff-route distance from the Springfield group is 9 miles greater and from the southern Illinois group 1 mile greater to the former than to the latter. By use of the short tariff routes the distance to Amboy is 9 miles greater from Springfield and 7 miles greater from southern Illinois than to Dixon. These variations in distance are due to the different routes used and also to the fact that frequently the group rate applies from a larger number of origins to one destination than to another. Thus, to Dixon the Springfield rate is published from 61 origins on 15 originating railroads, but to Amboy the rate applies from only 23 origins on 8 railroads. So also, the southern Illinois rate'applies from 75 origins on 7 roads to Dixon and 65 origins on 5 roads to Amboy. The variations in distance thus brought about are much greater from Illinois groups than from Indiana groups. It is plain, therefore, that comparisons based on distance, especially as between Indiana and Illinois groups to particular destinations, cannot be accepted as controlling, but must be evaluated with the above facts in mind.”
The consumer interest traditionally has been prominent in the Commission’s consideration of the type of problem presented here. See Andy’s Ridge Coal Co. v. Southern R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 405, 410; Waukesha Lime
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellee Dianne Rawlinson sought employment with the Alabama Board of Corrections as a prison guard, called in Alabama a "correctional counselor.” After her application was rejected, she brought this class suit under Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), and under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that she had been denied employment because of her sex in violation of federal law. A three-judge Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama decided in her favor. Mieth v. Dothard, 418 F. Supp. 1169. We noted probable jurisdiction of this appeal from the District Court’s judgment. 429 U. S. 976.
I
At the time she applied for a position as correctional counselor trainee, Rawlinson was a 22-year-old college graduate whose major course of study had been correctional psychology. She was refused employment because she failed to meet the minimum 120-pound weight requirement established by an Alabama statute. The statute also establishes a height minimum of 5 feet 2 inches.
After her application was rejected because of her weight, Rawlinson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and ultimately received a right-to-sue letter. She then filed a complaint in the District Court on behalf of herself and other similarly situated women, challenging the statutory height and weight minima as violative of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge court was convened. While the suit was pending, the Alabama Board of Corrections adopted Administrative Regulation 204, establishing gender criteria for assigning correctional counselors to maximum-security institutions for “contact positions,” that is, positions requiring continual close physical proximity to inmates of the institution. Rawlinson amended her class-action complaint by adding a challenge to Regulation 204 as also violative of Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Like most correctional facilities in the United States, Alabama’s prisons are segregated on the basis of sex. Currently the Alabama Board of Corrections operates four major all-male penitentiaries — Holman Prison, Kilby Corrections Facility, G. K. Fountain Correction Center, and Draper Correctional Center. The Board also operates the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Frank Lee Youth Center, the Number Four Honor Camp, the State Cattle Ranch, and nine Work Release Centers, one of which is for women. The Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women and the four male penitentiaries are maximum-security institutions. Their inmate living quarters are for the most part large dormitories, with communal showers and toilets that are open to the dormitories and hallways. The Draper and Fountain penitentiaries carry on extensive farming operations, making necessary a large number of strip searches for contraband when prisoners re-enter the prison buildings.
A correctional counselor’s primary duty within these institutions is to maintain security and control of the inmates by continually supervising and observing their activities. To be eligible for consideration as a correctional counselor, an applicant must possess a valid Alabama driver’s license, have a high school education or its equivalent, be free from physical defects, be between the ages of 20% years and 45 years at the time of appointment, and fall between the minimum height and weight requirements of 5 feet 2 inches, and 120 pounds, and the maximum of 6 feet 10 inches, and 300 pounds. Appointment is by merit, with a grade assigned each applicant based on experience and education. No written examination is given.
At the time this litigation was in the District Court, the Board of Corrections employed a total of 435 people in various correctional counselor positions, 56 of whom were women. Of those 56 women, 21 were employed at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, 13 were employed in noncontact positions at the four male maximum-security institutions, and the remaining 22 were employed at the other institutions operated by the Alabama Board of Corrections. Because most of Alabama’s prisoners are held at the four maximum-security male penitentiaries, 336 of the 435 correctional counselor jobs were in those institutions, a majority of them concededly in the “contact” classification. Thus, even though meeting the statutory height and weight requirements, women applicants could under Regulation 204 compete equally with men for only about 25% of the correctional counselor jobs available in the Alabama prison system.
II
In enacting Title VII, Congress required “the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 431. The District Court found that the minimum statutory height and weight requirements that applicants for employment as correctional counselors must meet constitute the sort of arbitrary barrier to equal employment opportunity that Title VII forbids. The appellants assert that the District Court erred both in finding that the height and weight standards discriminate against women, and in its refusal to find that, even if they do, these standards are justified as “job related.”
A
The gist of the claim that the statutory height and weight requirements discriminate against women does not involve an assertion of purposeful discriminatory motive. It is asserted, rather, that these facially neutral qualification standards work in fact disproportionately to exclude women from eligibility for employment by the Alabama Board of Corrections. We dealt in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, with similar allegations that facially neutral employment standards disproportionately excluded Negroes from employment, and those cases guide our approach here.
Those cases make clear that to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff need only show that the facially neutral standards in question select applicants for hire in a significantly discriminatory pattern. Once it is thus shown that the employment standards are discriminatory in effect, the employer must meet “the burden of showing that any given requirement [has] ... a manifest relationship to the employment in question.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, at 432. If the employer proves that the challenged requirements are job related, the plaintiff may then show that other selection devices without a similar discriminatory effect would also “serve the employer’s legitimate interest in ‘efficient and trustworthy workmanship.’ ” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, supra, at 425, quoting McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 801.
Although women 14 years of age or older compose 52.75% of the Alabama population and 36.89% of its total labor force, they hold only 12.9% of its correctional counselor positions. In considering the effect of the minimum height and weight standards on this disparity in rate of hiring between the sexes, the District Court found that the 5'2"-requirement would operate to exclude 33.29% of the women in the United States between the ages of 18-79, while excluding only 1.28% of men between the same ages. The 120-pound weight restriction would exclude 22.29% of the women and 2.35% of the men in this age group. When the height and weight restrictions are combined, Alabama’s statutory standards would exclude 41.13% of the female population while excluding less than 1% of the male population. Accordingly, the District Court found that Rawlinson had made out a prima facie case of unlawful sex discrimination.
The appellants argue that a showing of disproportionate impact on women based on generalized national statistics should not suffice to establish a prima facie case. They point in particular to Rawlinson’s failure to adduce comparative statistics concerning actual applicants for correctional counselor positions in Alabama. There is no requirement, however, that a statistical showing of disproportionate impact must always be based on analysis of the characteristics of actual applicants. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, at 430. The application process itself might not adequately reflect the actual potential applicant pool, since otherwise qualified people might be discouraged from applying because of a self-recognized inability to meet the very standards challenged as being discriminatory. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 365-367. A potential applicant could easily determine her height and weight and conclude that to make an application would be futile. Moreover, reliance on general population demographic data was not misplaced where there was no reason to suppose that physical height and weight characteristics of Alabama men and women differ markedly from those of the national population.
For these reasons, we cannot say that the District Court was wrong in holding that the statutory height and weight standards had a discriminatory impact on women applicants. The plaintiffs in a case such as this are not required to exhaust every possible source of evidence, if the evidence actually presented on its face conspicuously demonstrates a job requirement’s grossly discriminatory impact. If the employer discerns fallacies or deficiencies in the data offered by the plaintiff, he is free to adduce countervailing evidence of his own. In this case no such effort was made.
B
We turn, therefore, to the appellants’ argument that they have rebutted the prima facie case of discrimination by showing that the height and weight requirements are job related. These requirements, they say, have a relationship to strength, a sufficient but unspecified amount of which is essential to effective job performance as a correctional counselor. In the District Court, however, the appellants produced no evidence correlating the height and weight requirements with the requisite amount of strength thought essential to good job performance. Indeed, they failed to offer evidence of any kind in specific justification of the statutory standards.
If the job-related quality that the appellants identify is bona fide, their purpose could be achieved by adopting and validating a test for applicants that measures strength directly. Such a test, fairly administered, would fully satisfy the standards of Title VII because it would be one that “measure [s] the person for the job and not the person in the abstract.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S., at 436. But nothing in the present record even approaches such a measurement.
For the reasons we have discussed, the District Court was not in error in holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits application of the statutory height and weight requirements to Rawlinson and the class she represents.
Ill
Unlike the statutory height and weight requirements, Regulation 204 explicitly discriminates against women on the basis of their sex. In defense of this overt discrimination, the appellants rely on § 703 (e) of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(e), which permits sex-based discrimination “in those certain instances where . . . sex ... is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.”
The District Court rejected the bona-fide-occupational-qualification (bfoq) defense, relying on the virtually uniform view of the federal courts that § 703 (e) provides only the narrowest of exceptions to the general rule requiring equality of employment opportunities. This view has been variously formulated. In Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, 442 F. 2d 385, 388, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that “discrimination based on sex is valid only when the essence of the business operation would be undermined by not hiring members of one sex exclusively.” (Emphasis in original.) In an earlier case, Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 408 F. 2d 228, 235, the same court said that an employer could rely on the bfoq exception only by proving “that he had reasonable cause to believe, that is, a factual basis for believing, that all or substantially all women would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved.” See also Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542. But whatever the verbal formulation, the federal courts have agreed that it is impermissible under Title VII to refuse to hire an individual woman or man on the basis of stereotyped characterizations of the sexes, and the District Court in the present case held in effect that Regulation 204 is based on just such stereotypical assumptions.
We are persuaded — by the restrictive language of § 703 (e), the relevant legislative history, and the consistent interpretation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — that the bfoq exception was in fact meant to be an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex. In the particular factual circumstances of this case, however, ,we conclude that the District Court erred in rejecting the State’s contention that Regulation 204 falls within the narrow ambit of the bfoq exception.
The environment in Alabama’s penitentiaries is a peculiarly inhospitable one for human beings of whatever sex. Indeed, a Federal District Court has held that the conditions of confinement in the prisons of the State, characterized by “rampant violence” and a “jungle atmosphere,” are constitutionally intolerable. Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318, 325 (MD Ala.). The record in the present case shows that because of inadequate staff and facilities, no attempt is made in the four maximum-security male penitentiaries to classify or segregate" inmates according to their offense or level of dangerousness — a procedure that, according to expert testimony, is essential to effective penological administration. Consequently, the estimated 20% of the male prisoners who are sex offenders are scattered throughout the penitentiaries' dormitory facilities.
In this environment of violence and disorganization, it would be an oversimplification to characterize Regulation 204 as an exercise in “romantic paternalism.” Cf. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 684. In the usual case, the argument that a particular job is too dangerous for women may appropriately be met by the rejoinder that it is the purpose of Title VII to allow the individual woman to make that choice for herself. More is at stake in this case, however, than an individual woman’s decision to weigh and accept the risks of employment in a “contact” position in a maximum-security male prison.
The essence of a correctional counselor’s job is to maintain prison security. A woman’s relative ability to maintain order in a male, maximum-security, unclassified penitentiary of the type Alabama now runs could be directly reduced by her womanhood. There is a basis in fact for expecting that sex offenders who have criminally assaulted women in the past would be moved to do so again if access to women were established within the prison. There would also be a real risk that other inmates, deprived of a normal heterosexual environment, would assault women guards because they were women. In a prison system where violence is the order of the day, where inmate access to guards is facilitated by dormitory living arrangements, where every institution is understaffed, and where a substantial portion of the inmate population is composed of sex offenders mixed at random with other prisoners, there are few visible deterrents to inmate assaults on women custodians.
Appellee Rawlinson’s own expert testified that dormitory housing for aggressive inmates poses a greater security problem than single-cell lockups, and further testified that it would be unwise to use women as guards in a prison where even 10% of the inmates had been convicted of sex crimes and were not segregated from the other prisoners. The likelihood that inmates would assault a woman because she was a woman would pose a real threat not only to the victim of the assault but also to the basic control of the penitentiary and protection of its inmates and the other security personnel. The employee’s very womanhood would thus directly undermine her capacity to provide the security that is the essence of a correctional counselor’s responsibility.
There was substantial testimony from experts on both sides of this litigation that the use of women as guards in "contact” positions under the existing conditions in Alabama maximum-security male penitentiaries would pose a substantial security problem, directly linked to the sex of the prison guard. On the basis of that evidence, we conclude that the District Court was in error in ruling that being male is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the job of correctional counselor in a “contact” position in an Alabama male maximum-security penitentiary.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The appellants sought to raise for the first time in their brief on the merits the claim that Congress acted unconstitutionally in extending Title VII’s coverage to state governments. See the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103, effective date, Mar. 24, 1972, 42 U. S. C. §§2000e (a), (b), (f), (h) (1970 ed., Supp. V). Not having been raised in the District Court, that issue is not before us. See Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 147 n. 2; Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 129.
The statute establishes minimum physical standards for all law enforcement officers. In pertinent part, it provides:
“(d) Physical qualifications.- — The applicant shall be not less than five feet two inches nor more than six feet ten inches in height, shall weigh not less than 120 pounds nor more than 300 pounds and shall be certified by a licensed physician designated as satisfactory by the appointing authority as in good health and physically fit for the performance of his duties as a law-enforcement officer. The commission may for good cause shown permit variances from the physical qualifications prescribed in this subdivision.” Ala. Code, Tit. 55, §373 (109) (Supp. 1973).
See 42 U. S. C. § 2000^5 (f) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
A second plaintiff named in the complaint was Brenda Mieth, who, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, challenged the 5'9" height and 160-pound weight requirements for the position of Alabama state trooper as violative of the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court upheld her challenge, and the defendants did not appeal from that aspect of the District Court’s judgment.
Although a single-judge District Court could have considered Rawlin-son’s Title YII claims, her coplaintiff’s suit rested entirely on the Constitution. See n. 4, supra. Given the similarity of the underlying issues in the two cases, it was not inappropriate to convene a three-judge court to deal with the constitutional and statutory issues presented in the complaint. When a properly convened three-judge court enjoins the operation of a state law on federal statutory grounds, an appeal to this Court from that judgment lies under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. See Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 382 U. S. 423; Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U. S. 707.
Administrative Regulation 204 provides in pertinent part as follows: “I. GENERAL
“l.The purpose of this regulation is to establish policy and procedure for identifying and designating institutional Correctional Counselor I positions which require selective certification for appointment of either male or female employees from State Personnel Department registers.
"II. POLICY
“4. All Correctional Counselor I positions will be evaluated to identify and designate those which require selective certification for appointment of either a male or female employee. Such positions must fall within a bona fide occupational qualification stated in Title 4[2]-2000c of the United States Code ....
“5. Selective certification from the Correctional Counselor Trainee register will be requested of the State Personnel Department whenever a position is being filled which has been designated for either a male or female employee only.
“HI. PROCEDURE
“8. Institutional Wardens and Directors will identify each institutional Correctional Counselor I position which they feel requires selective certification and will request that it be so designated in writing to the Associate Commissioner for Administration for his review, evaluation, and submission to the Commissioner for final decision.
“9. The request will contain the exact duties and responsibilities of the position and will utilize and identify the following criteria to establish that selective certification is necessary;
“A. That the presence of the opposite sex would cause disruption of the orderly running and security of the institution.
“B. That the position would require contact with the inmates of the opposite sex without the presence of others.
“C. That the position would require patroling dormitories, restrooms, or showers while in use, frequently, during the day or night.
“D. That the position would require search of inmates of the opposite sex on a regular basis.
“E. That the position would require that the Correctional Counselor Trainee not be armed with a firearm.
“10. All institutional Correctional Counselor I positions which are not approved for selective certification will be filled from Correctional Counselor Trainee registers without regard to sex.”
Although Regulation 204 is not limited on its face to contact positions in maximum-security institutions, the District Court found that it did not “preclude . . . [women] from serving in contact positions in the all-male institutions other than the penitentiaries.” 418 F. Supp., at 1176. Appellants similarly defended the regulation as applying only to maximum-security facilities.
Note, The Sexual Segregation of American Prisons, 82 Yale L. J. 1229 (1973).
The official job description for a correctional counselor position emphasizes counseling as well as security duties; the District Court found: “ [Correctional counselors are persons who are commonly referred to as prison guards. Their duties primarily involve security rather than counseling.” 418 F. Supp. 1169, 1175.
At the time of the trial the Board of Corrections had not yet classified all of its correctional counselor positions in the maximum-security institutions according to the criteria established in Regulation 204; consequently evidence of the exact number of “male only” jobs within the prison system was not available.
Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2 (a) (1970 ed. and Supp. V), provides:
“(a) Employer practices. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
“(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 335-336, n. 15.
Affirmatively stated, approximately 99.76% of the men and 58.87% of the women meet both these physical qualifications. From the separate statistics on height and weight of males it would appear that after adding the two together and allowing for some overlap the result would be to exclude between 2.35% and 3.63% of males from meeting Alabama’s statutory height and weight minima. None of the parties has challenged the accuracy of the District Court’s computations on this score, however, and the discrepancy is in any event insignificant in fight of the gross disparity between the female and male exclusions. Even under revised computations the disparity would greatly exceed the 34% to 12% disparity that served to invalidate the high school diploma requirement in the Griggs case. 401 U. S., at 430.
The height and weight statute contains a waiver provision that the appellants urge saves it from attack under Title VII. See n. 2, supra. The District Court noted that a valid waiver provision might indeed have that effect, but found that applicants were not informed of the waiver provision, and that the Board of Corrections had never requested a waiver from the Alabama Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission. The court therefore correctly concluded that the waiver provision as administered failed to overcome the discriminatory effect of the statute’s basic provisions.
In what is perhaps a variation on their constitutional challenge to the validity of Title VII itself, see n. 1, supra, the appellants contend that the establishment of the minimum height and weight standards by statute requires that they be given greater deference than is typically given private employer-established job qualifications. The relevant legislative history of the 1972 amendments extending Title VII to the States as employers does not, however, support such a result. Instead, Congress expressly indicated the intent that the same Title VII principles be applied to governmental and private employers alike. See H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 17 (1971); S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 10 (1971). See also Schaeffer v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, 462 F. 2d 1002 (CA9). Thus for both private and public employers, “[t]he touchstone is business necessity,” Griggs, 401 U. S., at 431; a discriminatory employment practice must be shown to be necessary to safe and efficient job performance to survive a Title VII challenge.
Cf. EEOC Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR § 1607 (1976). See also Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 246-247; Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405; Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm’n, 395 F. Supp. 378 (ND Cal.).
By its terms Regulation 204 applies to contact positions in both male and female institutions. See n. 6, supra. The District Court found, however, that “Regulation 204 is the administrative means by which the [Board of Corrections’] policy of not hiring women as correctional counselors in contact positions in all-male penitentiaries has been implemented.” 418 F. Supp., at 1176. The Regulation excludes women from consideration for approximately 75% of the available correctional counselor jobs in the Alabama prison system.
See, e. g., Gillin v. Federal Paper Board Co., 479 F. 2d 97 (CA2); Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co., 477 F. 2d 1038 (CA3); Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., 444 F. 2d 1219 (CA9); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F. 2d 711 (CA7); Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 62 F. R. D. 98 (WD Ky.), modified on other grounds, 510 F. 2d 939 (CA6). See also Jones Metal Products Co. v. Walker, 29 Ohio St. 2d 173, 281 N. E. 2d 1; EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex, 29 CFR § 1604 (1976).
See Interpretative Memorandum of Senators Clark and Case, 110 Cong. Rec. 7213 (1964).
The EEOC issued guidelines on sex discrimination in 1965 reflecting its position that “the bona fide occupational qualification as to sex should be interpreted narrowly.” 29 CFR § 1604.2 (a). It has adhered to that principle consistently, and its construction of the statute can accordingly be given weight. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S., at 434; McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 279-280.
In the case of a state employer, the bfoq exception would have to be interpreted at the very least so as to conform to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties do not suggest, however, that the Equal Protection Clause requires more rigorous scrutiny of a State’s sexually discriminatory employment policy than does Title VII. There is thus no occasion to give independent consideration to the District Court’s ruling that Regulation 204 violates the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title VII.
See, e. g., Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 408 F. 2d 228, 232-236 (CA5); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., supra, at 717-718; Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., supra.
The record contains evidence of an attack on a female clerical worker in an Alabama prison, and of an incident involving a woman student who was taken hostage during a visit to one of the maximum-security institutions.
Alabama’s penitentiaries are evidently not typical. Appellee Rawlin-son’s two experts testified that in a normal, relatively stable maximum-security prison — characterized by control over the inmates, reasonable living conditions, and segregation of dangerous offenders — women guards could be used effectively and beneficially. Similarly, an amicus brief filed by the State of California attests to that State’s success in using women guards in all-male penitentiaries.
The record shows, by contrast, that Alabama’s minimum-security facilities, such as work-release centers, are recognized by their inmates as privileged confinement situations not to be lightly jeopardized by disobeying applicable rules of conduct. Inmates assigned to these institutions are thought to be the “cream of the crop” of 'the Alabama prison population.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The appellants in these two cases were all indicted in a New York state court on charges of criminal anarchy, in violation of §§ 160, 161, 163, and 580 (1) of the New York Penal Law. They later filed these actions in federal district court, alleging (1) that the anarchy statute was void for vagueness in violation of due process, and an abridgment of free speech, press, and assembly, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) that the anarchy statute had been pre-empted by federal law; and (3) that the New York laws under which the grand jury had been drawn violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because they disqualified from jury service any member of the community who did not own real or personal property of the value of at least $250, and because the laws furnished no definite standards for determining how jurors were to be selected. Appellants charged that trial of these indictments in state courts would harass them, and cause them to suffer irreparable damages, and they therefore prayed that the state courts should be enjoined from further proceedings. In the alternative, appellants asked the District Court to enter a declaratory judgment to the effect that the challenged state laws were unconstitutional and void on the same grounds. The three-judge court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284, held that the New York criminal anarchy law was constitutional as it had been construed by the New York courts and held that the complaints should therefore be dismissed. 288 F. Supp. 348 (SDNY 1968).
In No. 2, Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37, we today decided on facts very similar to the facts in these cases that a United States District Court could not issue an injunction to stay proceedings pending in a state criminal court at the time the federal suit was begun. This was because it did not appear from the record that the plaintiffs would suffer immediate irreparable injury in accord with the rule set out in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943), and many other cases. Since in the present case there is likewise no sufficient showing in the record that the plaintiffs have suffered or would suffer irreparable injury, our decision in the Younger case is dispositive of the prayers for injunctions here. The plaintiffs in the present cases also included in their complaints an alternative prayer for a declaratory judgment, but for the reasons indicated below, we hold that this alternative prayer does not require a different result, and that under the circumstances of these cases, the plaintiffs were not entitled to federal relief, declaratory or injunctive. Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the District Court, although not for the reasons given in that court’s opinion.
In our opinion in the Younger case, we set out in detail the historical and practical basis for the settled doctrine of equity that a federal court should not enjoin a state criminal prosecution begun prior to the institution of the federal suit except in very unusual situations, where necessary to prevent immediate irreparable injury. The question presented here is whether under ordinary circumstances the same considerations that require the withholding of injunctive relief will make declaratory relief equally inappropriate. The question is not, however, a novel one. It was presented and fully considered by this Court in Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 (1943). We find the reasoning of this Court in the Great Lakes case fully persuasive and think that its holding is controlling here.
In the Great Lakes case several employers had brought suit against a Louisiana state official, seeking a declaratory judgment that the State’s unemployment compensation law, which required the employers to make contributions to a state compensation fund, was unconstitutional. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the challenged law was constitutional. This Court affirmed the dismissal, “but solely on the ground that, in the appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion, relief by way of a declaratory judgment should have been denied without consideration of the merits.” Id., at 301-302. The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Mr. Chief Justice Stone, noted first that under long-settled principles of equity, the federal courts could not have enjoined the Louisiana official from collecting the state tax at issue there unless, as was not true in that case, there was no adequate remedy available in the courts of the State. This judicial doctrine had been approved by Congress in the then-recent Tax Injunction Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 738, now 28 U. S. C. § 1341. Although the declaratory judgment sought by the plaintiffs was a statutory remedy rather than a traditional form of equitable relief, the Court made clear that a suit for declaratory judgment was nevertheless “essentially an equitable cause of action,” and was “analogous to the equity jurisdiction in suits quia timet or for a decree quieting title.” 319 U. S., at 300. In addition, the legislative history of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 955, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, showed that Congress had explicitly contemplated that the courts would decide to grant or withhold declaratory relief on the basis of traditional equitable principles. Accordingly, the Court held that in an action for a declaratory judgment, “the district court was as free as in any other suit in equity to grant or withhold the relief prayed, upon equitable grounds.” 319 U. S., at 300. The Court’s application of these principles to the specific problem of declaratory judgments relating to the collection of state taxes is worth quoting in full, because it bears so directly on the problem before us in the present case:
“The earlier refusal of federal courts of equity to interfere with the collection of state taxes unless the threatened injury to the taxpayer is one for which the state courts afford no adequate remedy, and the confirmation of that practice by Congress, have an important bearing upon the appropriate use of the declaratory judgment procedure by the federal courts as a means of adjudicating the validity of state taxes.
“It is true that the Act of Congress speaks only of suits 'to enjoin, suspend, or restrain the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax’ imposed by state law, and that the declaratory judgment procedure may be, and in this case was, used only to procure a determination of the rights of the parties, without an injunction or other coercive relief. It is also true that that procedure may in every practical sense operate to suspend collection of the state taxes until the litigation is ended. But we find it unnecessary to inquire whether the words of the statute may be so construed as to prohibit a declaration by federal courts concerning the invalidity of a state tax. For we are of the opinion that those considerations which have led federal courts of equity to refuse to enjoin the collection of state taxes, save in exceptional cases, require a like restraint in the use of the declaratory judgment procedure.” 319 U. S., at 299.
The continuing validity of the Court’s holding in the Great Lakes case has been repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed by this Court. See, e. g., Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 327 U. S. 540, 545 n. 4 (1946); Ott v. Mississippi Barge Line, 336 U. S. 169, 175 (1949); Public Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237, 253 (1952) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Allegheny County v. Mashuda Co., 360 U. S. 185, 189 (1959); Enochs v. Williams Packing Co., 370 U. S. 1, 8 (1962). Although we have found no case in this Court dealing with the application of this doctrine to cases in which the relief sought affects state criminal prosecutions rather than state tax collections, we can perceive no relevant difference between the two situations with respect to the limited question whether, in cases where the criminal proceeding was begun prior to the federal civil suit, the propriety of declaratory and injunctive relief should be judged by essentially the same standards. In both situations deeply rooted and long-settled principles of equity have narrowly restricted the scope for federal intervention, and ordinarily a declaratory judgment will result in precisely the same interference with and disruption of state proceedings that the long-standing policy limiting injunctions was designed to avoid. This is true for at least two reasons. In the first place, the Declaratory Judgment Act provides that after a declaratory judgment is issued the district court may enforce it by granting “[fjurther necessary or proper relief,” 28 U. S. C. § 2202, and therefore a declaratory judgment issued while state proceedings are pending might serve as the basis for a subsequent injunction against those proceedings to “protect or effectuate” the declaratory judgment, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, and thus result in a clearly improper interference with the state proceedings. Secondly, even if the declaratory judgment is not used as a basis for actually issuing an injunction, the declaratory relief alone has virtually the same practical impact as a formal injunction would. As we said in the Wycoff case, 344 U. S., at 247:
“Is the declaration contemplated here to be res judicata, so that the [state court] cannot hear evidence and decide any matter for itself? If so, the federal court has virtually lifted the case out of the State [court] before it could be heard. If not, the federal judgment serves no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.”
See also H. J. Heinsz Co. v. Owens, 189 F. 2d 505, 508-509 (CA9 1951). We therefore hold that, in cases where the state criminal prosecution was begun prior to the federal suit, the same equitable principles relevant to the propriety of an injunction must be taken into consideration by federal district courts in determining whether to issue a declaratory judgment, and that where an injunction would be impermissible under these principles, declaratory relief should ordinarily be denied as well.
We do not mean to suggest that a declaratory judgment should never be issued in cases of this type if it has been concluded that injunctive relief would be improper. There may be unusual circumstances in which an injunction might be withheld because, despite a plaintiff’s strong claim for relief under the established standards, the injunctive remedy seemed particularly intrusive or offensive; in such a situation, a declaratory judgment might be appropriate and might not be contrary to the basic equitable doctrines governing the availability of relief. Ordinarily, however, the practical effect of the two forms of relief will be virtually identical, and the basic policy against federal interference with pending state criminal prosecutions will be frustrated as much by a declaratory judgment as it would be by an injunction.
For the reasons we have stated, we hold that the court below erred in proceeding to a consideration of the merits of the New York criminal anarchy law. Here, as in the Great Lakes case, the judgment dismissing the complaint was based on an adjudication that the statutes challenged here are constitutional and is thus in effect a declaratory judgment. We affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint, but solely on the ground that, in the appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion, relief by way of declaratory judgment should have been denied without consideration of the merits. We, of course, express no views on the propriety of declaratory relief when no state proceeding is pending at the time the federal suit is begun.
Affirmed.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, see ante, p. 54.]
These provisions were repealed effective September 1, 1967, and a new criminal anarchy statute, in somewhat different form, took effect on the same date.
The complaint in No. 7 was filed in the Southern District of New York. The complaint in No. 9 was originally filed in the Eastern District, but was later transferred to the Southern District by consent.
The court also said that even if its view on the merits was wrong, relief should be withheld because the statutes being challenged were no longer in effect. With respect to the plaintiffs’ challenge to the selection of the grand jury, the District Court held, in reliance on Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943), that this claim could be effectively presented to the New York courts and therefore did not call for federal intervention at this stage.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the testimony of a witness in respondent’s state court trial for rape must be excluded simply because police had learned the identity of the witness by questioning respondent at a time when he was in custody as a suspect, but had not been advised that counsel would be appointed for him if he was indigent. The questioning took place before this Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), but respondent’s trial, at which he was convicted, took place afterwards. Under the holding of Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966), therefore, Miranda is applicable to this case. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed respondent’s claim on a petition for habeas corpus and held that the testimony must be excluded. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
I
On the morning of April 19, 1966, a 43-year-old woman in Pontiac, Michigan, was found in her home by a friend and coworker, Luther White, in serious condition. At the time she was found the woman was tied, gagged, and partially disrobed, and had been both raped and severely beaten. She was unable to tell White anything about her assault at that time and still remains unable to recollect what happened.
While White was attempting to get medical help for the victim and to call for the police, he observed a dog inside the house. This apparently attracted White’s attention for he knew that the woman did not own 'a dog herself. Later, when talking with police officers, White observed the dog a second time, and police followed the dog to respondent’s house. Neighbors further connected the dog with respondent.
The police then arrested respondent and brought him to the police station for questioning. Prior to the actual interrogation the police asked respondent whether he knew for what crime he had been arrested, whether he wanted an attorney, and whether he understood his constitutional rights. Respondent replied that he did understand the crime for which he was arrested, that he did not want an attorney, and that he understood his rights. The police further advised him that any statements he might make could be used against him at a later date in court. The police, however, did not advise respondent that he would be furnished counsel free of charge if he could not pay for such services himself.
The police then questioned respondent about his activities on the night of the rape and assault. Respondent replied that during the general time period at issue he had first been with one Robert Henderson and then later at home, alone, asleep. The police sought to confirm this story by contacting Henderson, but Henderson’s story served to discredit rather than to bolster respondent’s account. Henderson acknowledged that respondent had been with him on the night of the crime but said that he had left at a relatively early time. Furthermore, Henderson told police that he saw respondent the following day and asked him at that time about scratches on his face — “asked him if he got hold of a wild one or something.” Respondent answered: “[S]omething like that.” Then, Henderson said, he asked respondent “who it was,” and respondent said: “[S]ome woman lived the next block over,” adding: “She is a widow woman” or words to that effect.
These events all occurred prior to the date on which this Court handed down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, but respondent’s trial occurred after-wards. Prior to trial respondent’s appointed counsel made a motion to exclude Henderson’s expected testimony because respondent had revealed Henderson’s identity without having received full Miranda warnings. Although respondent’s own statements taken during interrogation were excluded, the trial judge denied the motion to exclude Henderson’s testimony. Henderson therefore testified at trial, and respondent was convicted of rape and sentenced to 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.
Respondent then sought habeas corpus relief in Federal District Court. That court, noting that respondent had not received the full Miranda warnings and that the police had stipulated Henderson’s identity was learned only through respondent’s answers, “reluctantly” concluded that Henderson’s testimony could not be admitted. Application of such an exclusionary rule was necessary, the court reasoned, to protect respondent’s Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination. The court therefore granted respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless petitioner retried respondent within 90 days. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari, 414 U. S. 1062 (1973), and now reverse.
II
Although respondent’s sole complaint is that the police failed to advise him that he would be given free counsel if unable to afford counsel himself, he did not, and does not now, base his arguments for relief on a right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Nor was the right to counsel, as such, considered to be persuasive by either federal court below. We do not have a situation such as that presented in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), where the policemen interrogating the suspect had refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer who was then present at the police station. As we have noted previously, Escobedo is not to be broadly extended beyond the facts of that particular case. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S., at 733-734; Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682, 689 (1972); Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 739 (1969). This case also falls outside the rationale of United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 224 (1967), where the Court held that counsel was needed at a post-indictment lineup in order to protect the “right to a fair trial at which the witnesses against [the defendant] might be meaningfully cross-examined.” Henderson was fully available for searching cross-examination at respondent’s trial.
Respondent’s argument, and the opinions of the District Court and Court of Appeals, instead rely upon the Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination and the safeguards designed in Miranda to secure that right. In brief, the position urged upon this Court is that proper regard for the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination requires, with limited exceptions not applicable here, that all evidence derived solely from statements made without full Miranda warnings be excluded at a subsequent criminal trial. For purposes of analysis in this case we believe that the question thus presented is best examined in two separate parts. We will therefore first consider whether the police conduct complained of directly infringed upon respondent’s right against compulsory self-incrimination or whether it instead violated only the prophylactic rules developed to protect that right. We will then consider whether the evidence derived from this interrogation must be excluded.
Ill
The history of the Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination, and the evils against which it was directed, have received considerable attention in the opinions of this Court. See, e. g., Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972); Miranda v. Arizona, supra; Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964); Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 426 (1956); Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892). At this point in our history virtually every schoolboy is familiar with the concept, if not the language, of the provision that reads: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . ...” This Court’s decisions have referred to the right as “the mainstay of our adversary system of criminal justice,” Johnson v. New Jersey, supra, at 729, and as “ ‘one of the great landmarks in man’s struggle to make himself civilized.’ ” Ullmann, supra, at 426. It is not surprising that the constitution of virtually every State has a comparable provision. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2252 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (hereinafter Wigmore).
The importance of a right does not, by itself, determine its scope, and therefore we must continue to hark back to the historical origins of the privilege, particularly the evils at which it was to strike. The privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was developed by painful opposition to a course of ecclesiastical inquisitions and Star Chamber proceedings occurring several centuries ago. See L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment (1968); Morgan, The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 34 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (1949); 8 Wigmore §2250. Certainly anyone who reads accounts of those investigations, which placed a premium on compelling subjects of the investigation to admit guilt from their own lips, cannot help but be sensitive to the Framers’ desire to protect citizens against such compulsion. As this Court has noted, the privilege against self-incrimination “was aimed at a . . . far-reaching evil — a recurrence of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, even if not in their stark brutality.” Ullmann, supra, at 428.
Where there has been genuine compulsion of testimony, the right has been given broad scope. Although the constitutional language in which the privilege is cast might be construed to apply only to situations in which the prosecution seeks to call a defendant to testify against himself at his criminal trial, its application has not been so limited. The right has been held applicable to proceedings before a grand jury, Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra; to civil proceedings, McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34 (1924); to congressional investigations, Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178 (1957); to juvenile proceedings, In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967); and to other statutory inquiries, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964). The privilege has also been applied against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ibid.
The natural concern which underlies many of these decisions is that an inability to protect the right at one stage of a proceeding may make its invocation useless at a later stage. For example, a defendant’s right not to be compelled to testify against himself at his own trial might be practically nullified if the prosecution could previously have required him to give evidence against himself before a grand jury. Testimony obtained in civil suits, or before administrative or legislative committees, could also prove so incriminating that a person compelled to give such testimony might readily be convicted on the basis of those disclosures in a subsequent criminal proceeding.
In more recent years this concern — that compelled disclosures might be used against a person at a later criminal trial — -has been extended to cases involving police interrogation. Before Miranda the principal issue in these cases was not whether a defendant had waived his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination but simply whether his statement was “voluntary.” In state cases the Court applied the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, examining the circumstances of interrogation to determine whether the processes were so unfair or unreasonable as to render a subsequent confession involuntary. See, e. g., Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940); White v. Texas, 310 U. S. 530 (1940); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560 (1958); Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503 (1963). See also 3 J. Wigmore, Evidence §815 et seq. (Chadbourne rev. 1970). Where the State’s actions offended the standards of fundamental fairness under the Due Process Clause, the State was then deprived of the right to use the resulting confessions in court.
Although federal cases concerning voluntary confessions often contained references to the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, references which were strongly criticized by some commentators, see 8 Wig-more § 2266, it was not until this Court’s decision in Miranda that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was seen as the principal protection for a person facing police interrogation. This privilege had been made applicable to the States in Malloy v. Hogan, supra, and was thought to offer a more comprehensive and less subjective protection than the doctrine of previous cases. In Miranda the Court examined the facts of four separate- cases and stated:
“In these cases, we might not find the defendants’ statements to have been involuntary in traditional terms. Our concern for adequate safeguards to protect precious Fifth Amendment rights is, of course, not lessened in the slightest. ... To be sure, the records do not evince overt physical coercion or patent psychological ploys. The fact remains that in none of these cases did the officers undertake to afford appropriate safeguards at the outset of the interrogation to insure that the statements were truly the product of free choice.” 384 U. S., at 457.
Thus the Court in Miranda, for the first time, expressly declared that the Self-Incrimination Clause was applicable to state interrogations at a police station, and that a defendant’s statements might be excluded at trial despite their voluntary character under traditional principles.
To supplement this new doctrine, and to help police officers conduct interrogations without facing a continued risk that valuable evidence would be lost, the Court in Miranda established a set of specific protective guidelines, now commonly known as the Miranda rules. The Court declared that “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” Id., at 444. A series of recommended “procedural safeguards” then followed. The Court in particular stated:
“Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Ibid.
The Court said that the defendant, of course, could waive these rights, but that any waiver must have been made “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Ibid.
The Court recognized that these procedural safeguards were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected. As the Court remarked:
“[W]e cannot say that the Constitution necessarily requires adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process as it is presently conducted.” Id., at 467.
The suggested safeguards were not intended to “create a constitutional straitjacket,” ibid., but rather to provide practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination.
A comparison of the facts in this case with the historical circumstances underlying the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination strongly indicates that the police conduct here did not deprive respondent of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination as such, but rather failed to make available to him the full measure of procedural safeguards associated with that right since Miranda. Certainly no one could contend that the interrogation faced by respondent bore any resemblance to the historical practices at which the right against compulsory self-incrimination was aimed. The District Court in this case noted that the police had “warned [respondent] that he had the right to remain silent,” 352 F. Supp. 266, 267 (1972), and the record in this case clearly shows that respondent was informed that any evidence taken could be used against him. The record is also clear that respondent was asked whether he wanted an attorney and that he replied that he did not. Thus, his statements could hardly be termed involuntary as that term has been defined in the decisions of this Court. Additionally, there were no legal sanctions, such as the threat of contempt, which could have been applied to respondent had he chosen to remain silent. He was simply not exposed to “the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.” Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S., at 55.
Our determination that the interrogation in this case involved no compulsion sufficient to breach the right against compulsory self-incrimination does not mean there was not a disregard, albeit an inadvertent disregard, of the procedural rules later established in Miranda. The question for decision is how sweeping the judicially imposed consequences of this disregard shall be. This Court said in Miranda that statements taken in violation of the Miranda principles must not be used to prove the prosecution’s case at trial. That requirement was fully complied with by the state court here: respondent’s statements, claiming that he was with Henderson and then asleep during the time period of the crime were not admitted against him at trial. This Court has also said, in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), that the “fruits” of police conduct which actually infringed a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights must be suppressed. But we have already concluded that the police conduct at issue here did not abridge respondent’s constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, but departed only from the prophylactic standards later laid down by this Court in Miranda to safeguard that privilege. Thus, in deciding whether Henderson’s testimony must be excluded, there is no controlling precedent of this Court to guide us. We must therefore examine the matter as a question of principle.
IV
Just as the law does not require that a defendant receive a perfect trial, only a fair one, it cannot realistically require that policemen investigating serious crimes make no errors whatsoever. The pressures of law enforcement and the vagaries of human nature would make such an expectation unrealistic. Before we penalize police error, therefore, we must consider whether the sanction serves a valid and useful purpose.
We have recently said, in a search-and-seizure context, that the exclusionary rule’s “prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 347 (1974). We then continued:
“ 'The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.’ Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 217 (1960).” Ibid.
In a proper case this rationale would seem applicable to the Fifth Amendment context as well.
The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.
We consider it significant to our decision in this case that the officers’ failure to advise respondent of his right to appointed counsel occurred prior to the decision in Miranda. Although we have been urged to resolve the broad question of whether evidence derived from statements taken in violation of the Miranda rules must be excluded regardless of when the interrogation took place/ we instead place our holding on a narrower ground. For at the time respondent was questioned these police officers were guided, quite rightly, by the principles established in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), particularly focusing on the suspect’s opportunity to have retained counsel with him during the interrogation if he chose to do so. Thus, the police asked respondent if he wanted counsel, and he answered that he did not. The statements actually made by respondent to the police, as we have observed, were excluded at trial in accordance with Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966). Whatever deterrent effect on future police conduct the exclusion of those statements may have had, we do not believe it would be significantly augmented by excluding the testimony of the witness Henderson as well.
When involuntary statements or the right against compulsory self-incrimination are involved, a second justification for the exclusionary rule also has been asserted: protection of the courts from reliance on untrustworthy evidence. Cases which involve the Self-Incrimination Clause must, by definition, involve an element of coercion, since the Clause provides only that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. And cases involving statements often depict severe pressures which may override a particular suspect's insistence on innocence. Fact situations ranging from classical third-degree torture, Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936), to prolonged isolation from family or friends in a hostile setting, Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U. S. 49 (1962), or to a simple desire on the part of a physically or mentally exhausted suspect to have a seemingly endless interrogation end, Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49 (1949), all might be sufficient to cause a defendant to accuse himself falsely.
But those situations are a far cry from that presented here. The pressures on respondent to accuse himself were hardly comparable even with the least prejudicial of those pressures which have been dealt with in our cases. More important, the respondent did not accuse himself. The evidence which the prosecution successfully sought to introduce was not a confession of guilt by respondent, or indeed even an exculpatory statement by respondent, but rather the testimony of a third party who was subjected to no custodial pressures. There is plainly no reason to believe that Henderson’s testimony is untrustworthy simply because respondent was not advised of his right to appointed counsel. Henderson was both available at trial and subject to cross-examination by respondent’s counsel, and counsel fully used this opportunity, suggesting in the course of his cross-examination that Henderson’s character was less than exemplary and that he had been offered incentives by the police to testify against respondent. Thus the reliability of his testimony was subject to the normal testing process of an adversary trial.
Respondent contends that an additional reason for excluding Henderson’s testimony is the notion that the adversary system requires “the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load.” 8 Wig-more § 2251, p. 317; Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S., at 55; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 460. To the extent that this suggested basis for the exclusionary rule in Fifth Amendment cases may exist independently of the deterrence and trustworthiness rationales, we think it of no avail to respondent here. Subject to applicable constitutional limitations, the Government is not forbidden all resort to the defendant to make out its case. It may require the defendant to give physical evidence against himself, see Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1 (1973), and it may use statements which are voluntarily given by the defendant after he receives full disclosure of the rights offered by Miranda. Here we deal, not with the offer of respondent’s own statements in evidence, but only with the testimony of a witness whom the police discovered as a result of respondent’s statements. This recourse to respondent’s voluntary statements does no violence to such elements of the adversary system as may be embodied in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
In summary, we do not think that any single reason supporting exclusion of this witness’ testimony, or all of them together, are very persuasive. By contrast, we find the arguments in favor of admitting the testimony quite strong. For, when balancing the interests involved, we must weigh the strong interest under any system of justice of making available to the trier of fact all con-cededly relevant and trustworthy evidence which either party seeks to adduce. In this particular case we also “must consider society’s interest in the effective prosecution of criminals in light of the protection our pre-Miranda standards afford criminal defendants.” Jenkins v. Delaware, 395 U. S. 213, 221 (1969). These interests may be outweighed by the need to provide an effective sanction to a constitutional right, Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), but they must in any event be valued. Here respondent’s own statement, which might have helped the prosecution show respondent’s guilty conscience at trial, had already been excised from the prosecution’s case pursuant to this Court’s Johnson decision. To extend the excision further under the circumstances of this case and exclude relevant testimony of a third-party witness would require far more persuasive arguments than those advanced by respondent.
This Court has already recognized that a failure to give interrogated suspects full Miranda warnings does not entitle the suspect to insist that statements made by him be excluded in every conceivable context. In Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), the Court was faced with the question of whether the statements of the defendant himself, taken without informing him of his right of access to appointed counsel, could be used to impeach defendant’s direct testimony at trial. The Court concluded that they could, saying:
“Some comments in the Miranda opinion can indeed be read as indicating a bar to use of an uncounseled statement for any purpose, but discussion of that issue was not at all necessary to the Court’s holding and cannot be regarded as controlling. Miranda barred the prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made while in custody prior to having or effectively waiving counsel. It does not follow from Miranda that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecution’s case in chief is barred for all purposes, provided of course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards.” Id., at 224.
We believe that this reasoning is equally applicable here. Although Johnson enabled respondent to block admission of his own statements, we do not believe that it requires the prosecution to refrain from all use of those statements, and we disagree with the courts below that Henderson’s testimony should have been excluded in this case.
Reversed.
352 F. Supp. 266 (1972).
480 F. 2d 927 (1973).
Tr. of Prelim. Hearing 99.
Ibid.
Id,., at 99-100.
Tr. of Trial 223.
Ibid.
Id., at 224.
Ibid.
Ibid.
19 Mich. App. 320, 172 N. W. 2d 712 (1969).
385 Mich. 594, 189 N. W. 2d 290 (1971).
352 F. Supp., at 268.
The Court has also held that comment on a defendant’s silence or refusal to take the witness stand may be an impermissible penalty on exercise of the privilege. See Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965).
For example in Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 542 (1897), the Court stated:
“In criminal trials, in the courts of the United States, wherever a question arises whether a confession is incompetent because not voluntary, the issue is controlled by that portion of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, commanding that no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ ”
As noted in the text, the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not held applicable against the States until Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964).
Wigmore states his objection in the following terms:
“Today in the United States confessions, and probably even lesser self-incriminating admissions, are excluded despite their trustworthiness if coerced. The policies leading to this recent extension of the confession rule are quite similar to those underlying the privilege against self-incrimination. It is thus not surprising that the privilege, with its unclear boundaries and apparently unending capacity for transmogrification and assimilation, is now sometimes invoked to effect exclusion even though the disclosure was not compelled from a person under legal compulsion. Distortion of the privilege to cover such situations is not necessary. If trustworthy confessions are to be excluded because coerced, it should be done frankly as an exception to the principle . . . that the illegality of source of evidence is immaterial. It should be done, as it usually is, on the ground that the combination of coercion and use of the evidence in the particular case violates the relevant constitutional due process clause.” Id., at 402. (Citations omitted.)
See n. 5, supra.
See nn. 3 and 4, supra.
In Wong Sun the police discovered evidence through statements made by the accused after he had been placed under arrest. This Court, finding that the arrest had occurred without probable cause, held that the derivative evidence could not be introduced against the accused at trial. For the reasons stated in the text we do not believe that Wong Sun controls the case before us.
The opinion also relied upon Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 656 (1961); Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416 (1966); and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 29 (1968). See 414 U. S., at 348.
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 31 et seq.; Brief for Respondent 9 et seq.
As previously noted, the defendant in Escobedo had repeatedly asked to see his lawyer who was available at the police station. Those requests were denied, and the defendant ultimately confessed. Thus, in direct contrast to the situation here, the defendant in Escobedo was told he did not have a right to see his lawyer, although he had expressly stated his desire to do so.
The Court has made clear that the truth or falsity of a statement is not the determining factor in the decision whether or not to exclude it. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964). Thus a State which has obtained a coerced or involuntary statement cannot argue for its admissibility on the ground that other evidence demonstrates its truthfulness. Ibid. But it also seems clear that coerced statements have been regarded with some mistrust. The Court in Escobedo, for example, stated that “a system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the 'confession’ will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses” than a system relying on independent investigation, 378 U. S., at 488-489. The Court then cited several authorities concerned with false confessions. Id., at 489 n. 11. Although completely voluntary confessions may, in many cases, advance the cause of justice and rehabilitation, coerced confessions, by their nature, cannot serve the same ends.
Tr. of Trial 226-234.
It has been suggested that courts should exclude evidence derived from “lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens,” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 13, in recognition of “the imperative of judicial integrity.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222 (1960). This rationale, however, is really an assimilation of the more specific rationales discussed in the text of this opinion, and does not in their absence provide an independent basis for excluding challenged evidence.
Our Brother BreNNAN in his opinion concurring in the judgment treats the principal question here simply as a lineal descendant of the one decided in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965), to be analyzed only in terms of the retroactivity framework established in that and subsequent decisions. While his approach has a beguiling simplicity, we believe it marks a significant and unsettling departure from the past practice of the Court in this area. Our retroactivity cases, from Linkletter v. Walker, supra, to Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U. S. 665 (1973), all have in common a particular factual predicate: a previous constitutional decision of this Court governs the facts of an earlier decided case unless the constitutional decision is not to have retroactive effect. The doctrine of retroactivity does not modify the substantive scope of the constitutional decision but rather determines the point in time when it is held to apply.
That common factual predicate is absent here. No defendant in Miranda sought to block evidence of the type challenged in this case, and the holding of Miranda, even if made fully retroactive, would not therefore resolve the question of whether Henderson’s testimony must also be excluded at trial. Contrary, therefore, to the suggestion in our Brother’s opinion that the question here is whether to “limit the effect of Johnson v. New Jersey,” post, at 454 n. 1, Johnson has never been thought controlling on the question of fruits, for the simple reason that the parent Miranda case did not reach that issue.
Our Brother BreNNAN’s method of disposition is to determine in the present case the retroactivity of a holding which the Court has yet to make. He would say, in effect, that if the Court should later determine that Miranda requires exclusion of fruits such as the testimony of Henderson, nonetheless that determination shall not be applied retroactively. But this approach wholly subverts the heretofore established relationship between the parent case and the subsidiary case determining whether or not to apply the parent case retroactively. Under the framework of the analysis established in Linklebter, supra, and in subsequent cases, it would seem indispensable to understand the basis for a constitutional holding of the Court in order to later determine whether that holding should be retroactive. Yet ex hypothesi our Brother has no such analysis available, since the case has yet to be decided. Cases which subsequently determine the retroactivity of a constitutional holding have given the Court enough occasion for concern without substantially increasing the difficulty of that type of decision by making it before, rather than after, the constitutional holding.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner brutally murdered a woman near New Orleans, and then fled the State. He had been seen with his victim, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. In the course of his flight petitioner came to Tucson, Arizona, where he decided to surrender. He flagged down a police car and, after an interruption by the police to warn him that he need not speak, that his speech might be used against him, and that he had a right to contact an attorney, was taken to the station house where he poured out a confession. His confession was introduced in its entirety in the subsequent trial for murder in which petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death. Petitioner does not now contend that his confession was involuntary or that his admission of guilt to the Tucson police was inadmissible in evidence. He objects solely to the admission of those parts of his confession which he argues were both irrelevant and prejudicial in his trial for murder. A Louisiana statute requires that confessions must be admitted in their entirety, La. Rev. Stat. § 15:450, and petitioner contends that this is unconstitutional.
Although certiorari was granted to consider this question, the fact emerged in oral argument that the sole federal question argued here had never been raised, preserved, or passed upon in the state courts below. It was very early established that the Court will not decide federal constitutional issues raised here for the first time on review of state court decisions. In Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368 (1836), Justice Story reviewed the earlier cases commencing with Owings v. Norwood’s Lessee, 5 Cranch 344 (1809), and came to the conclusion that the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, § 25, 1 Stat. 85, vested this Court with no jurisdiction unless a federal question was raised and decided in the state court below. “If both of these do not appear on the record, the appellate jurisdiction fails.” 10 Pet. 368, 391. The Court has consistently refused to decide federal constitutional issues raised here for the first time on review of state court decisions both before the Crowell opinion, Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311, 315 (1819), and since, e. g., Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Assn., Inc., 360 U. S. 334, 342, n. 7 (1959); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U. S. 154, 160-163 (1945); McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434-435 (1940); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 362-363 (1927); Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 197-201 (1899); Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 (1875).
In addition to the question of jurisdiction arising under the statute controlling our power to review final judgments of state courts, 28 U. S. C. § 1257, there are sound reasons for this. Questions not raised below are those on which the record is very likely to be inadequate, since it certainly was not compiled with those questions in mind. And in a federal system it is important that state courts be given the first opportunity to consider the applicability of state statutes in light of constitutional challenge, since the statutes may be construed in a way which saves their constitutionality. Or the issue may be blocked by an adequate state ground. Even though States are not free to avoid constitutional issues on inadequate state grounds, O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 92 (1966), they should be given the first opportunity to consider them.
In view of the petitioner’s admitted failure to raise the issue he presents here in any way below, the failure of the state court to pass on this issue, the desirability of giving the State the first opportunity to apply its statute on an adequate record, and the fact that a federal habeas remedy may remain if no state procedure for raising the issue is available to petitioner, the writ is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Fortas concur in the dismissal of the writ, believing it to have been improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, who are executors of the estate of Albert F. Meyer, brought this suit to recover an alleged overpayment of federal estate taxes and the District Court granted the relief asked. 166 F. Supp. 629. The Court of Appeals reversed, 275 F. 2d 83, and we granted the executors’ petition for certiorari, 361 U. S. 929, because of a conflict of decisions in the circuits. Cf. In re Reilly’s Estate, 239 F. 2d 797, decided by the' Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Two policies of life insurance are involved, but since they are in all material respects identical, we need deal with only one of them. The policy obligated the insurer to pay a death benefit of $25,187.50, and that sum was included by the executors in the federal estate tax return and the tax thereon was paid. The decedent had selected an optional mode of settlement which provided for the payment of equal monthly installments to his wife for her life, with 240 installments guaranteed, and further provided that if the wife should die before receiving the 240 installments his daughter would receive the remainder of them, but if both the wife and the daughter died before receiving the 240 installments the commuted value of those unpaid was to be paid in one sum to the estate of the last one of them to die.
Of the total proceeds of the policy of $25,187.50, the insurer determined that $17,956.41 was necessary to fund the 240 monthly payments to the wife, the daughter, or to the estate of the last survivor of them, and that the remaining $7,231.09 was necessary to fund the monthly payments to the wife so long as she might live beyond the 240 months. Accordingly, the insurer made such entries on its books.
Thereafter petitioners, as executors, timely filed a claim for refund of the amount of the tax paid upon the $7,231.09 which the insurer had shown upon its books as necessary to fund the monthly payments to the wife for her actuarial expectancy beyond the 240 months certain, on the theory that the insurer’s treatment of that sum on its books created a separate “property” or fund payable to the wife alone, and hence it qualified for the marital deduction under §812 (e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The claim was denied, and this suit was brought to recover the tax that had been paid on that sum.
Petitioners correctly concede that if the policy constitutes but one “property,” within the meaning of the statute, it would not qualify for the marital deduction because the wife’s interest in it would be a “terminable” one, within the meaning of the statute, inasmuch as the wife may die before receipt of the 240 guaranteed installments, in which event the unpaid ones must go to the daughter if then living. They concede, too, that the $17,956.41, shown on the insurer’s books as necessary to fund the monthly payments for the 240 months certain, does not qualify for the marital deduction for the same reasons. But they contend that, although the policy made no provision therefor, the insurer’s bookkeeping entries constituted a real division of the insurance proceeds into, and created, two “properties” — one of $17,956.41 and the other of $7,231.09 — and that the latter qualifies for the marital deduction under the statute because it is payable, if at all, only to the wife — during her lifetime beyond the 240 months — and no other person has any interest in it.
Whether a policy of life insurance may create several “properties” or funds, either terminable or nonterminable or both, we need not decide, for we think the policy here involved constituted only one property, and made only so much of its proceeds payable to the wife as she might live to receive in equal monthly installments, and made any guaranteed balance payable to the daughter. Hence, under the terms of the policy, the “interest passing to the surviving spouse [may] terminate or fail” and a “person other than [the] surviving spouse . . . may possess or enjoy [a] part of such property after such termination or failure of the interest so passing to the surviving spouse; . . .” Therefore the policy and its proceeds— considered apart from petitioners’ claim that the insurer’s bookkeeping division of the proceeds of the policy into two parts created two “properties” — are disqualified for the marital deduction by the express provisions of § 812 (e)(1)(B) of the-Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The legislative history of the section further supports and compels this conclusion. Illustrating applications of the terminable interest rule, the Senate Committee Report gave an example that is in no relevant way distinguishable from this case, and makes it very clear that the marital deduction is not allowable in the case of an annuity for the surviving spouse for life if “upon the death of the surviving spouse, the payments are to. continue to another person (not through her estate) or the undistributed fund is to be paid to such other person . . .
We think petitioners’ argument — that the insurer’s bookkeeping division of the proceeds of the policy into two parts created two properties — cannot withstand the provisions of the policy and the actual facts respecting the insurer’s bookkeeping division of its proceeds, under the clear terms of the statute and its legislative history. The policy made no provision for the creation of two separate properties — one a property sufficient to provide payments for 240 months, to the wife while she lived and any remainder to the daughter, and another property sufficient to provide an annuity to the wife for the period of her actuarial expectancy beyond the 240 months — and no such separate properties were in fact created. The allocations made were merely actuarial ones — mere bookkeeping entries — made by the insurer on its own books for its own convenience after the insured, the other party to the contract, had died. The wife and the daughter were, respectively, primary and contingent beneficiaries of the policy alone. Neither of them had any title to, nor right to receive, any special fund, and indeed none was actually created. The bookkeeping entries made by the insurer no more created or measured their rights than the insurer’s erasure of those entries — which it was free to make at any time — would destroy their rights. Their rights derive solely from the policy. It, not the insurer’s bookkeeping entries, created and constitutes the property involved. Any action by the beneficiaries to enforce their' rights against the insurer would have to be upon the policy, not upon the entries the insurer had made on its books for its own actuarial information and convenience. Nor would exhaustion of the sum of those entries constitute any defense to the insurer against the claim of either beneficiary for amounts due her under the policy.
The proceeds of the policy were not payable to the wife (or to her estate or appointee) alone and at all events, but were payable in monthly installments to her for life, and if any obligation under the policy remained undischarged at her death it was payable to the daughter if living or, if not, to the estate of the last of them to die. It follows that the “interest passing to the surviving spouse [may] terminate or fail” and that a “person other than [the] surviving spouse . . . may possess or enjoy [a] part of such property after such termination or failure of the interest so passing to the surviving spouse; . . .” and hence the property is disqualified for the marital deduction by the express provisions of § 812 (e)(1) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
Affirmed.
One of the policies was issued by Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company in the amount of $25,187.50, and the other was issued by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company in the amount of $5,019.60.
Section 812 (e) provides in relevant part:
“(1) Allowance op marital deduction.—
“(A) In General. — An amount equal to the value of any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, but only to the extent that such interest is included in determining the value of the gross estate.
'“(B) Life Estate or Other Terminable Interest.- — Where, upon the lapse of time, upon the occurrence of an event or contingency, or upon the failure of an event or contingency to occur, such interest passing to the surviving spouse will terminate or fail, no deduction shall be allowed with respect to such interest—
“(i) if an interest in such property passes or has passed ffor less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth) from the decedent to any person other than such surviving spouse (or the estate of such spouse); and
“(ii) if by reason of such passing such person (or his heirs or assigns) may possess or enjoy any part of such property after such termination or failure of the interest so passing to the surviving spouse; . . .”
“The terms ‘interest’ and ‘property,’ as used in section 812 (e) have separate and distinct meanings. The term ‘property’ is used in a comprehensive sense and includes all objects or rights which are susceptible of ownership. The term ‘interest’ refers to the extent of ownership, that is, to the estate or the quality and quantum of ownership by the surviving spouse or other person, of particular property.” S. Rep. No. 1013, Part 2, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 4.
“Example (2). The decedent during his lifetime purchased an annuity contract under which the annuity was payable during his life and then to his spouse during her life if she survived him. The value of the interest of the decedent’s surviving spouse in such contract at the death of the decedent is included in determining the value of his gross estate. A marital deduction is allowed with respect to the value of such interest so passing to the decedent’s surviving spouse inasmuch as no other person has an interest in the contract. If upon the death of the surviving spouse the annuity payments were to continue for a term to her estate, or the undistributed portion thereof was to be paid to her estate, the deduction is nevertheless allowable with respect to such entire interest. If, however, upon the death of the surviving spouse, the payments are to continue to another person (not through her estate) or the undistributed fund is to be paid to such other person, no marital deduction is allowable inasmuch as an interest passed from the decedent to such other person.” (Emphasis added.) S. Rep. No. 1013, Part 2, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 12-13.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Decedent, Milliken C. Byrum, created in 1958 an irrevocable trust to which he transferred shares of stock in three closely held corporations. Prior to transfer, he owned at least 71% of the outstanding stock of each corporation. The beneficiaries were his children or, in the event of their death before the termination of the trust, their surviving children. The trust instrument specified that there be a corporate trustee. Byrum designated as sole trustee an independent corporation, Huntington National Bank. The trust agreement vested in the trustee broad and detailed powers with respect to the control and management of the trust property. These powers were exercisable in the trustee’s sole discretion, subject to certain rights reserved by Byrum: (i) to vote the shares of unlisted stock held in the trust estate; (ii) to disapprove the sale or transfer of any trust assets, including the shares transferred to the trust; (iii) to approve investments and reinvestments; and (iv) to remove the trustee and “designate another corporate Trustee to serve as successor.” Until the youngest living child reached age 21, the trustee was authorized in its “absolute and sole discretion” to pay the income and principal of the trust to or for the benefit of the beneficiaries, “with due regard to their individual needs for education, care, maintenance and support.” After the youngest child reached 21, the trust was to be divided into a separate trust for each child, to terminate when the beneficiaries reached 35. The trustee was authorized in its discretion to pay income and principal from these trusts to the beneficiaries for emergency or other “worthy need,” including education.
When he died in 1964, Byrum owned less than 60% of the common stock in two of the corporations and 59% in the third. The trust had retained the shares transferred to it, with the result that Byrum had continued to have the right to vote not less than 71% of the common stock in each of the three corporations. There were minority stockholders, unrelated to Byrum, in each corporation.
Following Byrum’s death, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the transferred stock was properly included within Byrum’s gross estate under § 2036 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §2036 (a). That section provides for the inclusion in a decedent’s gross estate of all property which the decedent has transferred by inter vivos transaction, if he has retained for his lifetime “(1) the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the property” transferred, or “(2) the right, either alone or in conjunction with any person, to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom.” The Commissioner determined that the stock transferred into the trust should be included in Byrum’s gross estate because of the rights reserved by him in the trust agreement. It was asserted that his right to vote the transferred shares and to veto any sale thereof by the trustee, together with the ownership of other shares, enabled Byrum to retain the “enjoyment of... the property,” and also allowed him to determine the flow of income to the trust and thereby “designate the persons who shall... enjoy... the income.”
The executrix of Byrum’s estate paid an additional tax of $13,202.45, and thereafter brought this refund action in District Court. The facts not being in dispute, the court ruled for the executrix on cross motions for summary judgment. 311 F. Supp. 892 (SD Ohio 1970). The Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 440 F. 2d 949 (CA6 1971). We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 404 U. S. 937 (1971).
I
The Government relies primarily on its claim, made under §2036 (a)(2), that Byrum retained the right to designate the persons who shall enjoy the income from the transferred property. The argument is a complicated one. By retaining voting control over the corporations whose stock was transferred, Byrum was in a position to select the corporate directors. He could retain this position by not selling the shares he owned and by vetoing any sale by the trustee of the transferred shares. These rights, it is said, gave him control over corporate dividend policy. By increasing, decreasing, or stopping dividends completely, it is argued that Byrum could “regulate the flow of income to the trust” and thereby shift or defer the beneficial enjoyment of trust income between the present beneficiaries and the re-maindermen. The sum of this retained power is said to be tantamount to a grantor-trustee’s power to accumulate income in the trust, which this Court has recognized constitutes the power to designate the persons who shall enjoy the income from transferred property.
At the outset we observe that this Court has never held that trust property must be included in a settlor’s gross estate solely because the settlor retained the power to manage trust assets. On the contrary, since our decision in Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339 (1929), it has been recognized that a settlor’s retention of broad powers of management does not necessarily subject an inter vivos trust to the federal estate tax. Although there was no statutory analogue to § 2036 (a)(2) when Northern Trust was decided, several lower court decisions decided after the enactment of the predecessor of § 2036 (a)(2) have upheld the settlor’s right to exercise managerial powers without incurring estate-tax liability. In Estate of King v. Commissioner, 37 T. C. 973 (1962), a settlor reserved the power to direct the trustee in the management and investment of trust assets. The Government argued that the settlor was thereby empowered to cause investments to be made in such a manner as to control significantly the flow of income into the trust. The Tax Court rejected this argument, and held for the taxpayer. Although the court recognized that the settlor had reserved “wide latitude in the exercise of his discretion as to the types of investments to be made,” id., at 980, it did not find this control over the flow of income to be equivalent to the power to designate who shall enjoy the income from the transferred property.
Essentially the power retained by Byrum is the same managerial power retained by the settlors in Northern Trust and in King. Although neither case controls this one — Northern Trust, because it was not decided under §2036 (a)(2) or a predecessor; and King, because it is a lower court opinion — the existence of such precedents carries weight. The holding of Northern Trust, that the settlor of a trust may retain broad powers of management without adverse estate-tax consequences, may have been relied upon in the drafting of hundreds of inter vivos trusts. The modification of this principle now sought by the Government could have a seriously adverse impact, especially upon settlors (and their estates) who happen to have been “controlling” stockholders of a closely held corporation. Courts properly have been reluctant to depart from an interpretation of tax law which has been generally accepted when the departure could have potentially far-reaching consequences. When a principle of taxation requires reexamination, Congress is better equipped than a court to define precisely the type of conduct which results in tax consequences. When courts readily undertake such tasks, taxpayers may not rely with assurance on what appear to be established rules lest they be subsequently overturned. Legislative enactments, on the other hand, although not always free from ambiguity, at least afford the taxpayers advance warning.
The Government argues, however, that our opinion in United States v. O’Malley, 383 U. S. 627 (1966), compels the inclusion in Byrum’s estate of the stock owned by the trust. In O’Malley, the settlor of an inter vivos trust named himself as one of the three trustees. The trust agreement authorized the trustees to pay income to the life beneficiary or to accumulate it as a part of the principal of the trust in their “sole discretion.” The agreement further provided that net income retained by the trustees, and not distributed in any calendar year, “'shall become a part of the principal of the Trust Estate.’ ” Id., at 629 n. 2. The Court characterized the effect of the trust as follows:
“Here Fabrice [the settlor] was empowered, with the other trustees, to distribute the trust income to the income beneficiaries or to accumulate it and add it to the principal, thereby denying to the beneficiaries the privilege of immediate enjoyment and conditioning their eventual enjoyment upon surviving the termination of the trust.” Id., at 631.
As the retention of this legal right by the settlor, acting as a trustee “in conjunction” with the other trustees, came squarely within the language and intent of the predecessor of § 2036 (a)(2), the taxpayer conceded that the original assets transferred into the trust were in-cludable in the decedent’s gross estate. Id., at 632. The issue before the Court was whether the accumulated income, which had been added to the principal pursuant to the reservation of right in that respect, was also in-cludable in decedent’s estate for tax purposes. The Court held that it was.
In our view, and for the purposes of this case, O’Malley adds nothing to the statute itself. The facts in that case were clearly within the ambit of what is now § 2036 (a). That section requires that the settlor must have “retained for his life... (2) the right... to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom.” O’Malley was covered precisely by the statute for two reasons: (1) there the settlor had reserved a legal right, set forth in the trust instrument; and (2) this right expressly authorized the settlor, “in conjunction” with others, to accumulate income and thereby “to designate” the persons to enjoy it.
It must be conceded that Byrum reserved no such “right” in the trust instrument or otherwise. The term “right,” certainly when used in a tax statute, must be given its normal and customary meaning. It connotes an ascertainable and legally enforceable power, such as that involved in O’Malley. Here, the right ascribed to Byrum was the power to use his majority position and influence over the corporate directors to “regulate the flow of dividends” to the trust. That “right” was neither ascertainable nor legally enforceable and hence was not a right in any normal sense of that term.
Byrum did retain the legal right to vote shares held by the trust and to veto investments and reinvestments. But the corporate trustee alone, not Byrum, had the right to pay out or withhold income and thereby to designate who among the beneficiaries enjoyed such income. Whatever power Byrum may have possessed with respect to the flow of income into the trust was derived not from an enforceable legal right specified in the trust instrument, but from the fact that he could elect a majority of the directors of the three corporations. The power to elect the directors conferred no legal right to command them to pay or not to pay dividends. A majority shareholder has a fiduciary duty not to misuse his power by promoting his personal interests at the expense of corporate interests. Moreover, the directors also have a fiduciary duty to promote the interests of the corporation. However great Byrum’s influence may have been with the corporate directors, their responsibilities were to all stockholders and were enforceable according to legal standards entirely unrelated to the needs of the trust or to Byrum’s desires with respect thereto.
The Government seeks to equate the de facto position of a controlling stockholder with the legally enforceable “right” specified by the statute. Retention of corporate control (through the right to vote the shares) is said to be “tantamount to the power to accumulate income” in the trust which resulted in estate-tax consequences in O’Malley. The Government goes on to assert that “[tjhrough exercise of that retained power, [Byrum] could increase or decrease corporate dividends... and thereby shift or defer the beneficial enjoyment of trust income.” This approach seems to us not only to depart from the specific statutory language, but also to misconceive the realities of corporate life.
There is no reason to suppose that the three corporations controlled by Byrum were other than typical small businesses. The customary vicissitudes of such enterprises — bad years; product obsolescence; new competition; disastrous litigation; new, inhibiting Government regulations; even bankruptcy — prevent any certainty or predictability as to earnings or dividends. There is no assurance that a small corporation will have a flow of net earnings or that income earned will in fact be available for dividends. Thus, Byrum’s alleged de jacto “power to control the flow of dividends” to the trust was subject to business and economic variables over which he had little or no control.
Even where there are corporate earnings, the legal power to declare dividends is vested solely in the corporate board. In making decisions with respect to dividends, the board must consider a number of factors. It must balance the expectation of stockholders to reasonable dividends when earned against corporate needs for retention of earnings. The first responsibility of the board is to safeguard corporate financial viability for the long term. This means, among other things, the retention of sufficient earnings to assure adequate working capital as well as resources for retirement of debt, for replacement and modernization of plant and equipment, and for growth and expansion. The nature of a corporation’s business, as well as the policies and long-range plans of management, are also relevant to dividend payment decisions. Directors of a closely held, small corporation must bear in mind the relatively limited access of such an enterprise to capital markets. This may require a more conservative policy with respect to dividends than would be expected of an established corporation with securities listed on national exchanges.
Nor do small corporations have the flexibility or the opportunity available to national concerns in the utilization of retained earnings. When earnings are substantial, a decision not to pay dividends may result only in the accumulation of surplus rather than growth through internal or external expansion. The accumulated earnings may result in the imposition of a penalty tax.
These various economic considerations are ignored at the directors’ peril. Although vested with broad discretion in determining whether, when, and what amount of dividends shall be paid, that discretion is subject to legal restraints. If, in obedience to the will of the majority stockholder, corporate directors disregard the interests of shareholders by accumulating earnings to an unreasonable extent, they are vulnerable to a derivative suit. They are similarly vulnerable if they make an unlawful payment of dividends in the absence of net earnings or available surplus, or if they fail to exercise the requisite degree of care in discharging their duty to act only in the best interest of the corporation and its stockholders.
Byrum was similarly inhibited by a fiduciary duty from abusing his position as majority shareholder for personal or family advantage to the detriment of the corporation or other stockholders. There were a substantial number of minority stockholders in these corporations who were unrelated to Byrum. Had Byrum and the directors violated their duties, the minority shareholders would have had a cause of action under Ohio law. The Huntington National Bank, as trustee, was one of the minority stockholders, and it had both the right and the duty to hold Byrum responsible for any wrongful or negligent action as a controlling stockholder or as a director of the corporations. Although Byrum had reserved the right to remove the trustee, he would have been imprudent to do this when confronted by the trustee’s complaint against his conduct. A successor trustee would succeed to the rights of the one removed.
We conclude that Byrum did not have an unconstrained de facto power to regulate the flow of dividends to the trust, much less the ‘‘right” to designate who was to enjoy the income from trust property. His ability to affect, but not control, trust income, was a qualitatively different power from that of the settlor in O’Malley, who had a specific and enforceable right to control the income paid to the beneficiaries. Even had Byrum managed to flood the trust with income, he had no way of compelling the trustee to pay it out rather than accumulate it. Nor could he prevent the trustee from making payments from other trust assets, although admittedly there were few of these at the time of Byrum’s death. We cannot assume, however, that no other assets would come into the trust from reinvestments or other gifts.
We find no merit to the Government’s contention that Byrum’s de facto “control,” subject as it was to the economic and legal constraints set forth above, was tantamount to the right to designate the persons who shall enjoy trust income, specified by § 2036 (a)(2).
II
The Government asserts an alternative ground for including the shares transferred to the trust within Byrum’s gross estate. It argues that by retaining control, Byrum guaranteed himself continued employment and remuneration, as well as the right to determine whether and when the corporations would be liquidated or merged. Byrum is thus said to have retained “the... enjoyment of... the property” making it includable within his gross estate under §2036 (a)(1). The Government concedes that the retention of the voting rights of an “unimportant minority interest” would not require inclusion of the transferred shares under § 2036 (a)(1). It argues, however, “where the cumulative effect of the retained powers and the rights flowing from the shares not placed in trust leaves the grantor in control of a close corporation, and assures that control for his lifetime, he has retained the 'enjoyment’ of the transferred stock.” Brief for United States 23.
It is well settled that the terms “enjoy” and “enjoyment,” as used in various estate tax statutes, “are not terms of art, but connote substantial present economic benefit rather than technical vesting of title or estates.” Commissioner v. Estate of Holmes, 326 U. S. 480, 486 (1946). For example, in Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339 (1929), in which the critical inquiry was whether the decedent had created a trust “intended... ‘to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death,’ ” id., at 348, the Court held that reserved powers of management of trust assets, similar to Byrum’s power over the three corporations, did not subject an inter vivos trust to the federal estate tax. In determining whether the settlor had retained the enjoyment of the transferred property, the Court said:
“Nor did the reserved powers of management of the trusts save to decedent any control over the economic benefits or the enjoyment of the property. He would equally have reserved all these powers and others had he made himself the trustee, but the transfer would not for that reason have been incomplete. The shifting of the economic interest in the trust property which was the subject of the tax was thus complete as soon as the trust was made. His power.to recall the property and of control over it for his own benefit then ceased and as the trusts were not made in contemplation of death, the reserved powers do not serve to distinguish them from any other gift inter vivos not subject to the tax.” 278 U. S., at 346-347.
The cases cited by the Government reveal that the terms “possession” and “enjoyment,” used in § 2036 (a) (1), were used to deal with situations in which the owner of property divested himself of title but retained an income interest or, in the case of real property, the lifetime use of the property. Mr. Justice Black’s opinion for the Court in Commissioner v. Estate of Church, 335 U. S. 632 (1949), traces the history of the concept. In none of the cases cited by the Government has a court held that a person has retained possession or enjoyment of the property if he has transferred title irrevocably, made complete delivery of the property and relinquished the right to income where the property is income producing.
The Government cites only one case, Estate of Holland v. Commissioner, 1 T. C. 564 (1943), in which a decedent had retained the right to vote transferred shares of stock and in which the stock was included within the decedent’s gross estate. In that case, it was not the mere power to vote the stock, giving the decedent control of the corporation, which caused the Tax Court to include the shares. The court held that “ 'on an inclusive view of the whole arrangement, this withholding of the income until decedent’s death, coupled with the retention of the certificates under the pledge and the reservation of the right to vote the stock and to designate the company officers’ ” subjects the stock to inclusion within the gross estate. Id., at 565. The settlor in Holland retained a considerably greater interest than Byrum retained, including an income interest.
As the Government concedes, the mere retention of the right-to-vote shares does not constitute the type of “enjoyment” in the property itself contemplated by § 2036 (a)(1). In addition to being against the weight of precedent, the Government’s argument that Byrum retained “enjoyment” within the meaning of § 2036 (a)(1) is conceptually unsound. This argument implies, as it must under the express language of § 2036 (a), that Byrum “retained for his life... (1) the possession or enjoyment” of the “property” transferred to the trust or the “income” therefrom. The only property he transferred was corporate stock. He did not transfer “control” (in the sense used by the Government) as the trust never owned as much as 50% of the stock of any corporation. Byrum never divested himself of control, as he was able to vote a majority of the shares by virtue of what he owned and the right to vote those placed in the trust. Indeed, at the time of his death he still owned a majority of the shares in the largest of the corporations and probably would have exercised control of the other two by virtue of being a large stockholder in each. The statutory language plainly contemplates retention of an attribute of the property transferred — such as a right to income, use of the property itself, or a power of appointment with respect either to income or principal.
Even if Byrum had transferred a majority of the stock, but had retained voting control, he would not have retained “substantial present economic benefit,” 326 U. S., at 486. The Government points to the retention of two “benefits.” The first of these, the power to liquidate or merge, is not a present benefit; rather, it is a speculative and contingent benefit which may or may not be realized. Nor is the probability of continued employment and compensation the substantial “enjoyment of... [the transferred] property” within the meaning of the statute. The dominant stockholder in a closely held corporation,.if he is active and productive, is likely to hold a senior position and to enjoy the advantage of a significant voice in his own compensation. These are inevitable facts of the free-enterprise system, but the influence and capability of a controlling stockholder to favor himself are not without constraints. Where there are minority stockholders, as in this case, directors may be held accountable if their employment, compensation, and retention of officers violate their duty to act reasonably in the best interest of the corporation and all of its stockholders. Moreover, this duty is policed, albeit indirectly, by the Internal Revenue Service, which disallows the deduction of unreasonable compensation paid to a corporate executive as a business expense. We conclude that Byrum’s retention of voting control was not the retention of the enjoyment of the transferred property within the meaning of the statute.
For the reasons set forth above, we hold that this case was correctly decided by the Court of Appeals and accordingly the judgment is
Affirmed.
The Trust Agreement in pertinent part provided:
“Article IV. Irrevocable Trust.
“This Trust shall be irrevocable and Grantor reserves no rights, powers, privileges or benefits either as to the Trust estate or the control or management of the trust property, except as set forth herein.
“Article V. Powers Of The Trustee.
“The Trustee shall have and possess and may exercise at all times not only the rights, powers and authorities incident to the office or required in the discharge of this trust, or impliedly conferred upon or vested in it, but there is hereby expressly conferred upon and vested in the Trustee all the rights, powers and authorities embodied in the following paragraphs in this Article, which are shown by way of illustration but not by way of limitation:
“Sell. 5.02 To sell at public or private sale, to grant options to sell, to exchange, re-exchange or otherwise dispose of all or part of the property, real or personal, at any time belonging to the Trust Estate, upon such terms and conditions and for such consideration as said Trustee shall determine, and to execute and deliver all instruments of sale or conveyance necessary or desirable therefor.
“Investments. 5.05 To invest any money in the Trust Estate in stocks, bonds, investment trusts, common trust funds and any other securities or property, real or personal, secured or unsecured, whether the obligations of individuals, corporations, trusts, associations, governments, expressly including shares and/or obligations of its own corporation, or otherwise, either within or outside of the State of Ohio, as the Trustee shall deem advisable, without any limitation whatsoever as to the character of investment under any statute or rule of law now or hereafter enacted or existing regarding trust funds or investments by fiduciaries or otherwise.
“Voting. 5.06 To vote by proxy or in person any stock or security comprising a part of the Trust Estate, at any meeting, except that, during Grantor’s lifetime, all voting rights of any stocks which are not listed on a stock exchange, shall be exercised by Grantor, and after Grantor’s death, the voting rights of such stocks shall be exercised by Grantor’s wife during her lifetime.
“Leases. 5.09 To make leases for any length of time, whether longer or shorter than the duration of this Trust, to commence at the present time or in the future; to extend any lease; to grant options to lease or to renew any lease; it being expressly understood that the Trustee may grant or enter into ninety-nine year leases, renewable forever.
“Income Allocation. 5.13 To determine in its discretion how all receipts and disbursements, capital gains and losses, shall be charged, credited or apportioned between income and principal.
“Limitation. 5.15 Notwithstanding the powers of the Trustee granted in paragraphs 5.02, 5.05, 5.09 and 5.11 above, the Trustee shall not exercise any of the powers granted in said paragraphs unless (a) during Grantor’s lifetime said Grantor shall approve of the action taken by the Trustee pursuant to said powers, (b) after the death of the Grantor and as long as his wife, Marian A. Byrum, shall live, said wife shall approve of the action taken by the Trustee pursuant to said powers.
“Article VI. Distribution Prior To Age 21.
“Until my youngest living child reaches the age of twenty-one (21) years, the Trustee shall exercise absolute and sole discretion in paying or applying income and/or principal of the Trust to or for the benefit of Grantor’s child or children and their issue, with due regard to their individual needs for education, care, maintenance and support and not necessarily in equal shares, per stirpes. The decision of the Trustee in the dispensing of Trust funds for such purposes shall be final and binding on all interested persons.
“Article VI. Division At Age 21.
“Principal Disbursements. 6.02 If prior to attaining the age of thirty-five (35), any one of the children of Grantor shall have an emergency such as an extended illness requiring unusual medical or hospital expenses, or any other worthy need including education of such child, the Trustee is hereby authorized and empowered to pay such child or use for his or her benefit such amounts of income and principal of the Trust as the Trustee in its sole judgment and discretion shall determine.
“Article VIII. Removal of Trustee.
“If the Trustee, The Huntington National Bank of Columbus, Columbus, Ohio, shall at any time change its name or combine with one or more corporations under one or more different names, or if its assets and business at any time shall be purchased and absorbed by another trust company or corporation authorized by law to accept these trusts, the new or successor corporation shall be considered as the said The Huntington National Bank of Columbus, Ohio, and shall continue said Trusts and succeed to all the rights, privileges, duties and obligations herein conferred upon said The Huntington National Bank of Columbus, Columbus, Ohio, Trustee.
“Grantor, prior to his death, and after the death of the Grantor, the Grantor’s wife, Marian A. Byrum, during her lifetime, may remove or cause the removal of The Huntington National Bank of Columbus, Ohio, or any successor Trustee, as Trustee under the Trusts and may thereupon designate another corporate Trustee to serve as successor Trustee hereunder.
“Article IX. Miscellaneous Provisions.
“Discretion. 9.02 If in the opinion of the Trustee it shall appear that the total income of any beneficiary of any Trust fund created hereunder is insufficient for his or her proper or suitable support, care and comfort, and education and that of said beneficiary’s children, the Trustee is authorized to pay to or for such beneficiary or child such additional amounts from the principal of the Trust Estate as it shall deem advisable in order to provide suitably and properly for the support, care, comfort, and education of said beneficiary and of said beneficiary’s children, and the action of the Trustee in making such payments shall be binding on all persons.”
The actual proportions were: Total Percentage
Percentage Percentage Owned by Owned by Owned by Decedent Decedent Trust and Trust
Byrum Lithographing Co., Inc. 59 12 71
Graphic Realty, Inc. 35 48 83
By chrome Co. 42 46 88
26 U. S. C. §2036 provides:
“(a) General rule.
“The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property to the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer (except in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth), by trust or otherwise, under which he has retained for his life or for any period not ascertainable without reference to his death or for any period which does not in fact end before his death—
“(1) the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the property, or
“(2) the right, either alone or in conjunction with any person, to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom.”
United States v. O’Malley, 383 U. S. 627 (1966).
It is irrelevant to this argument how many shares Byrum transferred to the trust. Had he retained in his own name more than 50% of the shares (as he did with one corporation), rather than retaining the right to vote the transferred shares, he would still have had the right to elect the board of directors and the same power to “control'’ the flow of dividends. Thus, the Government is arguing that a majority shareholder’s estate must be taxed for stock transferred to a trust if he owned at least 50% of the voting stock after the transfer or if he retained the right to vote the transferred stock and could thus vote more than 50% of the stock. It would follow also that if a settlor controlled 50% of the voting stock and similarly transferred some other class of stock for which the payment of dividends had to be authorized by the directors, his estate would also be taxed. Query: what would happen if he had the right to vote less than 50% of the voting stock but still “controlled” the corporation? See n. 10, infra.
The Court has never overturned this ruling. See McCormick v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 784 (1931); Helvering v. Duke, 290 U. S. 591 (1933) (affirmed by an equally divided Court). In Commissioner v. Estate of Church, 335 U. S. 632 (1949), and Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, 335 U. S. 701 (1949), the Court invited, sua sponte, argument of this question, but did not reach the issue in either opinion.
See, e. g., Old Colony Trust Co. v. United States, 423 F. 2d 601 (CA1 1970); United States v. Powell, 307 F. 2d 821 (CA10 1962) ; Estate of Ford v. Commissioner, 53 T. C. 114 (1969), aff’d, 450 F. 2d 878 (CA2 1971); Estate of Wilson v. Commissioner, 13 T. C. 869 (1949) (en banc), aff’d, 187 F. 2d 145 (CA3 1951); Estate of Budd v. Commissioner, 49 T. C. 468 (1968); Estate of Pardee v. Commissioner, 49 T. C. 140 (1967); Estate of King v. Commissioner, 37 T. C. 973 (1962).
The dissenting opinion attempts to distinguish the cases, holding that a settlor-trustee’s retained powers of management do not bring adverse estate-tax consequences, on the ground that management of trust assets is not the same as the power retained by Byrum because a settlor-trustee is bound by a fiduciary duty to treat the life tenant beneficiaries and remaindermen as the trust instrument specifies. But the argument that in the reserved-power-of-management cases there was “a judicially enforceable strict standard capable of invocation by the trust beneficiaries by reference to the terms of the trust agreement,” post, at 166, ignores the fact that trust agreements may and often do provide for the widest investment discretion.
Assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Justice White is correct in suggesting that in 1958, when this trust instrument was drawn, the estate-tax consequences of the settlor’s retained powers of management were less certain than they are now, this Court’s failure to overrule Northern Trust, plus the existence of recent cases such as King and the cases cited in n. 6, have undoubtedly been relied on by the draftsmen of more recent trusts with considerable justification. Our concern as to this point is not so much with whether Byrum properly relied on the precedents, but with the probability that others did rely thereon in good faith.
Although Mr. Justice White’s dissent argues that the use of the word “power” in O’Malley implies that the Court’s concern was with practical reality rather than legal form, an examination of that opinion does not indicate that the term was used other than in the sense of legally empowered. At any rate, the “power” was a right reserved to the settlor in the trust instrument itself.
The “control” rationale, urged by the Government and adopted by the dissenting opinion, would create a standard — not specified in the statute — so vague and amorphous as to be impossible of ascertainment in many instances. See n. 13, infra. Neither the Government nor the dissent sheds light on the absence of an ascertainable standard. The Government speaks vaguely of drawing the line between “an unimportant minority interest” (whatever that may be) and “voting control.” The dissenting opinion does not address this problem at all. See Comment, Sale of Control Stock and the Brokers’ Transaction Exemption — Before and After the Wheat Report, 49 Tex. L. Rev. 475, 479-481 (1971).
Such a fiduciary relationship would exist in almost every, if not every, State. Ohio, from which this case arises, is no exception:
“[I]f
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam..
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reversed for the reasons stated in Chiafalo v. Washington , --- U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 2316, --- L.Ed.2d ----, 2020 WL 3633779 (2020).
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the decision of this case.
Justice THOMAS concurs in the judgment for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington, ante, p. ----.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is the second in the group of four cases involving income tax prosecutions under the net worth method of proof. In this case petitioner was indicted for the years 1944 through 1947, and convicted on all counts except the first, covering the year 1944.
While the discussion in Holland v. United States, ante, p. 121, is dispositive of some of the more general problems raised by this type of prosecution, petitioner here directs his fire specifically at the sufficiency of the evidence as to his opening net worth. To highlight his contention that the Government had not properly accounted for an alleged hoard of cash and bonds on hand at the beginning of the indictment period, petitioner has stipulated virtually every other net worth issue out of the case.
Although petitioner’s testimony as to this cash on hand vacillated, we conclude from a careful examination of the testimony that the largest amount claimed at the starting point was “far in excess” of $60,000. The Government’s evidence, as in Holland, did not directly dispute this, but it did painstakingly trace the Friedbergs’ finances from 1922 through the prosecution years. It pointed unmistakably to the conclusion that petitioner had no such hoard of cash at the starting point.
This evidence, briefly outlined, was as follows: Petitioner filed no tax return for 1922, paid nominal taxes for 1923, 1924 and 1925, and, except for 1926, 1927, 1930 and 1937, when he filed non taxable returns, he filed no returns from 1926 through 1937. He borrowed small sums of money on three occasions in 1931. In 1934, when he failed to pay $30 a month on a real estate mortgage, the mortgagee brought a foreclosure suit and petitioner was unable to meet the modest compromise terms offered him by the court. In 1936 and 1940, levies on a judgment for $13.76 were returned nulla bona. A mortgage on his former home was foreclosed in 1937, and a deficiency judgment entered for over $3,500. The writ of execution was returned “nothing found” in 1939, and petitioner then settled the judgment by paying $100 to the mortgagee in return for release from liability. In 1939, petitioner stated in an application for a loan that his total assets were $9,200, including $150 cash on hand, while his liabilities were $500. The tailoring business in which petitioner had worked since 1922 for an average pay of $50 a week was dissolved in 1941 because it could not meet its bills, and petitioner bought its assets for $650.
Yet it was during these years, from the 1920’s until 1941, that petitioner claimed to have accumulated “far in excess” of $60,000. We think the jury could readily have concluded that petitioner had saved no such reserve.
Petitioner’s other objections can be disposed of quickly. First, he contends it was error for the special agent, a witness for the Government, to give his “personal opinion” that petitioner had no cash on hand at the starting point. But this distorts what actually happened. The agent was asked on cross-examination to give a “yes or no” answer to whether in his net worth statement he had credited petitioner with any cash on hand for 1941. The agent said “there was no evidence available to show there was cash.” After defense counsel’s insistence that the witness answer “did you or didn’t you” give credit for any cash, the court allowed the agent to explain his answer. He explained that his investigation disclosed no evidence which would permit him to credit petitioner with cash on hand in 1941 and on redirect examination he elaborated, pointing out the foreclosures and the other evidence which has been detailed above. From this, he said,, he “could see no reason why [he] should . . . include” any cash on hand at the starting point.
This was hardly a “conclusion of the witness,” which is an “ultimate issue to be decided by the jury,” as petitioner claims. The agent, upon petitioner’s insistence, was testifying to a negative fact: he had not included cash because he had found no evidence of cash. The evidence which he then summarized on redirect was only that which had already been introduced at the trial. It is difficult to see how he invaded the province of the jury; nor do we see how petitioner’s question could have been answered otherwise.
Finally, error is asserted in the trial judge’s final instruction to the jury, which was given some three to four hours after it had begun its deliberations. Petitioner contends that the instruction called upon the jury to compromise the issues. It may be that “compromise” in its literal sense, if used alone, would leave improper connotations. Though its use here was unfortunate, we do not think it misled the jury. We note that no objection was made to any of the instructions, nor was any of petitioner’s oral argument devoted to them a week later on motion for a new trial. In fact, petitioner specifically disclaimed any intent to make the instruction now attacked a ground for a new trial. This is persuasive evidence that he did not originally consider this' section of the charge prejudicial; and since the remaining instructions were fair and negatived any inference that a compromise verdict was permissible, we are inclined to agree. In the face of this record, we can hardly conclude that this error is sufficient ground for reversal.
Affirmed.
Both Friedberg and his wife testified that he had “far in excess” of $50,000 by 1936; at another point he swore he had between $50,000 and $100,000 by that time; by 1938 he claimed “far in excess” of $60,000; and finally, he stated that he had “substantially” $100,000 by 1947.
The instruction was:
“The Court will stand in recess until one-thirty. The Court may say to the jury at this time that I want you to make an honest and sincere effort to reach an agreement as to the merits of this case. I do not want you to shirk your duty. I want you to be fair to the Government, the United States, and the defendant. Nevertheless, this case has taken many days to try, and I hope you will make a sincere effort to compromise and adjust your differences and reach a verdict, if possible.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We noted probable jurisdiction of these appeals, 404 U. S. 819 (1971), to consider the applicability of Gold berg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), to the suspension and termination of disability benefit payments pursuant to § 225 of the Social Security Act, 70 Stat. 817, 42 U. S. C. § 425, and implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Shortly before oral argument, we were advised that the Secretary had adopted new regulations, effective December 27, 1971, governing the procedures to be followed by the Social Security Administration in determining whether to suspend or terminate disability benefits. These procedures include the requirement that a recipient of benefits be given notice of a proposed suspension and the reasons therefor, plus an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence. In light of that development, we believe that the appropriate course is to withhold judicial action pending reprocessing, under the new regulations, of the determinations here in dispute. If that process results in a determination of entitlement to disability benefits, there will be no need to consider the constitutional claim that claimants are entitled to an opportunity to make an oral presentation. In the context of a comprehensive complex administrative program, the administrative process must have a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the District Court for the District of Columbia, 321 F. Supp. 383 (1971), with direction to that court to remand the cause to the Secretary and to retain jurisdiction for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary upon completion of the administrative procedure.
Vacated and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 has considered the written submissions of the parties and heard oral argument by the Attorneys General of the States with respect to the motion of the State of Idaho for leave to file a bill of complaint. It having been concluded that the Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction of this case to- the extent that the complaint prays that the Court declare that the State of Idaho is entitled to an equitable portion of the upriver anadromous fishery of the Columbia River Basin and that the Court determine Idaho’s equitable portion based on the evidence and award costs and appropriate incidental relief, the motion for leave to file is hereby granted to that extent. The motion is in all other respects denied. This order is not a judgment that the bill of complaint, to the extent that permission to file is granted, states a claim upon which relief may be granted. This order also leaves open the question of the indispensability of the United States as a party for decision after evidence, in the event the United States does not enter its appearance in the case. The States of Oregon and Washington are directed to file answers to the bill of complaint or to otherwise plead within 60 days and process is ordered to issue accordingly.
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:
|
K
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument.
Mr. Justice Clark would grant the petition and affirm.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the reversal on the basis of the reasoning set forth, in his opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding to test the validity of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying petitioners’ request for suspension of deportation.
Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951 both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July 1951 the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November 1951 their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth. In January 1952 petitioners voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to the Immigration Service and applied for suspension of deportation under § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which provides, in part:
“In the case of any alien . . . who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may . . . suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization ... if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien . ...”
Deportation proceedings were instituted in May 1952 and a hearing was held. On the undisputed facts both aliens were found deportable. As to the issue of suspension of deportation, the Hearing Officer, while finding petitioners eligible for such relief, denied the request, stating as follows:
“Both respondents have applied for suspension of deportation on the ground of the economic detriment that would befall their minor son in the event they were deported. . . . Both disclaim having a criminal record anywhere and both allege that they have been persons of good moral character. Evidence of record would tend to corroborate their testimony in this respect. Their only income is from the employment of the male respondent on two jobs . . . . Their joint assets consist of savings in the sum of about $500 and their furniture and other personal property which they value at $1500. While it would seem that their son . . . would suffer economically if his parents should be deported, it is not believed that as a matter of administrative discretion the respondents’ applications for suspension of deportation should be granted. They have been in the United States for a period of less than one year. They have no relatives in this country other than each other and their son. To grant both this form of relief upon the accident of birth in the United States of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas under their already oversubscribed quotas. It is noted also that neither respondent reported his and her presence in the United States at any time until January, 1952 when they filed applications for suspension of deportation just two months after the birth of their child. . . .”
The Board of Immigration Appeals heard petitioners’ appeal, and on March 18, 1954, upheld the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and denied suspension of deportation. The Board stated:
“It is obvious that the American citizen infant child is dependent upon the alien parents for economic support, care and maintenance. Documentary and other evidence establish good moral character for the requisite period. The aliens have no connection with subversive groups.
“As stated above, we have, in the instant case, a family consisting of two alien parents illegally residing in the United States and one American citizen child, age about two and one-half years. These respondents have been in the United States for a period of less than three years. Both arrived in this country as seamen. They have no other dependents or close family ties here. The record indicates that the male respondent may be able to obtain work as a Greek seaman and earn about $85 monthly.
“Notwithstanding the fact that . . . the deportation of these respondents would result in a serious economic detriment to an American citizen infant child, the granting or withholding of maximum discretionary relief depends on the factors and merits in each individual case, and is a matter of administrative discretion. We have carefully examined the facts and circumstances in the instant case and we find that the granting of the maximum relief is not warranted by the record in the case. . . .”
Petitioners thereupon moved for reconsideration. On May 5, 1954, the Board denied the motion, stating:
"Counsel’s motion sets forth no matters of which we were unaware at the time our previous decision was rendered. It is crystal clear that Congress intended to greatly restrict the granting of suspension of deportation by the change of phraseology which was used in Section 244 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [of 1952] as well as the Congressional comment at the time this provision was enacted. [] We indicated in our previous order that the deportation of the respondents would result in a serious economic detriment to their citizen minor child, and we do not question that the respondents have established the statutory requirements for suspension of deportation ....
“Upon our further review of the cases of the two respondents,, we adhere to our previous decision that suspension of deportation should be denied as a matter of administrative discretion . . . .”
Taken into custody for deportation, petitioners instituted the present habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that the Board abused its discretion in denying their application for suspension of deportation. The District Court dismissed the writ, 133 F. Supp. 433, and the Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed, 233 F. 2d 705. We granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 819.
We do not think that there was error in these proceedings. It is clear from the record that the Board applied the correct legal standards in deciding whether petitioners met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation. The Board found that petitioners met these standards and were eligible for relief. But the statute does not contemplate that all aliens who meet the minimum legal standards will be granted suspension. Suspension of deportation is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility; discretion must be exercised even though statutory prerequisites have been met.
Nor can we say that it was abuse of discretion to withhold relief in this case. The reasons relied on by the Hearing Officer and the Board — mainly the fact that petitioners had established no roots or ties in this country— were neither capricious nor arbitrary.
Petitioners urge that the Board applied an improper standard in exercising its discretion when, in its opinion on rehearing, it took into account the congressional policy-underlying the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the latter being concededly inapplicable to this case. We cannot agree with this contention. The second opinion makes clear that the Board still considered petitioners eligible for suspension under the 1917 Act and denied relief solely as a matter of discretion. And we cannot say that it was improper or arbitrary for the Board to be influenced, in exercising that discretion, by its views as to congressional policy as manifested by the 1952 Act. Section 19 (c) does not state what standards are to guide the Attorney General in the exercise of his discretion. Surely it is not unreasonable for him to take cognizance of present-day conditions and congressional attitudes, any more than it would be arbitrary for a judge, in sentencing a criminal, to refuse to suspend sentence because contemporary opinion, as exemplified in recent statutes, has increased in rigour as to the offense involved. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that § 19 (c) provides for close congressional supervision over suspensions of deportation. In every case where suspension for more than six months is granted a report must be submitted to Congress, and if thereafter Congress does not pass a concurrent resolution approving the suspension of deportation, the alien must then be deported. In other words, every such suspension must be approved by Congress, and yet petitioners would have us hold that the Attorney General may not take into account the current policies of Congress in exercising his discretion. This we cannot do.
There being no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
MR. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Under certain conditions alien crewmen are permitted to enter the United States for periods not exceeding 29 days. See 8 U. S. C. §§ 1281-1287.
8 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 155 (c).
Section 244 of the 1952 Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1254 (a), provides, in pertinent part: “As hereinafter prescribed in this section, the Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend deportation ... in the case of an alien who—
“(5) . . . has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten years . . . and proves that during all of such period he has been and is a person of good moral character ; has not been served with a final order of deportation . . . and is a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
A report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on this provision states: “The bill accordingly establishes a policy that the administrative remedy should be available only in the very limited category of cases in which the deportation of the alien would be unconscionable. Hardship or even unusual hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child is not sufficient to justify suspension of deportation. . . S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 25. (Footnote not in original.)
United States ex rel. Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 180 F. 2d 489; United States ex rel. Adel v. Shaughnessy, 183 F. 2d 371. Cf. Jay v. Boyd, 351 U. S. 345.
Petitioners would clearly be ineligible for suspension under the 1952 Act. See n. 3, supra.
The statute provides: “If the deportation of any alien is suspended under the provisions of this subsection for more than six months, a complete and detailed statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law in the case shall be reported to the Congress with the reasons for such suspension. These reports shall be submitted on the 1st and 15th day of each calendar month in which Congress is in session. If during the session of the Congress at which a case is reported, or prior to the close of the session of the Congress next following the session at which a case is reported, the Congress passes a concurrent resolution stating in substance that it favors the suspension of such deportation, the Attorney General shall cancel deportation proceedings. If prior to the close of the session of the Congress next following the session at which a ease is reported, the Congress does not pass such a concurrent resolution, the Attorney General shall thereupon deport such alien in the manner provided by law. ...” 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 155 (c).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, recipients of public assistance under the cooperative federal-state Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, brought this action in the District Court for themselves and their infant children and as representatives of other similarly situated AFDC recipients. Their suit challenged a provision of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations permitting the State to recoup prior unscheduled payments for rent from subsequent grants under the AFDC program. They alleged that the recoupment regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and contravened the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act governing AFDC and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the administering federal agency, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The action sought injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 2201, and jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4). The District Court found that the equal protection claim was substantial and provided a basis for pendent jurisdiction to adjudicate the so-called “statutory” claim — the alleged conflict between state and federal law. After hearing, the trial court declared the recoupment regulation contrary to the Social Security Act and HEW regulations and enjoined its implementation or enforcement. Following a remand, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because petitioners had failed to present a substantial constitutional claim, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain either the equal protection or the statutory claim. 471 F. 2d 347 (CA2 1973). The jurisdictional question being an important one, we granted certiorari. 412 U. S. 938 (1973). For reasons set forth below, we hold that the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) to consider petitioners’ attack on the recoupment regulation.
I
Petitioners brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, which 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.”
By its terms, § 1983 embraces petitioners’ claims that the challenged regulation enforced by respondent state and county welfare officials deprives them of a right “secured by the Constitution and laws,” viz., the equal protection of the laws. But the federal cause of action created by the section does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the federal district courts to adjudicate these claims. Accordingly, petitioners relied principally upon 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3):
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
“(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States...
Concededly, § 1343 authorizes a civil action to “redress the deprivation, under color of any State... regulation... of any right... secured by the Constitution of the United States." Section 1343 (3) therefore conferred jurisdiction upon the District Court to entertain the constitutional claim if it was of sufficient substance to support federal jurisdiction. If it was, it is also clear that the District Court could hear as a matter of pendent jurisdiction the claim of conflict between federal and state law, without determining that the latter claim in its own right was encompassed within § 1343. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 402-405 (1970); see also N. Y. Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 412 n. 11 (1973).
The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners had not tendered a substantial constitutional claim and ordered dismissal of the entire action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The principle applied by the Court of Appeals — that a “substantial” question was necessary to support jurisdiction — was unexceptionable under prior cases. Over the years this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,” Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U. S. 561, 579 (1904); “wholly insubstantial,” Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 33 (1962); “obviously frivolous,” Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285, 288 (1910); “plainly unsubstantial,” Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U. S. 103, 105 (1933); or “no longer open to discussion,” McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70, 80 (1909). One of the principal decisions on the subject, Ex ;parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30, 31-32 (1933), held, first, that “[i]n the absence of diversity of citizenship, it is essential to jurisdiction that a substantial federal question should be presented”; second, that a three-judge court was not necessary to pass upon this initial question of jurisdiction; and third, that “[t]he question may be plainly unsubstantial, either because it is 'obviously without merit’ or because 'its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the question sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.’ Levering & Garrigues Co. v.” Morrin, supra; Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285, 288; McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70, 80.”
Only recently this Court again reviewed this general question where it arose in the context of convening a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. § 2281:
“ 'Constitutional insubstantiality’ for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as ‘essentially fictitious,’ Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S., at 33; ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ibid,.; ‘obviously frivolous,’ Hannis Distilling Co. y. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285, 288 (1910); and ‘obviously without merit,’ Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30, 32 (1933). The limiting words ‘wholly’ and ‘obviously’ have cogent legal significance. In the context of the effect of prior decisions upon the substantiality of constitutional claims, those words import that claims are constitutionally insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial for the purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 2281. A claim is insubstantial only if'“its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.” ’ Ex parte Poresky, supra, at 32, quoting from Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, supra, at 288; see also Levering & Garri-gues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U. S. 103, 105-106 (1933); McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70, 80 (1909).” Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512, 518 (1973).
The substantiality doctrine as a statement of jurisdictional principles affecting the power of a federal court to adjudicate constitutional claims has been questioned, Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 683 (1946), and characterized as “more ancient than analytically sound,” Rosado v. Wyman, supra, at 404. But it remains the federal rule and needs no re-examination here, for we are convinced that within accepted doctrine petitioners' complaint alleged a constitutional claim sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the District Court to pass on the controversy.
Jurisdiction is essentially the authority conferred by Congress to decide a given type of case one way or the other. The Fair v. Kohler Die Co., 228 U. S. 22, 25 (1913). Here, §§ 1343 (3) and 1983 unquestionably authorized federal courts to entertain suits to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of constitutional rights. It is also plain that the complaint formally alleged such a deprivation. The District Court’s jurisdiction, a matter for threshold determination, turned on whether the question was too insubstantial for consideration.
In Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970), AFDC recipients challenged the Maryland maximum grant regulation on equal protection grounds. We held that the issue should be resolved by inquiring whether the classification had a rational basis. Finding that it did, we sustained the regulation. But Dandridge evinced no intention to suspend the operation of the Equal Protection Clause in the field of social welfare law. State laws and regulations must still “be rationally based and free from invidious discrimination.” Id., at 487. See Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546 (1972); Carter v. Stanton, 405 U. S. 669, 671 (1972); cf. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (1973).
Judged by this standard, we cannot say that the equal protection issue tendered by the complaint was either frivolous or so insubstantial as to be beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court. We are unaware of any cases in this Court specifically dealing with this or any similar regulation and settling the matter one way or the other. Nor is it immediately obvious to us from the face of the complaint that recouping emergency rent payments from future welfare disbursements, which petitioners argue deprived needy children because of parental default, was so patently rational as to require no meaningful consideration.
The Court of Appeals rightly felt obliged to measure petitioners’ complaint that the challenged regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause “by discriminating irrationally and invidiously between different classes of recipients” against the standard prescribed by Dan-dridge. The Court of Appeals then reasoned that without the recoupment regulation, those who were subject to it would be preferred over those who had paid their full rent out of their normal monthly grant. The court further reasoned that the regulation provided an incentive for welfare recipients to properly manage their grants and not become delinquent in their rent. It concluded that the regulation was rationally based and that no substantial constitutional question within the jurisdiction of the District Court had been presented.
This reasoning with respect to the rationality of the regulation and its propriety under the Equal Protection Clause may ultimately prove correct, but it is not immediately obvious from the decided cases or so “very plain” under the Equal Protection Clause. We think the admonition of Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678 (1946), should be followed here:
“Jurisdiction... is not defeated as respondents seem to contend, by the possibility that the aver-ments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. If the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction.” Id., at 682 (citations omitted).
As was the case in Bell v. Hood, we cannot “say that the cause of action alleged is so patently without merit as to justify, even under the qualifications noted, the court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.” Id., at 683. Nor can we say that petitioners’ claim is "so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits.” Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661, 666-667 (1974). (Citations omitted.)
II
Given a constitutional question over which the District Court had jurisdiction, it also had jurisdiction over the “statutory” claim. See supra, at 536. The latter was to be decided first and the former not reached if the statutory claim was dispositive. California Human Resources Dept. v. Java, 402 U. S. 121, 124 (1971); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 475-476; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S., at 402; King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (1968). The constitutional claim could be adjudicated only by a three-judge court, but the statutory claim was within the jurisdiction of a single district judge. Swift & Co.v. Wickham, 382 U. S. Ill (1965); Rosado v. Wyman, supra, at 403. Thus, the District Judge, sitting alone, moved directly to the statutory claim. His decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, although had a three-judge court been convened, an injunction issued, and the statutory ground alone decided, the appeal would be only to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
The procedure followed by the District Court — initial determination of substantiality and then adjudication of the “statutory” claim without convening a three-judge court — may appear at odds with some of our prior decisions. See, e. g., Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 382 U. S. 423 (1966); Florida Lime & Avocado Grow ers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73 (1960). But, we think it accurately reflects the recent evolution of three-judge-court jurisprudence, “this Court's concern for efficient operation of the lower federal courts,” and “the constrictive view of the three-judge [court] jurisdiction which this Court has traditionally taken.” Swift & Co. v. Wickham, supra, at 128, 129 (citations omitted). In Rosado v. Wyman, supra, at 403, we suggested that
“[e]ven had the constitutional claim not been declared moot, the most appropriate course may well have been to remand to the single district judge for findings and the determination of the statutory claim rather than encumber the district court, at a time when district court calendars are overburdened, by consuming the time of three federal judges in a matter that was not required to be determined by a three-judge court. See Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. Ill (1965).”
It is true that the constitutional claim would warrant convening a three-judge court and that if a single judge rejects the statutory claim, a three-judge court must be called to consider the constitutional issue. Nevertheless, the coincidence of a constitutional and statutory claim should not automatically require a single-judge district court to defer to a three-judge panel, which, in view of what we have said in Rosado v. Wyman, supra, could then merely pass the statutory claim back to the single judge. See Kelly v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 325 F. 2d 148, 151 (CA7 1963); Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co. v. Nims, 252 F. 2d 317, 319-320 (CA6 1958); Doe v. Lavine, 347 F. Supp. 357, 359-360 (SDNY 1972); cf. Bryant v. Carleson, 444 F. 2d 353, 358-359 (CA9 1971). “In fact, it would be grossly inefficient to send a three-judge court a claim which will only be sent immediately back. This inefficiency is especially apparent if the single judge’s decision resolves the case, for there is then no need to convene the three-judge court.” Norton v. Richardson, 352 F. Supp. 596, 599 (Md. 1972) (citations omitted). Section 2281 does not forbid this practice, and we are not inclined to read that statute “in isolation with mutilating literalness....” Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Jacobsen, supra, at 94 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
Ill
Taking a jaundiced view of the constitutional claim, the dissenters would have the District Court dismiss the Supremacy Clause (“statutory”) issue, convene a three-judge court, and reject the constitutional claim, all of this, apparently, as an exercise of the discretion which the District Court, under Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966), is claimed to have over the pendent federal claim. But Gibbs was oriented to state law claims pendent to federal claims conferring jurisdiction on the District Court. Pendent jurisdiction over state claims was described as a doctrine of discretion not to be routinely exercised without considering the advantages of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants. For, “[n]eedless 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.” Id., at 726 (footnote omitted).
In light of the dissent’s treatment of Gibbs, several observations are appropriate. First, it is evident from Gibbs that pendent state law claims are not always, or even almost always, to be dismissed and not adjudicated. On the contrary, given advantages of economy and convenience and no unfairness to litigants, Gibbs contemplates adjudication of these claims.
Second, it would reasonably follow that other considerations may warrant adjudication rather than dismissal of pendent state claims. In Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175 (1909) the Court held that the state issues should be decided first and because these claims were dispositive, federal questions need not be reached:
“Where a case in this court can be decided without reference to questions arising under the Federal Constitution, that course is usually pursued and is not departed from without important reasons. In this case we think it much better to decide it with regard to the question of a local nature, involving the construction of the state statute and the authority therein given to the commission to make the order in question, rather than to unnecessarily decide the various constitutional questions appearing in the record.” Id., at 193.
Siler is not an oddity. The Court has characteristically dealt first with possibly dispositive state law claims pendent to federal constitutional claims. See, e. g., Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Garrett, 231 U. S. 298, 303-304, 310 (1913); Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576, 586-587 (1914); Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R. Co., 244 U. S. 499, 508-509 (1917); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Greene, 244 U. S. 522, 527 (1917); Davis v. Wallace, 257 U. S. 478, 482, 485 (1922); Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. Kendall, 266 U. S. 94, 97-98 (1924); Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439, 448-449 (1930); Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 629 (1946). The doctrine is not ironclad, see Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 393-394, 396 (1932), but it is recurringly applied, and, at the very least, it presumes the advisability of deciding first the pendent, nonconstitutional issue.
Gibbs did not cite Siler or like cases, nor did it purport to change the ordinary rule that a federal court should not decide federal constitutional questions where a dis-positive nonconstitutional ground is available. The dissent uncritically relies on Siler but ignores the preference stated in that case for deciding nonconstitutional claims even though they are pendent and, standing alone, are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal court.
Third, the rationale of Gibbs centers upon considerations of comity and the desirability of having a reliable and final determination of the state claim by state courts having more familiarity with the controlling principles and the authority to render a final judgment. These considerations favoring state adjudication are wholly irrelevant where the pendent claim is federal but is itself beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court for failure to satisfy the amount in controversy. In such cases, the federal court’s rendition of federal law will be at least as sure-footed and lasting as any judgment from the state courts.
The most relevant cases for our purposes, of course, are those decisions such as King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (1968), Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397 (1970), and Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970), where the jurisdictional claim arises under the Federal Constitution and the pendent claim, although denominated “statutory,” is in reality a constitutional claim arising under the Supremacy Clause. In these cases the Court has characteristically dealt with the “statutory” claim first “because if the appellees’ position on this question is correct, there is no occasion to reach the constitutional issues. Ashwander v. TV A, 297 U. S. 288, 346-347 (Brandéis, J., concurring); Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449.” Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 475-476.
In none of these cases did the Court think that with jurisdiction fairly established, a federal court, under Gibbs, must nevertheless decide the constitutional issue and avoid the statutory claim if, upon weighing the two claims, the statutory claim is strong and the constitutional claim weak. On the contrary, Mr. Justice Harlan, writing for the Court in Rosado v. Wyman, and with the principles of Gibbs well in mind, noted that the pendent statutory question was essentially one of federal policy and that the argument for the exercise of pendent jurisdiction was “ ‘particularly strong.’ ” 397 U. S., at 404. And Gibbs itself observed the “special reason for the exercise of pendent jurisdiction” where the Supremacy Clause is implicated: “the federal courts are particularly appropriate bodies for the application of pre-emption principles.” 383 U. S., at 729.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
AFDC is one of several major categorical public assistance programs established by the Social Security Act of 1935, and as we described in King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 316-317 (1968), it is founded on a scheme of cooperative federalism:
“It is financed largely by the Federal Government, on a matching fund basis, and is administered by the States. States are not required to participate in the program, but those which desire to take advantage of the substantial federal funds available for distribution to needy children are required to submit an AFDC plan for the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). 49 Stat. 627, 42 U. S. C. §§ 601, 602, 603, and 604. See [U. S. Advisory Commission Report on Intergovernmental Relations, Statutory and Administrative Controls Associated with Federal Grants for Public Assistance 21-23 (1964)]. The plan must conform with several requirements of the Social Security Act and with rules and regulations promulgated by HEW. 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (1964 ed., Supp. II). See also HEW, Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, pt. IV, §§2200, 2300...
See also Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 407-409 (1970).
Under the Social Security Act, HEW withholds federal funds for implementation of a state AFDC plan until compliance with the Act and the Department's regulations. HEW may also terminate partially or entirely federal payments if "in the administration of the [state] plan there is a failure to comply substantially with an)provision required by section 602 (a) of [the Act] to be included in the plan.” 42 U. S. C. § 604. See King v. Smith, supra, at 317 n. 12; Rosado v. Wyman, supra, at 420-422.
The challenged regulation provides, in pertinent part:
“(g) Payment for services and supplies already received. Assistance grants shall be made to meet only current needs. Under the following specified circumstances payment for services or supplies already received is deemed a current need:
“(7) For a recipient of public assistance who is being evicted for nonpayment of rent for which a grant has been previously issued, an advance allowance may be provided to prevent such eviction or rehouse the family; and such advance shall be deducted from subsequent grants in equal amounts over not more than the next six months. When there is a rent advance for more than one month, or more than one rent advance in a 12 month period, subsequent grants for rent shall be provided as restricted payments in accordance with Part 381 of this Title.” 18 N. Y. C. R. R. § 352.7 (g) (7).
As AFDC recipients, petitioners receive monthly grants calculated to provide 90% of their family needs for shelter, fuel, and other basic necessities. For one reason or another, each petitioner was unable to pay her rent, and faced with imminent eviction, she received emergency rent payments from the Nassau Count}' Department of Social Services. Because the State characterized these payments as “advances,” the amount of these disbursements was deducted or recouped from petitioners’ subsequent monthly familial assistance grants pursuant to § 352.7 (g) (7).
Petitioners alleged that the New York State recoupment regulation was contrary to the following provisions of the federal statute and regulations because it assumed, contrary to fact, that those funds, extended to a recipient to satisfy a current emergency rent need, remain available as income for the family’s need during the mandated six-month recoupment period.
Title 42 U. S. C. §§ 602 (a) (7) and (a) (10) state in pertinent part:
“(a) A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must... (7) except as may be otherwise provided in clause (8), provide that the [administering] State agency shall, in determining need, take into consideration any other income and resources of any child or relative claiming aid to families with dependent children, or any other individual (living in the same home as such child and relative) whose needs the State determines should be considered in determining the need of the child or relative claiming such aid, as well as any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income....
“(10) provide, effective July 1, 1951, that all individuals wishing to make application for aid to families with dependent children shall have opportunity to do so, and that aid to families with dependent children shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals....”
45 CFR § 233.20 (a) (3) (ii) (c):
“(a) Requirements for State Plans. A State Plan for OAA, AFDC, AB, APTD or AABD must, as specified below:
“(3)....
(ii) Provide that, in establishing financial eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment:... (c) only such net income as is actually available for current use on a regular basis will be considered, and only currently available resources will be considered....”
On appeal from the District Court’s entry of the injunction, the Court of Appeals without extended discussion found jurisdiction for the § 1983 action under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). Without passing on the merits of the District Court’s findings and conclusions, the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, ordered a remand to that court to determine whether the recoupment of prior advance rent payments from current grants is a “reduction in grant” that would trigger the New York fair-hearing procedures under 18 N. Y. C. R. R. § 351.26. 462 F. 2d 928 (CA2 1972).
On remand, the District Court allowed additional parties who had received fair hearings to intervene and file a complaint. At the invitation of the court, HEW filed an amicus curiae brief which concluded that “the New York regulation does contravene federal requirements because it assumes for particular months the existence of income and resources which by definition are not currently available for such months.” Brief for Petitioners Appendix 2. The District Court once again held the recoupment regulation invalid as violative of the Social Security Act and HEW regulations and enjoined its enforcement and implementation.
In view of our disposition of this case, we do not reach the question whether, wholly aside from the pendent-jurisdiction rationale relied upon by the District Court, other valid grounds existed for sustaining its jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim of conflict between federal and state law. It has been suggested, for example, that the conflict question is itself a constitutional matter within the meaning of § 1343 (3). Connecticut Union of Welfare Employees v. White, 55 F. R. D. 481, 486 (Conn. 1972). For purposes of interpreting and applying 28 U. S. C. § 2281, the three-judge-court provision, a claim of conflict between federal and state law has been denominated a claim not requiring a three-judge court. Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. Ill (1965). But Swift itself recognized that a suit to have a state statute declared void and to secure the benefits of the federal statute with which the state law is allegedly in conflict cannot succeed without ultimate resort to the Federal Constitution — “to be sure, any determination that a state statute is void for obstructing a federal statute does rest on the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution.” Id., at 125. Moreover, when we have previously determined that state AFDC laws do not conform to the Social Security Act or HEW regulations, they have been invalidated under the Supremacy Clause. See Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 286 (1971). It is therefore urged that the “secured by the Constitution” language of § 1343 (3) should not be construed to exclude Supremacy Clause issues. That question we leave for another day.
Petitioners contend that § 1983 authorizes suits to vindicate rights under the “laws” of the United States as well as under the Constitution and that a suit brought under § 1983 to vindicate a statutory right under the Social Security Act, is a suit under an Act of Congress “providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote” within the meaning of § 1343 (4). They further argue that in any event, § 1343 (3) in particular, and § 1343 in general, should be construed to invest the district courts with jurisdiction to hear any suit authorized by § 1983. These issues we also do not reach. See Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S., at 405 n. 7; see also Herzer, Federal Jurisdiction Over Statutorily-Based Welfare Claims, 6 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 1, 16-18 (1970); Note, Federal Jurisdiction Over Challenges to State Welfare Programs, 72 Col. L. Rev. 1404, 1405-1435 (1972); Note, Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 Col. L. Rev. 84, 109-115 (1967).
Several past decisions of this Court concerning challenges by-federal categorical assistance recipients to state welfare regulations have either assumed that jurisdiction existed under § 1343 or so stated without analysis. See, e. g., Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U. S. 598 (1972); Carter v. Stanton, 405 U. S. 669, 671 (1972); Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S., at 284 n. 2; California Human Resources Dept. v. Java, 402 U. S. 121 (1971); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970); King v. Smith, 392 U. S., at 312 n. 3; Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967). In none of these cases was the jurisdictional issue squarely raised as a contention in the petitions for certiorari, jurisdictional statements, or briefs filed in this Court. See Edelman v. Jordan, post, at 670-671. Moreover, when questions of jurisdiction have been passed on in prior decisions sub silentio, this Court has never considered itself bound when a subsequent case finally brings the jurisdictional issue before us. United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172 (1805); King Mfg. Co. v. Augusta, 277 U. S. 100, 134-135, n. 21 (1928) (Brandéis, J., dissenting). We therefore approach the question of the District Court’s jurisdiction to entertain this suit as an open one calling for a canvass of the relevant jurisdictional considerations. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, 88 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
Those district courts that have ruled on similarly drafted state recoupment provisions have found that they were not rationally related to the declared purposes of the AFDC program and were therefore invalid under the Social Security Act and HEW regulations. In Cooper v. Laupheimer, 316 F. Supp. 264 (ED Pa. 1970), the District Court, after
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case primarily concerns Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its application to a less-than-precise denomination of a defendant in complaints filed in federal court near the expiration of the period of limitations. Because of an apparent conflict among the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 474 U. S. 814 (1985).
I
The three petitioners instituted this diversity litigation on May 9, 1983, by filing their respective complaints in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Each complaint alleged that the plaintiff was libeled in a cover story entitled “The Charges Against Reagan’s Labor Secretary,” which appeared in the May 31, 1982, issue of Fortune magazine. The caption of each complaint named “Fortune,” without embellishment, as the defendant. See App. 8a. In its paragraph 2, each complaint described Fortune as “a foreign corporation having its principal offices at Time and Life Building, Sixth Avenue and 50th Street, New York, New York 10020.” Id., at 9a. “Fortune,” however, is only a trademark and the name of an internal division of Time, Incorporated (Time), a New York corporation.
On May 20, petitioners’ counsel mailed the complaints to Time’s registered agent in New Jersey. They were received on May 23. The agent refused service because Time was not named as a defendant.
On July 18, 1983, each petitioner amended his complaint to name as the captioned defendant “Fortune, also known as Time, Incorporated,” and, in the body of the complaint, to refer to “Fortune, also known as Time, Incorporated,” as a New York corporation with a specified registered New Jersey agent. See id., at 25a, 26a. The amended complaints were served on Time by certified mail on July 21.
Time moved to dismiss the amended complaints. The District Court granted those motions. Id., at 96a, 98a, 100a. It ruled that the complaints, as amended, adequately named Time as a defendant, and therefore were not to be dismissed “for failure of capacity of defendant to be sued.” Supp. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. Under New Jersey law, however, see N. J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14-3 (West 1952), a libel action must be commenced within one year of the publication of the alleged libel. Supp. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. State law also provides that the “ ‘date upon which a substantial distribution occurs triggers the statute of limitations for any and all actions arising out of that publication,’” id., at 19a, quoting MacDonald v. Time, Inc., Civil No. 81-479 (DNJ Aug. 25, 1981). Supp. App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a. The court found it unnecessary, for purposes of the motion, to determine the precise date the statute of limitations had begun to run.
Although Time acknowledged that the original filings were within the limitations period, it took the position that it could not be named as a party after the period had expired. Time contended that a party must be substituted within the limitations period in order for the amendment to relate back to the original fifing date pursuant to Rule 15(c).
The District Court concluded that the amendments to the complaints did not relate back to the fifing of the original complaints because it had not been shown that Time received notice of the institution of the suits within the period provided by law for commencing an action against it. Supp. App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a. It therefore “with great reluctance” granted the motion to dismiss, noting that any dismissal of a claim based upon the statute of limitations “by its very nature is arbitrary.” Id., at 24a. The court also ruled that the “equities of this situation” did not demand that relief be afforded to petitioners. Ibid. The identity of the publisher of Fortune was readily ascertainable from the magazine itself. It rejected petitioners’ contention that Time deliberately misled them to believe that Fortune was a separate corporation. It observed that petitioners created the risk by filing their suits close to the end of the limitations period. Id., at 25a.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration. By letter opinion filed January 12, 1984, the court adhered to its prior ruling. App. to Brief in Opposition la.
On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the three actions were consolidated. That court affirmed the orders of the District Court. 750 F. 2d 15 (1984). It ruled that the New Jersey statute of limitations ran “on May 19, 1983, at the latest,” for a “substantial distribution” of the issue of May 31, 1982, had “occurred on May 19, 1982, at the latest.” Id., at 16. It regarded the language of Rule 15(c) as “clear and unequivocal.” 750 F. 2d, at 18. It also said: “While we are sympathetic to plaintiffs’ arguments, we agree with the defendant that it is not this court’s role to amend procedural rules in accordance with our own policy preferences.” Ibid. It further held that the period within which the defendant to be brought in must receive notice under Rule 15(c) does not include the time available for service of process.
HH 1 — 1
It is clear, from what has been noted above, that the three complaints as originally drawn were filed within the limitations period; that service was attempted only after that period had expired; and that the amendment of the complaints, and the service of the complaints as so amended, also necessarily took place after the expiration of the limitations period. The District Court and the Court of Appeals so found, and we have no reason to disagree. The parties themselves do not dispute these facts. Instead, their dispute centers on whether Time was sufficiently named as the defendant in the original complaints so that the service that was attempted after the 1-year period but within the time allowed for service was effective, and on whether, in any event, the amendment of the complaints related back to the original filing and accomplished the same result.
Petitioners argue that Rule 15(c)’s present form came into being by amendment in 1966 for the express purpose of allowing relation back of a change in the name or identity of a defendant when, although the limitations period for filing had run, the period allowed by Rule 4 for timely service had not yet expired. Brief for Petitioners 5. The Rule was effected, it is said, to ameliorate literal and rigid application of limitations periods to both claim and party amendments. It is urged that the Rules of Civil Procedure should be applied and construed to yield just determinations, that is, determinations on the merits, and that a procedural “double standard” that bars relation back for late notice to a new defendant when a like notice to the original defendant would be timely is unacceptable. Petitioners further argue that the original party named here and the party sought to be substituted had such commonality of interest that notice to one was in fact notice to the other. Therefore, it is said, where the intended defendant was misdesignated in form only, and knew or reasonably should have known that it was the true target and received the same notice it would have received had the form been flawless, “relation back should be a foregone conclusion.” Brief for Petitioners 6.
Respondent, of course, takes issue with this approach. It claims that the language of Rule 15(c) is clear and that proper notice of the institution of these actions was not received by it within the period of limitations. It asserts that the equities do not support petitioners’ position, and that the interpretation of Rule 15(c) urged by petitioners in effect would be an impermissible rewriting of the Rule by this Court.
f — H I — I I — I
As amended, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “These rules . . . shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 8(f) says: “All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” And Justice Black reminded us, more than 30 years ago, in connection with an order adopting revised Rules of this Court, that the “principal function of procedural rules should be to serve as useful guides to help, not hinder, persons who have a legal right to bring their problems before the courts.” 346 U. S. 946, 946 (1954).
This Court, too, in the early days of the federal civil procedure rules, when Rule 15(e), see n. 5, supra, consisted only of what is now its first sentence, announced that the spirit and inclination of the rules favored decisions on the merits, and rejected an approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep may be decisive. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 48 (1957). It also said that decisions on the merits are not to be avoided on the basis of “mere technicalities.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U. S. 178, 181 (1962).
Despite these worthy goals and loftily stated purposes, we conclude that the judgments of the Court of Appeals in the present cases were correct.
A
The defendant named in the caption of each of the original complaints was “Fortune,” and Fortune was described in the body of the complaint as “a foreign corporation” having principal offices in the Time and Life Building in New York City. It also was alleged that Fortune was engaged in the publication of a magazine of that name. Attached to the complaint were a copy of the magazine’s cover for its issue of May 31, 1982, an artist’s depiction of an alleged payoff, and the text of parts of the article about which petitioners complained. The focus, as pleaded, was on Fortune.
We cannot understand why, in litigation of this asserted magnitude, Time was not named specifically as the defendant in the caption and in the body of each complaint. This was not a situation where the ascertainment of the defendant’s identity was difficult for the plaintiffs. An examination of the magazine’s masthead clearly would have revealed the corporate entity responsible for the publication.
Petitioners nonetheless rely on Fortune’s status as a division of Time to argue that institution of an action purportedly against the former constituted notice of the action to the latter, as a related entity. Some Courts of Appeals have recognized an “identity-of-interest” exception under which an amendment that substitutes a party in a complaint after the limitations period has expired will relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. The Court of Appeals in this case rejected that approach. The object of the exception is to avoid the application of the statute of limitations when no prejudice would result to the party sought to be added.
Even if we were to adopt the identity-of-interest exception, and even if Fortune properly could be named as a defendant, we would be compelled to reject petitioners’ contention that the facts of this case fall within the exception. Timely filing of a complaint, and notice within the limitations period to the party named in the complaint, permit imputation of notice to a subsequently named and sufficiently related party. In this case, however, neither Fortune nor Time received notice of the filing until after the period of limitations had run. Thus, there was no proper notice to Fortune that could be imputed to Time. See Hernandez Jimenez v. Calero Toledo, 604 F. 2d 99, 102-103 (CA1 1979); Norton v. International Harvester Co., 627 F. 2d 18, 20-21 (CA7 1980).
B
The complaints as they were amended, of course, meet the identification standard. While the statement, “Fortune,. also known as Time, Incorporated, was and is a corporation of the state of New York,” is not a model of accuracy, it does focus on Time and sufficiently describes Time as the targeted defendant. The next question, then, is whether the amendment, made in July 1983, related back to the fifing on May 9, a date concededly within the period of the applicable New Jersey statute of limitations.
Central to the resolution of this issue is the language of Rule 15(c). See n. 5, supra. Relation back is dependent upon four factors, all of which must be satisfied: (1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period. We are not concerned here with the first factor, but we are concerned with the satisfaction of the remaining three.
The first intimation that Time had of the institution and maintenance of the three suits took place after May 19, 1983, the date the Court of Appeals said the statute ran “at the latest.” 750 F. 2d, at 16. Only on May 20 did petitioners’ counsel mail the complaints to Time’s registered agent in New Jersey. Only on May 23 were those complaints received by the registered agent, and then refused. Only on July 19 did each petitioner amend his complaint. And only on July 21 were the amended complaints served on Time.
It seems to us inevitably to follow that notice to Time and the necessary knowledge did not come into being “within the period provided by law for commencing the action against” Time, as is so clearly required by Rule 15(c). That occurred only after the expiration of the applicable 1-year period. This is fatal, then, to petitioners’ litigation.
We do not have before us a choice between a “liberal” approach toward Rule 15(c), on the one hand, and a “technical” interpretation of the Rule, on the other hand. The choice, instead, is between recognizing or ignoring what the Rule provides in plain language. We accept the Rule as meaning what it says.
We are not inclined, either, to temper the plain meaning of the language by engrafting upon it an extension of the limitations period equal to the asserted reasonable time, inferred from Rule 4, for the service of a timely filed complaint. Rule 4 deals only with process. Rule 3 concerns the “commencement” of a civil action. Under Rule 15(c), the emphasis is upon “the period provided by law for commencing the action against” the defendant. An action is commenced by the filing of a complaint and, so far as Time is concerned, no complaint against it was filed on or prior to May 19, 1983.
Any possible doubt about this should have been dispelled 20 years ago by the Advisory Committee’s 1966 Note about Rule 15(c). The Note specifically states that the Rule’s phrase “within the period provided by law for commencing the action” means “within the applicable limitations period”:
“An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the amendment satisfies the usual condition of Rule 15(c) of ‘arising out of the conduct ... set forth ... in the original pleading,’ and if, within the applicable limitations period, the party brought in by amendment, first, received such notice of the institution of the action — the notice need not be formal — that he would not be prejudiced in defending the action, and, second, knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against him initially had there not been a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party” (emphasis supplied). Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 551; 39 F. R. D. 83.
Although the Advisory Committee’s comments do not foreclose judicial consideration of the Rule’s validity and meaning, the construction given by the Committee is “of weight.” Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 444 (1946).
The commentators have accepted the literal meaning of the significant phrase in Rule 15(c) and have agreed with the Advisory Committee’s Note. See 3 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 15.15[4.-2], p. 15-225 (2d ed. 1985) (“the Rule demands a showing that, within the period of limitations, the new party . . .”); 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1498, p. 250 (Supp. 1986) (“in order for an amendment adding a party to relate back under Rule 15(c) the party to be added must have received notice of the action before the statute of limitations has run”).
The linchpin is notice, and notice within the limitations period. Of course, there is an element of arbitrariness here, but that is a characteristic of any limitations period. And it is an arbitrariness imposed by the legislature and not by the judicial process. See Note: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c): Relation Back of Amendments, 57 Minn. L. Rev. 83, 85, n. 8 (1972).
The judgments of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Compare, e. g., Cooper v. U. S. Postal Service, 740 F. 2d 714, 716 (CA9 1984), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1022 (1985); Watson v. Unipress, Inc., 733 F. 2d 1386, 1390 (CA10 1984); Hughes v. United States, 701 F. 2d 56, 58 (CA7 1982); and Trace X Chemical, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Chemical Co., 724 F. 2d 68, 70-71 (CA8 1983), with Kirk v. Cronvich, 629 F. 2d 404, 408 (CA5 1980); Ingram v. Kumar, 585 F. 2d 566, 571-572 (CA2 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 940 (1979); and Ringrose v. Engelberg Huller Co., 692 F. 2d 403, 410 (CA6 1982) (concurring opinion).
No claim is made that Fortune is a separate legal entity with the capacity to be sued. •
The cited New Jersey statute reads:
“Every action at law for libel or slander shall be commenced within 1 year next after the publication of the alleged libel or slander.”
The court noted that, despite the magazine’s cover date of May 31, 1982, the record “indicate[d]” that, for purposes of determining the limitations period, publication “occurred substantially before” May 31; that subscription copies were mailed May 12 and received by subscribers May 13-19; that newsstand copies went on sale May 17; that a press release was issued May 11; and that copies of the magazine were mailed to representatives of the press on that date. Supp. App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a.
Rule 15(c) provides in pertinent part:
“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.”
The magazine’s very issue in question, that of May 31, 1982, p. 2, recites:
“FORTUNE (ISSN 0015-8259), May 31, 1982, Vol. 105, No. 11. Issued biweekly by Time Inc., 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, Cal. 90010. . . . Principal offices: Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, N. Y. 10020. . . . FORTUNE is a registered mark of Time Incorporated.”
The parallel information set forth in current issues of Fortune magazine reads:
“FORTUNE (ISSN 0015-8259). Published biweekly, with three issues in October, by Time Inc., 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024-4193. Time Inc. principal office: Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020-1393. . . . FORTUNE is a registered mark of Time Inc.”
See issue of June 9, 1986, p. 2; issue of May 26, 1986, p. 4; issue of May 12, 1986, p. 4.
See, e. g., Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United States ex rel. Construction Specialties Co., 382 F. 2d 103 (CA10 1967); Montalvo v. Tower Life Building, 426 F. 2d 1135 (CA5 1970); Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 724 F. 2d 1397 (CA9 1984).
Petitioners would garner support from Professor Clark Byse’s article, Suing the “Wrong” Defendant in Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action: Proposals for Reform, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 40 (1963), cited in the Advisory Committee’s Note to the 1966 amendment of Rule 15, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 550; 39 F. R. D. 83. That study was critically directed at four Federal District Court decisions concerning “relation back” in suits against Government officers. In each of the cases, however, the Government within the period of limitations was on notice of the claim.
Similarly, petitioners’ reliance upon Justice White’s footnote comment in dissent from the denial of certiorari in Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 471 U. S. 1022, 1025, n. 3 (1985), seems to us to be misplaced. Justice White, in fact, noted the inherent weakness of any such reliance (“Petitioner’s position is somewhat weak in this regard because, while the complaint was filed within the requisite 30 days, no party was served with process within that period”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In 1982, an Arizona jury convicted respondent Robert Douglas Smith of first-degree murder, kidnaping, and sexual assault. He was sentenced to death. The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and Smith’s state petitions for posteonviction relief proved unsuccessful. Smith then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. In none of these proceedings did Smith argue that he was mentally retarded or that his mental retardation made him ineligible for the death penalty. Smith had, however, presented evidence in mitigation during the sentencing phase of his trial showing that he had low intelligence.
The District Court denied Smith’s petition for habeas corpus in 1996. Following several rounds of appeals, remands, and petitions for certiorari to this Court (including one successful petition by the State, see Stewart v. Smith, 536 U. S. 856 (2002) (per curiam)), and after we had issued our decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002), the case returned to the Ninth Circuit. Shortly thereafter, Smith asserted in briefing that he is mentally retarded and cannot, under Atkins, be executed. The Ninth Circuit ordered suspension of all federal habeas proceedings and directed Smith to “institute proceedings in the proper trial court of Arizona to determine whether the state is prohibited from executing [Smith] in accordance with Atkins.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2. The court further ordered that the issue whether Smith is mentally retarded must “be determined ... by a jury trial unless the right to a jury is waived by the parties.” Ibid.
The State’s petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded. The Ninth Circuit erred in commanding the Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve Smith’s mental retardation claim. Atkins stated in clear terms that “ ‘we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences.’ ” 536 U. S., at 317 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 416-417 (1986); modifications in original). States, including Arizona, have responded to that challenge by adopting their own measures for adjudicating claims of mental retardation. While those measures might, in their application, be subject to constitutional challenge, Arizona had not even had a chance to apply its chosen proee-dures when the Ninth Circuit pre-emptively imposed its jury trial condition.
Because the Court of Appeals exceeded its limited authority on habeas review, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Srmth’s motion to proceed informa pauperis is also granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Petitioner Michael Wayne Williams received a capital sentence for the murders of Morris Keller, Jr., and Keller’s wife, Mary Elizabeth. Petitioner later sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Accompanying his petition was a request for an evidentiary hearing on constitutional claims which, he alleged, he had been unable to develop in state-court proceedings. The question in this case is whether 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. Ill), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, bars the evidentiary hearing petitioner seeks. If petitioner “has failed to develop the factual basis of [his] claim[s] in State court proceedings,” his case is subject to § 2254(e)(2), and he may not receive a hearing because he concedes his inability to satisfy the statute’s further stringent conditions for excusing the deficiency.
I
On the evening of February 27,1993, Verena Lozano James dropped off petitioner and his friend Jeffrey Alan Cruse near a local store in a rural area of Cumberland County, Virginia. The pair planned to rob the store’s employees and customers using a.357 revolver petitioner had stolen in the course of a quadruple murder and robbery he had committed two months earlier. Finding the store closed, petitioner and Cruse walked to the Kellers’ home. Petitioner was familiar with the couple, having grown up down the road from where they lived. He told Cruse they would have “a couple thousand dollars.” App. 78. Cruse, who had been holding the.357, handed the gun to petitioner and knocked on the door. When Mr. Keller opened the door, petitioner pointed the gun at him as the two intruders forced their way inside. Petitioner and Cruse forced Mr. Keller to the kitchen, where they discovered Mrs. Keller. Petitioner ordered the captives to remove their clothing. While petitioner kept guard on the Kellers, Cruse searched the house for money and other valuables. He found a.38-caliber handgun and bullets. Upon Cruse’s return to the kitchen, petitioner had Cruse tie their captives with telephone cords. The Kellers were confined to separate closets while the intruders continued ransacking the house.
When they gathered all they wanted, petitioner and Cruse decided to rape Mrs. Keller. With Mrs. Keller pleading with them not to hurt her or her husband, petitioner raped her. Cruse did the same. Petitioner then ordered the Kellers to shower and dress and “take a walk” with him and Cruse. Id., at 97. As they were leaving, petitioner told Mrs. Keller he and Cruse were going to burn down the house. Mrs. Keller begged to be allowed to retrieve her marriage license, which she did, guarded by petitioner.
As the prosecution later presented the case, details of the murders were as follows. Petitioner, now carrying the.38, and Cruse, carrying the.357, took the Kellers to a thicket down a dirt road from the house. With petitioner standing behind Mr. Keller and Cruse behind Mrs. Keller, petitioner told Cruse, “We’ll shoot at the count of three.” Id., at 103. At the third count, petitioner shot Mr. Keller in the head, and Mr. Keller collapsed to the ground. Cruse did not shoot Mrs. Keller at the same moment. Saying “he didn’t want to leave no witnesses,” petitioner urged Cruse to shoot Mrs. Keller. Ibid. Cruse fired one shot into her head. Despite his wound, Mr. Keller stood up, but petitioner shot him a second time. To ensure the Kellers were dead, petitioner shot each of them two or three more times.
After returning to the house and loading the stolen property into the Kellers’ jeep, petitioner and Cruse set fire to the house and drove the jeep to Fredericksburg, Virginia, where they sold some of the property. They threw the remaining property and the.357 revolver into the Rappahan-nock River and set fire to the jeep.
Pursuing a lead from Verena James, the police interviewed Cruse about the fire at the Kellers’ home. Petitioner had fled to Florida. Cruse provided no useful information until the police discovered the bodies of the victims, at which point Cruse consulted counsel. In a plea bargain Cruse agreed to disclose the details of the crimes in exchange for the Commonwealth’s promise not to seek the death penalty against him. Cruse described the murders but made no mention of his own act of rape. When the Commonwealth discovered the omission, it revoked the plea agreement and charged Cruse with capital murder.
Petitioner was arrested and charged with robbery, abduction, rape, and the capital murders of the Kellers. At trial in January 1994, Cruse was the Commonwealth’s main witness. He recounted the murders as we have just described. Cruse testified petitioner raped Mrs. Keller, shot Mr. Keller at least twice, and shot Mrs. Keller several times after she had been felled by Cruse’s bullet. He also described petitioner as the mastermind of the murders. The circumstances of the first plea agreement between the Commonwealth and Cruse and its revocation were disclosed to the jury. Id., at 158-159. Testifying on his own behalf, petitioner admitted he was the first to shoot Mr. Keller and it was his idea to rob the store and set fire to the house. He denied, however, raping or shooting Mrs. Keller, and claimed to have shot Mr. Keller only once. Petitioner blamed Cruse for the remaining shots and disputed some other parts of Cruse’s testimony.
The jury convicted petitioner on all counts. After considering the aggravating and mitigating evidence presented during the sentencing phase, the jury found the aggravating circumstances of future dangerousness and vileness of the crimes and recommended a death sentence. The trial court imposed the recommended sentence. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed petitioner’s convictions and sentence, Williams v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 528, 450 S. E. 2d 365 (1994), and we denied certiorari, Williams v. Virginia, 515 U. S. 1161 (1995). In a separate proceeding, Cruse pleaded guilty to the capital murder of Mrs. Keller and the first-degree murder of Mr. Keller. After the prosecution asked the sentencing court to spare his life because of his testimony against petitioner, Cruse was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Petitioner filed a habeas petition in state court alleging, in relevant part, that the Commonwealth failed to disclose a second agreement it had reached with,Cruse after the first one was revoked. The new agreement, petitioner alleged, was an informal undertaking by the prosecution to recommend a life sentence in exchange for Cruse’s testimony. Finding no merit to petitioner’s claims, the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed the habeas petition^ and we again denied certiorari. Williams v. Netherland, 519 U. S. 877 (1996).
Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on November 20,1996. In addition to his claim regarding the alleged undisclosed agreement between the Commonwealth and Cruse, the petition raised three claims relevant to questions now before us. First, petitioner claimed the prosecution had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), in failing to disclose a report of a confidential pretrial psychiatric examination of Cruse. Second, petitioner alleged his trial was rendered unfair by the seating of a juror who at voir dire had not revealed possible sources of bias. Finally, petitioner alleged one of the prosecutors committed misconduct in failing to reveal his knowledge of the juror’s possible bias.
The District Court granted an evidentiary hearing on the undisclosed agreement and the allegations of juror bias and prosecutorial misconduct but denied a hearing on the psychiatric report. Before the evidentiary hearing could be held, the Commonwealth filed an application for an emergency stay and a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition in the Court of Appeals. The Commonwealth argued that petitioner’s evidentiary hearing was prohibited by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. III). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals granted the emergency stay and remanded for the District Court to apply the statute to petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the District Court vacated its order granting an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the petition, having determined petitioner could not satisfy §2254(e)(2)’s requirements.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first considered petitioner’s argument that §2254(e)(2) did not apply to his case because he had been diligent in attempting to develop his claims in.state court. Citing its decision in Cardwell v. Greene, 152 F. Sd 331 (CA4), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 1037 (1998), the Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner that § 2254(e)(2) would not apply if he had exercised diligence in state court. The court held, however, that petitioner had not been diligent and so had “failed to develop” in state court the factual bases of his Brady, juror bias, and prosecutorial misconduct claims. See 189 F. 3d 421, 426 (CA4 1999). The Court of Appeals concluded petitioner could not satisfy the statute’s conditions for excusing his failure to develop the facts and held him barred from receiving an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals ruled in the alternative that, even if § 2254(e)(2) did not apply, petitioner would be ineligible for an evidentiary hearing under the cause and prejudice standard of pre-AEDPA law. See id., at 428.
Addressing petitioner’s claim of an undisclosed informal agreement between the Commonwealth and Cruse, the Court of Appeals rejected it on the merits under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) and, as a result, did not consider whether § 2254(e)(2) applied. See 189 F. 3d, at 429.
On October 18,1999, petitioner filed an application for stay of execution and a petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 28, we stayed petitioner’s execution and granted certio-rari to decide whether § 2254(e)(2) precludes him from receiving an evidentiary hearing on his claims. See 528 U. S. 960 (1999). We now affirm in part and reverse in part.
II
A
Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition after AEDPA’s effective date, so the statute applies to his case. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 326-327 (1997). The Commonwealth argues AEDPA bars petitioner from receiving an evidentiary hearing on any claim whose factual basis was not developed in state court, absent narrow circumstances not applicable here. Petitioner did not develop, or raise, his claims of juror bias, prosecutorial misconduct, or the prosecution’s alleged Brady violation regarding Cruse’s psychiatric report until he filed his federal habeas petition. Petitioner explains he could not have developed the claims earlier because he was unaware, through no fault of his own, of the underlying facts. As a consequence, petitioner contends, AEDPA erects no barrier to an evidentiary hearing in federal court.
Section 2254(e)(2), the provision which controls whether petitioner may receive an evidentiary hearing in federal district court on the claims that were not developed in the Virginia courts, becomes the central point of our analysis. It provides as follows:
“If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that—
“(A) the claim relies on—
“(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
“(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and
“(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
By the terms of its opening clause the statute applies only to prisoners who have “failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings.” If the prisoner has failed to develop the facts, an evidentiary hearing earinot be granted unless the prisoner’s case meets the other conditions of § 2254(e)(2). Here, petitioner concedes his case does not comply with § 2254(e)(2)(B), see Brief for Petitioner 25, so he may receive an evidentiary hearing only if his claims fall outside the opening clause.
There was no hearing in state court on any of the claims for which petitioner now seeks an evidentiary hearing. That, says the Commonwealth, is the end of the matter. In its view petitioner, whether or not through his own fault or neglect, still “failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings.” Petitioner, on the other hand, says the phrase "failed to develop” means lack of diligence in developing the claims, a defalcation he contends did not occur since he made adequate efforts during state-court proceedings to discover and present the underlying facts. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s interpretation of § 2254(e)(2) but believed petitioner had not exercised enough diligence to avoid the statutory bar. See 189 F. 3d, at 426. We agree with petitioner and the Court of Appeals that “failed to develop” implies some lack of diligence; but, unlike the Court of Appeals, we find no lack of diligence on petitioner’s part with regard to two of his three claims.
B
We start, as always, with the language of the statute. See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 241 (1989). Section 2254(e)(2) begins with a conditional clause, “[i]f the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,” which directs attention to the prisoner’s efforts in state court. We ask first whether the factual basis was indeed developed in state court, a question susceptible, in the normal course, of a simple yes or no answer. Here the answer is no.
The Commonwealth would have the analysis begin and end there. Under its no-fault reading of the statute, if there is no factual development in the state court, the federal ha-beas court may not inquire into the reasons for the default when determining whether the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2) applies. We do not agree with the Commonwealth’s interpretation of the word “failed.”
We do not deny “fail” is sometimes used in a neutral way, not importing fault or want of diligence. So the phrase ‘We fail to understand his argument” can mean simply ‘We cannot understand his argument.” This is not the sense in which the word “failed” is used here, however.
We give the words of a statute their “ ‘ordinary, contempo^ rary, common meaning,’ ” absent an indication Congress intended them to bear some different import. Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U. S. 202, 207 (1997) (quoting Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U. S. 380 (1993)). See also Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137, 141 (1995). In its customary and preferred sense, “fail” connotes some omission, fault, or negligence on the part of the person who has failed to do something. See, e. g., Webster’s New International Dictionary 910 (2d ed. 1939) (defining “fail” as “to be wanting; to fall short; to be or become deficient in any measure or degree,” and “failure” as “a falling short,” “a deficiency or lack,” and an “[o]mission to perform”); Webster’s New International Dictionary 814 (3d ed. 1993) (“to leave some possible or expected action unperformed or some condition un-achieved”).' See also Black’s Law Dictionary 594 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “fail” as “[f]ault, negligence, or refusal”). To say a person has failed in a duty implies he did not take the necessary steps to fulfill it. He is, as a consequence, at fault and bears responsibility for the failure. In this sense, a person is not at fault when his diligent efforts to perform an act are thwarted, for example, by the conduct of another or by happenstance. Fault lies, in those circumstances, either with the person who interfered with the accomplishment of the act or with no one at all. We conclude Congress used the word “failed” in the sense just described. Had Congress intended a no-fault standard, it would have had no difficulty in making its intent plain. It would have had to do no more than use, in lieu of the phrase “has failed to,” the phrase “did not.”
Under the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2), a failure to develop the factual basis of a claim is not established unless there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel. In this we agree with the Court of Appeals and with all other courts of appeals which have addressed the issue. See, e. g., Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F. 3d 1075, 1078-1079 (CA9 1999); Miller v. Champion, 161 F 3d 1249, 1253 (CA10 1998); Cardwell, 152 F 3d, at 337; McDonald v. Johnson, 139 F 3d 1056, 1059 (CA5 1998); Burris v. Parke, 116 F 3d 256, 258 (CA7 1997); Love v. Morton, 112 F 3d 131, 136 (CA3 1997).
Our interpretation of § 2254(e)(2)’s opening clause has support in Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U. S. 1 (1992), a case decided four years before AEDPA’s enactment. In Keeney, a prisoner with little knowledge of English sought an eviden-tiary hearing in federal court, alleging his nolo contendere plea to a manslaughter charge was not knowing and voluntary because of inaccuracies in the translation of the plea proceedings. The prisoner had not developed the facts of his claim in state collateral proceedings, an omission caused by the negligence of his state postconviction counsel. See id., at 4, 8-9. The Court characterized this as the “prisoner’s failure to develop material facts in state court.” Id., at 8. We required the prisoner to demonstrate cause and prejudice excusing the default before he could receive a hearing on his claim, ibid., unless the prisoner could “show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from failure to hold a federal evidentiary hearing,” id., at 12.
Section 2254(e)(2)’s initial inquiry into whether “the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings” echoes Keeney’s language regarding “the state prisoner’s failure to develop material facts in state court.” In Keeney, the Court borrowed the cause and prejudice standard applied to procedurally defaulted claims, see Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 87-88 (1977), deciding there was no reason “to distinguish between failing to properly assert a federal claim in state court and failing in state court to properly develop such a claim.” Keeney, supra, at 8. As is evident from the similarity between the Court’s phrasing in Keeney and the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2), Congress intended to preserve at least one aspect of Keeney’s, holding: prisoners who are at fault for the deficiency in the state-court record must satisfy a heightened standard to obtain an evidentiary hearing. To be sure, in requiring that prisoners who have not been diligent satisfy § 2254(e)(2)’s provisions rather than show cause and prejudice, and in eliminating a freestanding “miscarriage of justice” exception, Congress raised the bar Keeney imposed on prisoners who were not diligent in state-court proceedings. Contrary to the Commonwealth’s position, however, there is no basis in the text of § 2254(e)(2) to believe Congress used “fail” in a different sense than the Court did in Keeney or otherwise intended the statute’s further, more stringent requirements to control the availability of an evidentiary hearing in a broader class of cases than were covered by Keeney’s cause and prejudice standard.
In sum, the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2) codifies Keeney's threshold standard of diligence, so that prisoners who would have had to satisfy Keeney’s test for excusing the deficiency in the state-court record prior to AEDPA are now controlled by § 2254(e)(2). When the words of the Court are used in a later statute governing the same subject matter, it is respectful of Congress and of the Court’s own processes to give the words the same meaning in the absence of specific direction to the contrary. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 581 (1978) (“[WJhere... Congress adopts a new law incorporating sections of a prior law, Congress normally can be presumed to have had knowledge of the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the new statute”). See also Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 499 U. S. 554, 562 (1991).
Interpreting § 2254(e)(2) so that “failed” requires lack.of diligence or some other fault avoids putting it in needless tension with § 2254(d). A prisoner who developed his claim in state court and can prove the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” is not barred from obtaining relief by § 2254(d)(1). See Williams v. Taylor, ante, at 412-413 (majority opinion). If the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2) covers a request for an evidentiary hearing on a claim which was pursued with diligence but remained undeveloped in state court because, for instance, the prosecution concealed the facts, a prisoner lacking clear and convincing evidence of innocence could be barred from a hearing on the claim even if he could satisfy § 2254(d). See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(2)(B). The “failed to develop” clause does not bear this harsh reading, which would attribute to Congress a purpose or design to bar evidentiary hearings for diligent prisoners with meritorious claims just because the prosecution’s conduct went undetected in state court. We see no indication that Congress by this language intended to remove the distinction between a prisoner who is at fault and one who is not.
The Commonwealth argues a reading of “failed to develop” premised on fault empties § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii) of its meaning. To treat the prisoner’s lack of diligence in state court as a prerequisite for application of § 2254(e)(2), the Commonwealth contends, renders a nullity of the statute’s own diligence provision requiring the prisoner to show “a factual predicate [of his claim] could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” § 2254(e)(2) (A)(ii). We disagree.
The Commonwealth misconceives the inquiry mandated by the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2). The question is not whether the facts could have been discovered but instead whether the prisoner was diligent in his efforts. The purpose of the fault component of “failed” is to ensure the prisoner undertakes his own diligent search for evidence. Diligence for purposes of the opening clause depends upon whether the prisoner made a reasonable attempt, in light of the information available at the time, to investigate and pursue claims in state court; it does not depend, as the Commonwealth would have it, upon whether those efforts could have been successful. Though lack of diligence will not bar an evidentiary hearing if efforts to discover the facts would have been in vain, see § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii), and there is a convincing claim of innocence, see § 2254(e)(2)(B), only a prisoner who has neglected his rights in state court need satisfy these conditions. The statute’s later reference to diligence pertains to cases in which the facts could not have been discovered, whether there was diligence or not. In this important respect § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii) bears a close resemblance to (e)(2)(A)(i), which applies to a new rule that was not available at the time of the earlier proceedings. Cf. Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U. S. 250, 255 (2000) (“[W]ords and people are known by their companions”). Cf. also United States v. Locke, ante, at 105. In these two parallel provisions Congress has given prisoners who fall within §2254(e)(2)’s opening clause an opportunity to obtain an evidentiary hearing where the legal or factual basis of the claims did not exist at the time of state-court proceedings.
We are not persuaded by the Commonwealth’s further argument that anything less than a no-fault understanding of the opening clause is contrary to AEDPA’s purpose to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism. There is no doubt Congress intended AEDPA to advance these doctrines. Federal habeas corpus principles must inform and shape the historic and still vital relation of mutual respect and common purpose existing between the States and the federal courts. In keeping this delicate balance we have been careful to limit the scope of federal intrusion into state criminal adjudications and to safeguard the States’ interest in the integrity of their criminal and collateral proceedings. See, e. g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 726 (1991) (“This is a case about federalism. It concerns the respect that federal courts owe the States and the States’ procedural rules when reviewing the claims of state prisoners in federal habeas corpus”); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 493 (1991) (“[T]he doctrines of procedural default and abuse of the writ are both designed to lessen the injury to a State that results through reexamination of a state conviction on a ground that the State did not have the opportunity to address at a prior, appropriate time; and both doctrines seek to vindicate the State’s interest in the finality of its criminal judgments”).
It is consistent with these principles to give effect to Congress’ intent to avoid unneeded evidentiary hearings in federal habeas corpus, while recognizing the statute does not equate prisoners who exercise diligence in pursuing their claims with those who do not. Principles of exhaustion are premised upon recognition by Congress and the Court that state judiciaries have the duty and competence to vindicate rights secured by the Constitution in state criminal proceedings. Diligence will require in the usual case that the prisoner, at a minimum, seek an evidentiary hearing in state court in the manner prescribed by state law. “Comity... dictates that when a prisoner alleges that his continued confinement for a state court conviction violates federal law, the state courts should have the first opportunity to review this claim and provide any necessary relief.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U. S. 838, 844 (1999). For state courts to have their rightful opportunity to adjudicate federal rights, the prisoner must be diligent in developing the record and presenting, if possible, all claims of constitutional error. If the prisoner fails to do so, himself or herself contributing to the absence of a full and fair adjudication in state court, § 2254(e)(2) prohibits an evidentiary hearing to develop the relevant claims in federal court, unless the statute’s other stringent requirements are met. Federal courts sitting in habeas are not an alternative forum for trying facts and issues which a prisoner made insufficient effort to pursue in state proceedings. Yet comity is not served by saying a prisoner “has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim” where he was unable to develop his claim in state court despite diligent effort. In that circumstance, an evidentiary hearing is not barred by § 2254(e)(2).
III
Now we apply the statutory test. If there has been no lack of diligence at the relevant stages in the state proceedings, the prisoner has not “failed to develop” the facts under § 2254(e)(2)’s opening clause, and he will be excused from showing compliance with the balance of the subsection’s requirements. We find lack of diligence as to one of the three claims but not as to the other two.
A
Petitioner did not exercise the diligence required to preserve the claim that nondisclosure of Cruse’s psychiatric report was in contravention of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). The report concluded Cruse “ha[d] little recollection of the [murders of the Kellers], other than vague memories, as he was intoxicated with alcohol and marijuana at the time.” App. 495. The report had been prepared in September 1993, before petitioner was tried; yet it was not mentioned by petitioner until he filed his federal habeas petition and attached a copy of the report. Petitioner explained that an investigator for his federal habeas counsel discovered the report in Cruse’s court file but state habeas counsel had not seen it when he had reviewed the same file. State habeas counsel.averred as follows:
“Prior to filing [petitioner’s] habeas corpus petition with the Virginia Supreme Court, I reviewed the Cumberland County court files of [petitioner] and of his co-defendant, Jeffrey Cruse.... I have reviewed the attached psychiatric evaluation of Jeffrey Cruse.... I have no recollection of seeing this report in Mr. Cruse’s court file when I examined the file. Given the contents of the report, I am confident that I would remember it.” Id., at 625-626.
The trial court was not satisfied with this explanation for the late discovery. Nor are we.
There are repeated references to a “psychiatric” or “mental health” report in a transcript of Cruse’s sentencing proceeding, a copy of which petitioner’s own state habeas counsel attached to the state habeas petition he filed with the Virginia Supreme Court. The transcript reveals that Cruse’s attorney described the report with details that should have alerted counsel to a possible Brady claim. As Cruse’s attorney said:
“The psychiatric report... point[s] out that [Cruse] is significantly depressed. He suffered from post traumatic stress. His symptoms include nightmares, sleeplessness, sobbing, reddening of the face, severe depression, flash hacks.... [T]he psychological report states he is overwhelmed by feelings of gnilt and shame in his actions. He is numb. He is trying to suppress his feelings, but when he has feelings, there is only pain and sadness.” App. 424.
The description accords with the contents of the psychiatric report, which diagnosed Cruse as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder:
“[Cruse] has recurrent nightmares and visualizes the face of the woman that he killed. When attempting to describe this nightmare, he breaks openly into tears and his face reddens.... He continues to feel worthless as a person.... He has no hope for his future and has been thinking of suicide constantly.... He does describe inability to sleep, often tossing and turning, waking up, and feeling fatigued during the day.... He described neurovegetative symptoms of major depression and post-traumatic nightmares, recurrent in nature, of the [murders].” Id., at 495-499.
The transcript put petitioner’s state habeas counsel on notice of the report’s existence and possible materiality. The sole indication that counsel made some effort to investigate the report is an October 30, 1995, letter to the prosecutor in which counsel requested “[a]ll reports of physical and mental examinations, scientific tests, or experiments conducted in connection with the investigation of the offense, including but not limited to:... [a]ll psychological test or polygraph examinations performed upon any prosecution witness and all documents referring or relating to such tests....” Id., at 346-347. After the prosecution declined the requests absent a court order, id., at 353, it appears counsel made no farther efforts to find the specific report mentioned by Cruse’s attorney. Given knowledge of the report’s existence and potential importance, a diligent attorney would have done more. Counsel’s failure to investigate these references in anything but a cursory manner triggers the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2).
As we hold there was a failure to develop the factual basis of this Brady claim in state court, we must determine if the requirements in the balance of § 2254(e)(2) are satisfied so that petitioner’s failure is excused. Subparagraph (B) of § 2254(e)(2) conditions a hearing upon a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable factfinder would have found petitioner guilty of capital murder but for the alleged constitutional error. Petitioner concedes he cannot make this showing, see Brief for Petitioner 25, and the case has been presented to us on that premise. For these reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment barring an evidentiary hearing on this claim.
B
We conclude petitioner has met the burden of showing he was diligent in efforts to develop the facts supporting his juror bias and prosecutorial misconduct claims in collateral proceedings before the Virginia Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s claims are based on two of the questions posed to the jurors by the trial judge at voir dire. First, the judge asked prospective jurors, “Axe any of you related to the following people who may be called as’witnesses?” Then he read the jurors a list of names, one of which was “Deputy Sheriff Claude Meinhard.” Bonnie Stinnett, who would later become the jury foreperson, had divorced Meinhard in 1979, after a 17-year marriage with four children. Stinnett remained silent, indicating the answer was “no.” Meinhard, as the officer who investigated the crime scene and interrogated Cruse, would later become the prosecution’s lead-off witness at trial.
After reading the names of the attorneys involved in the case, including one of the prosecutors, Robert Woodson, Jr., the judge asked, “Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been represented by any of the aforementioned attorneys?” Stinnett again said nothing, despite the fact Woodson had represented her during her divorce from Meinhard. App. 483, 485.
In an affidavit she provided in the federal habeas proceedings, Stinnett claimed “[she] did not respond to the judge’s [first] question because [she] did not consider [herself] ‘related’ to Claude Meinhard in 1994 [at voir dire].... Once our marriage ended in 1979,1 was no longer related to him.” Id., at 627. As for Woodson’s earlier representation of her, Stinnett explained as follows:
“When Claude and I divorced in 1979, the divorce was uncontested and Mr. Woodson drew up the papers so that the divorce could be completed. Since neither Claude nor I was contesting anything, I didn’t think Mr. Woodson ‘represented’ either one of us.” Id., at 628.
Woodson provided an affidavit in which
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In July 2016, police officers in Dallas, Texas, received a tip about a suspicious car parked outside of a house in the Dallas area. The officers approached the car and encountered Charles Davis in the driver's seat. They ordered him out of the car after smelling marijuana. As Davis exited the car, the officers spotted a black semiautomatic handgun in the door compartment. They then searched Davis and found methamphetamine pills.
Davis had previously been convicted of two state felonies. In this case, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Texas indicted Davis for being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and for possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Davis pleaded guilty to both counts. The presentence report prepared by the probation office noted that Davis was also facing pending drug and gun charges in Texas courts stemming from a separate 2015 state arrest. The District Court sentenced Davis to four years and nine months in prison and ordered that his sentence run consecutively to any sentences that the state courts might impose for his 2015 state offenses. Davis did not object to the sentence or to its consecutive nature.
Davis appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On appeal, he argued for the first time that the District Court erred by ordering his federal sentence to run consecutively to any sentence that the state courts might impose for his 2015 state offenses. Davis contended that his 2015 state offenses and his 2016 federal offenses were part of the "same course of conduct," meaning under the Sentencing Guidelines that the sentences should have run concurrently, not consecutively. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §§ 1B1.3(a)(2), 5G1.3(c) (Nov. 2018).
In the Fifth Circuit, Davis acknowledged that he had failed to raise that argument in the District Court. When a criminal defendant fails to raise an argument in the district court, an appellate court ordinarily may review the issue only for plain error. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b).
But the Fifth Circuit refused to entertain Davis' argument at all. The Fifth Circuit did not employ plain-error review because the court characterized Davis' argument as raising factual issues, and under Fifth Circuit precedent, "[q]uestions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error." 769 Fed. Appx. 129 (2019) ( per curiam ) (quoting United States v. Lopez , 923 F.2d 47, 50 (1991) ( per curiam )). By contrast, almost every other Court of Appeals conducts plain-error review of unpreserved arguments, including unpreserved factual arguments. See, e.g., United States v. González-Castillo , 562 F.3d 80, 83-84 (CA1 2009) ; United States v. Romeo , 385 Fed.Appx. 45, 49-50 (CA2 2010) ; United States v. Griffiths , 504 Fed.Appx. 122, 126-127 (CA3 2012) ; United States v. Wells , 163 F.3d 889, 900 (CA4 1998) ; United States v. Sargent , 19 Fed.Appx. 268, 272 (CA6 2001) ( per curiam ); United States v. Durham , 645 F.3d 883, 899-900 (CA7 2011) ; United States v. Sahakian , 446 Fed.Appx. 861, 863 (CA9 2011) ; United States v. Thomas , 518 Fed.Appx. 610, 612-613 (CA11 2013) ( per curiam ); United States v. Saro , 24 F.3d 283, 291 (CADC 1994).
In this Court, Davis challenges the Fifth Circuit's outlier practice of refusing to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error. We agree with Davis, and we vacate the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.
Rule 52(b) states in full: "A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention." The text of Rule 52(b) does not immunize factual errors from plain-error review. Our cases likewise do not purport to shield any category of errors from plain-error review. See generally Rosales-Mireles v . United States, 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1897, 201 L.Ed.2d 376 (2018) ;
United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Put simply, there is no legal basis for the Fifth Circuit's practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error.
The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment of the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no opinion on whether Davis has satisfied the plain-error standard.
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213, this Court held that, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is enforceable against the States as “one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution.” Id., at 226. The case before us involves the nature and extent of the obligation imposed upon a State by that constitutional guarantee, when the person under the state criminal charge is serving a prison sentence imposed by another jurisdiction.
In 1960 the petitioner was indicted in Harris County, Texas, upon a charge of theft. He was then, and still is, a prisoner in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. Shortly after the state charge was filed against him, the petitioner mailed a letter to the Texas trial court requesting a speedy trial. In reply, he was notified that “he would be afforded a trial within two weeks of any date [he] might specify at which he could be present.” Thereafter, for the next six years, the petitioner, “by various letters, and more formal so-called ‘motions/ ” continued periodically to ask that he be brought to trial. Beyond the response already alluded to, the State took no steps to obtain the petitioner’s appearance in the Harris County trial court. Finally, in 1967, the petitioner filed in that court a verified motion to dismiss the charge against him for want of prosecution. No action was taken on the motion.
The petitioner then brought a mandamus proceeding in the Supreme Court of Texas, asking for an order to show cause why the pending charge should not be dismissed. Mandamus was refused in an informal and unreported order of the Texas Supreme Court. The petitioner then sought certiorari in this Court. After inviting and receiving a memorandum from the Solicitor General of the United States, 390 U. S. 937, we granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions this case presents. 392 U. S. 925.
In refusing to issue a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court of Texas relied upon and reaffirmed its decision of a year earlier in Cooper v. State, 400 S. W. 2d 890. In that ease, as in the present one, a state criminal charge was pending against a man who was an inmate of a federal prison. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum in the Texas trial court, praying that he be brought before the court for trial, or that the charge against him be dismissed. Upon denial of that motion, he applied to the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus. In denying the application, the court acknowledged that an inmate of a Texas prison would have been clearly entitled to the relief sought as a matter of constitutional right, but held that “a different rule is applicable when two separate sovereignties are involved.” 400 S. W. 2d, at 891. The court viewed the difference as “one of power and authority.” Id., at 892. While acknowledging that if the state authorities were “ordered to proceed with the prosecution . . . and comply with certain conditions specified by the federal prison authorities, the relator would be produced for trial in the state court,” id., at 891, it nonetheless denied relief, because it thought “[t]he true test should be the power and authority of the state unaided by any waiver, permission or act of grace of any other authority.” Id., at 892. Four Justices dissented, expressing their belief that “where the state has the power to afford the accused a speedy trial it is under a duty to do so.” Id., at 893.
There can be no doubt that if the petitioner in the present case had been at large for a six-year period following his indictment, and had repeatedly demanded that he be brought to trial, the State would have been under a constitutional duty to try him. Klopfer v. North Carolina, supra, at 219. And Texas concedes that if during that period he had been confined in a Texas prison for some other state offense, its obligation would have been no less. But the Texas Supreme Court has held that because petitioner is, in fact, confined in a federal prison, the State is totally absolved from any duty at all under the constitutional guarantee. We cannot agree.
The historic origins of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial were traced in some detail by The Chief Justice in his opinion for the Court in Klopfer, supra, at 223-226, and we need not review that history again here. Suffice it to remember that this constitutional guarantee has universally been thought essential to protect at least three basic demands of criminal justice in the Anglo-American legal system: “[1] to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, [2] to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and [3] to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116, 120. These demands are both aggravated and compounded in the case of an accused who is imprisoned by another jurisdiction.
At first blush it might appear that a man already in prison under a lawful sentence is hardly in a position to suffer from “undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial.” But the fact is that delay in bringing such a person to trial on a pending charge may ultimately result in as much oppression as is suffered by one who is jailed without bail upon an untried charge. First, the possibility that the defendant already in prison might receive a sentence at least partially concurrent with the one he is serving may be forever lost if trial of the pending charge is postponed. Secondly, under procedures now widely practiced, the duration of his present imprisonment may be increased, and the conditions under which he must serve his sentence greatly worsened, by the pendency of another criminal charge outstanding against him.
And while it might be argued that a person already in prison would be less likely than others to be affected by “anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation,” there is reason to believe that an outstanding untried charge (of which even a convict may, of course, be innocent) can have fully as depressive an effect upon a prisoner as upon a person who is at large. Cf. Klopfer v. North Carolina, supra, at 221-222. In the opinion of the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
“[I]t is in their effect upon the prisoner and our attempts to rehabilitate him that detainers are most corrosive. The strain of having to serve a sentence with the uncertain prospect of being taken into the custody of another state at the conclusion interferes with the prisoner’s ability to take maximum advantage of his institutional opportunities. His anxiety and depression may leave him with little inclination toward self-improvement.”
Finally, it is self-evident that “the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself” are markedly increased when the accused is incarcerated in another jurisdiction. Confined in a prison, perhaps far from the place where the offense covered by the outstanding charge allegedly took place, his ability to confer with potential defense witnesses, or even to keep track of their whereabouts, is obviously impaired. And, while “evidence and witnesses disappear, memories fade, and events lose their perspective,” a man isolated in prison is powerless to exert his own investigative efforts to mitigate these erosive effects of the passage of time.
Despite all these considerations, the Texas Supreme Court has said that the State is under no duty even to attempt to bring a man in the petitioner’s position to trial, because “[t]he question is one of power and authority and is in no way dependent upon how or in what manner the federal sovereignty may proceed in a discretionary way under the doctrine of comity.” Yet Texas concedes that if it did make an effort to secure a federal prisoner’s appearance, he would, in fact, “be produced for trial in the state court.” This is fully confirmed by the memorandum that the Solicitor General has filed in the present case:
“[T]he Bureau of Prisons would doubtless have made the prisoner available if a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum had been issued by the state court. It does not appear, however, that the State at any point sought to initiate that procedure in this case.”
In view of these realities, we think the Texas court was mistaken in allowing doctrinaire concepts of “power” and “authority” to submerge the practical demands of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Indeed, the rationale upon which the Texas Supreme Court based its denial of relief in this case was wholly undercut last Term in Barber v. Page, 390 U. S. 719. In that case we dealt with another Sixth Amendment guarantee — the right of confrontation. In holding that Oklahoma could not excuse its failure to produce a prosecution witness simply because he was in a federal prison outside the State, we said:
“We start with the fact that the State made absolutely no effort to obtain the presence of Woods at trial other than to ascertain that he was in a federal prison outside Oklahoma. It must be acknowledged that various courts and commentators have heretofore assumed that the mere absence of a witness from the jurisdiction was sufficient ground for dispensing with confrontation on the theory that ‘it is impossible to compel his attendance, because the process of the trial Court is of no force without the jurisdiction, and the party desiring his testimony is therefore helpless/ 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1404 (3d ed. 1940).
“Whatever may have been the accuracy of that theory at one time, it is clear that at the present time increased cooperation between the States themselves and between the States and the Federal Government has largely deprived it of any continuing validity in the criminal law. . . .
“. . . The Court of Appeals majority appears to have reasoned that because the State would have had to request an exercise of discretion on the part of federal authorities, it was under no obligation to make any such request. Yet as Judge Aldrich, sitting by designation, pointed out in dissent below, ‘the possibility of a refusal is not the equivalent of asking and receiving a rebuff.’ 381 F. 2d, at 481. In short, a witness is not ‘unavailable’ for purposes of the foregoing exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. The State made no such effort here, and, so far as this record reveals, the sole reason why Woods was not present to testify in person was because the State did not attempt to seek his presence. The right of confrontation may not be dispensed with so lightly.” 390 U. S., at 723-725 (footnotes omitted).
By a parity of reasoning we hold today that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial may not be dispensed with so lightly either. Upon the petitioner’s demand, Texas had a constitutional duty to make a diligent, good-faith effort to bring him before the Harris County court for trial.
The order of the Supreme Court of Texas is set aside, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . . U. S. Const., Amdt. VI.
On May 5, 1960, the sheriff of Harris County notified the warden at Leavenworth that a warrant for the petitioner’s arrest was outstanding, and asked for notice of “the minimum release date.” That date is apparently January 6, 1970.
Most of the facts have been stipulated.
See also Lawrence v. State, 412 S. W. 2d 40.
For this proposition the court cited its 40-year-old decision in Moreau v. Bond, 114 Tex. 468, 271 S. W. 379. The court in that case said:
“Those rights, fundamental in their nature, which have been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights cannot be the subject of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is a legal discretion and not a personal discretion; a legal discretion to be exercised in conformity to the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is only in the absence of positive law or fixed rule that the judge may decide by his view of expediency or of the demands of justice or equity. The Bill of Rights, Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution, provides: ‘In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury’....
“None of the reasons suggested, either in the order overruling relator’s motion for trial or in the answer to the petition for mandamus here, are good or have any foundation in law or justice. Certainly, under our Constitution and our laws, the relator is entitled to a trial on the charge against him.” 114 Tex., at 470, 271 S. W., at 379-380.
The basis of the decision thus appears to have been the speedy-trial guarantee contained in the state constitution.
“Today, each of the 50 States guarantees the right to a speedy trial to its citizens.” Klopfer v. North Carolina, supra, at 226; see Note, The Right to a Speedy Criminal Trial, 57 Col. L. Rev. 846, 847 (1957); cf. Note, The Lagging Right to a Speedy Trial, 51 Va. L. Rev. 1587 (1965).
See Schindler, Interjurisdictional Conflict and the Right to a Speedy Trial, 35 U. Cin. L. Rev. 179, 182-183 (1966).
See, e. g., Evans v. Mitchell, 200 Kan. 290, 436 P. 2d 408 (holding that Kansas had no duty to bring to trial a person serving a 15-year sentence in a Washington prison, although the pendency of the Kansas charge prevented any possibility of clemency or conditional pardon in Washington and made it impossible for the prisoner to take part in certain rehabilitation programs or to become a trusty in the Washington prison). The existence of an outstanding criminal charge no longer automatically makes a prisoner ineligible for parole in the federal prison system. 28 CFR § 2.9 (1968); see Rules of the United States Board of Parole 17-18 (1965). But as late as 1959 the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons wrote: “Today the prisoners with detainers are evaluated individually but there remains a tendency to consider them escape risks and to assign them accordingly. In many instances this evaluation and decision may be correct, for the detainer can aggravate the escape potentiality of a prisoner.” Bennett, “The Last Full Ounce,” 23 Fed. Prob. No. 2, p. 20, at 21 (1959). See also Note, Detainers and the Correctional Process, 1966 Wash. U. L. Q. 417, 418-423.
Bennett, supra, n. 8, at 21; see Walther, Detainer Warrants and the Speedy Trial Provision, 46 Marq. L. Rev. 423, 427-428 (1963).
Note, Effective Guaranty of a Speedy Trial for Convicts in Other Jurisdictions, 77 Yale L. J. 767, 769 (1968).
Cooper v. State, 400 S. W. 2d 890, 892. The only other basis suggested by the Texas Supreme Court for its denial of relief in Cooper was the expense that would be involved in bringing a federal prisoner to trial, the court noting that a directive of the Federal Bureau of Prisons provided that “satisfactory arrangements for payment of expenses [must be] made before the prisoner is actually removed to the place of trial.” Id., at 891. But the expense involved in effectuating an occasional writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum would hardly be comparable to what is required to implement other constitutional rights, e. g., the appointment of counsel for every indigent defendant. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335. And custodial as well as transportation expenses would also be incurred if the State brought the petitioner to trial after his federal sentence had run. If the petitioner is, as the State maintains, not an indigent, there is nothing to prevent a fair assessment of necessary expenses against him. Finally, the short and perhaps the best answer to any objection based upon expense was given by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in a case much like the present one: “We will not put a price tag upon constitutional rights.” State ex rel. Fredenberg v. Byrne, 20 Wis. 2d 504, 512, 123 N. W. 2d 305, 310.
Cooper v. State, supra, at 891.
That memorandum also states:
“It is the policy of the United States Bureau of Prisons to encourage the expeditious disposition of prosecutions in state courts against federal prisoners. The normal procedure under which production is effected is pursuant to a writ ad prosequendum from the state court. Almost invariably, the United States has complied with such writs and extended its cooperation to the state authorities. The Bureau of Prisons informs us that removals are normally made by United States marshals, with the expenses borne by the state authorities. In some instances, to mitigate the cost to the State, the Bureau of Prisons has removed an inmate to a federal facility close to the site of prosecution. In a relatively small number of instances, prisoners have been produced pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 4085, which provides in part:
“ ‘Whenever any federal prisoner has been indicted, informed against, or convicted of a felony in a court of record of any State or the District of Columbia, the Attorney General shall, if he finds it in the public interest to do so, upon the request of the Governor or the executive authority thereof, and upon the presentation of a certified copy of such indictment, information or judgment of conviction, cause such a person, prior to his release', to be transferred to a penal or correctional institution within such State or District.’ ”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Articles XIX and XXI of the Convention between the United States and Canada Respecting Double Taxation, Mar. 4, 1942, 56 Stat. 1405-1406, T. S. No. 983, oblige the United States, upon request and consistent with United States revenue laws, to obtain and convey information to Canadian authorities to assist them in determining a Canadian taxpayer’s income tax liability. The question presented is whether the United States Internal Revenue Service may issue an administrative summons pursuant to a request by Canadian authorities only if it first determines that the Canadian tax investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a domestic tax investigation’s referral to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. We hold that neither the 1942 Convention nor domestic legislation imposes this precondition to issuance of an administrative summons. So long as the summons meets statutory requirements and is issued in good faith, as we defined that term in United States v. Powell, 879 U. S. 48, 57-58 (1964), compliance is required, whether or not the Canadian tax investigation is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law.
I
Respondents are Canadian citizens and residents who maintained bank accounts with the Northwestern Commercial Bank in Bellingham, Washington. In attempting to ascertain their Canadian income tax liability for 1980, 1981, and 1982, the Canadian Department of National Revenue (Revenue Canada) asked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in January 1984 to secure and provide pertinent bank records. Revenue Canada made its requests pursuant to Articles XIX and XXI of the 1942 Convention. The IRS Director of Foreign Operations — the “competent authority” under Article XIX — concluded that Revenue Canada’s requests fell within the scope of the Convention and that it would be appropriate for the United States to honor them. App. 27-28. Specifically, he found that “the requested information is not within the possession of the Internal Revenue Service or the Canadian tax authorities; that the requested information may be relevant to a determination of the correct tax liability of [respondents] under Canadian law; and that the same type of information can be obtained by tax authorities under Canadian law.” Id., at 28. Thus, on April 2, 1984, the IRS served on Northwestern Commercial Bank administrative summonses for the requested information.
At respondents’ behest, the bank refused to comply. In accordance with 26 U. S. C. § 7609(b)(2), respondents petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to quash the summonses. Only one of their claims is before us. Respondents contended that because the IRS may not issue a summons to further its investigation of a United States taxpayer when a Justice Department referral is in effect, 26 U. S. C. § 7602(c), and because Revenue Canada’s investigation of each of them was, in the words of the IRS Director of Foreign Operations, “a criminal investigation, preliminary stage,” App. 28, United States law proscribed the use of a summons to obtain information for Canadian authorities regarding respondents’ American bank accounts. The Magistrate who held a consolidated hearing on respondents’ claims rejected this argument. Without addressing their contention that the IRS may not issue a summons pursuant to a request by Revenue Canada once a Canadian tax investigation has reached a stage equivalent to a Justice Department referral for criminal prosecution, the Magistrate found that, even if respondents’ legal claims were assumed to have merit, they had failed to carry their burden of showing that the Canadian authorities’ investigation had advanced that far. App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a. Upon considering the Magistrate’s report and respondents’ objections to it, the District Court ordered the bank to comply with the summonses. Id., at 25a-26a, 34a-35a.
After the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the enforcement orders pending appeal, a divided panel of the court reversed. 813 F. 2d 243 (1987). The Ninth Circuit held that a summons issued pursuant to a request under the 1942 Convention, like one issued as part of a domestic tax investigation, will be enforced only if it was issued in good faith. The Court of Appeals further stated that the elements of good faith we described in United States v. Powell, supra, at 57-58, are not exhaustive; rather, in light of our subsequent decision in United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U. S. 298 (1978), and Congress’ enactment of what is now 26 U. S. C. § 7602(c), good faith in domestic tax investigations also requires that the IRS not have referred the case to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. Finally, and most significantly for purposes of this litigation, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the IRS acts in good faith in complying with a request for information under the 1942 Convention only when Canadian authorities act in good faith in seeking IRS assistance, and that the good faith of Canadian authorities should be judged by the same standard applicable to the IRS when it conducts a domestic investigation. Hence, the Court of Appeals concluded, before the IRS may honor a request for information it must determine that Revenue Canada’s investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS. In addition, the Court of Appeals said, “in order to establish its prima facie case by affidavit, the IRS must make an affirmative statement” that Canadian authorities are acting in good faith and that their investigation has not yet reached that stage; the burden of proof on this point rests initially with the IRS rather than the taxpayer attempting to quash a summons, the court held, because the IRS “can consult with Canada’s competent authority and can be expected to have greater familiarity with Canadian administrative procedures.” 813 F. 2d, at 250. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision because the affidavits submitted by the IRS failed to state that Revenue Canada’s investigation of respondents had not yet reached a point analogous to an IRS referral to the Justice Department.
We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 1033 (1988), to resolve a conflict between the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case and the Second Circuit’s holding in United States v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 703 F. 2d 47 (1983). We now reverse.
II
A
In United States v. Powell, supra, we rejected the claim that the IRS must show probable cause to obtain enforcement of an administrative summons issued in connection with a domestic tax investigation. See id., at 52-57. We held instead that the IRS need only demonstrate good faith in issuing the summons, which we defined as follows:
“[The IRS Commissioner] must show that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the Commissioner’s possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed — in particular, that the ‘Secretary or his delegate,’ after investigation, has determined the further examination to be necessary and has notified the taxpayer in writing to that effect.” Id., at 57-58.
Once the IRS has made such a showing, we stated, it is entitled to an enforcement order unless the taxpayer can show that the IRS is attempting to abuse the court’s process. “Such an abuse would take place,” we said, “if the summons had been issued for an improper purpose, such as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation.” Id., at 58. See also United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U. S. 141, 146 (1975). The taxpayer carries the burden of proving an abuse of the court’s process. 379 U. S., at 58.
Leaving aside the question whether the 1942 Convention, in conjunction with 26 U. S. C. § 7602(c), narrows the class of legitimate purposes for which the IRS may issue an administrative summons, the affidavits the IRS submitted in respondents’ cases plainly satisfied the requirements of good faith we set forth in Powell and have repeatedly reaffirmed. See, e. g., Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U. S. 310, 321 (1985); United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U. S. 805, 813, n. 10 (1984). The IRS Director of Foreign Operations stated under oath that the information sought was not within the possession of American or Canadian tax authorities, that it might be relevant to the computation of respondents’ Canadian tax liabilities, and that the same type of information could be obtained by Canadian authorities under Canadian law. App. 28. He further noted that the “[ejxchanged information may only be disclosed as required in the normal administrative or judicial process operative in the administration of the tax system of the requesting country,” and that improper use of exchanged information would be protested. Ibid. In addition, the IRS issued its summonses in conformity with applicable statutes and duly informed respondents of their issuance. In their petitions to quash, respondents nowhere alleged that the IRS was trying to use the District Court’s process for some improper purpose, such as harassment or the acquisition of bargaining power in connection with some collateral dispute. See id., at 18-20. Nor does it appear that they later sought to prove abuse of process. Unless 26 U. S. C. § 7602(c) or the 1942 Convention imposes more stringent requirements on the enforcement of the administrative summonses issued in this case, the IRS was entitled to enforcement orders under the rule laid down in Powell.
B
Section 7602(c) does impose an additional constraint on the issuance of summonses to further domestic tax investigations. By its terms, however, it does not apply to the sum monses challenged by respondents, for it speaks only to investigations into possible violations of United States revenue laws. Section 7602(c) forbids the issuance of a summons “if a Justice Department referral is in effect” with respect to a person about whom information is sought by means of the summons. At the time of the District Court’s decision, no Justice Department referral was in effect with regard to respondents; indeed, the IRS agent seeking the bank records to fulfill Revenue Canada’s request said in her affidavit that no domestic tax investigation of any kind was pending. See App. 30. Section 7602(c) therefore does not itself appear to bar enforcement of the summonses at issue here.
The legislative history of § 7602(c) supports this conclusion. Prior to its enactment, we held in United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U. S. 298 (1978), that the IRS may not issue a summons once it has recommended prosecution to the Justice Department, nor may it circumvent this requirement by delaying such a recommendation in order to gather additional information. We based our holding in large part on our finding that “[n]othing in §7602 or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended the summons authority to broaden the Justice Department’s right of criminal litigation discovery or to infringe on the role of the grand jury as a principal tool of criminal accusation.” Id., at 312 (citations omitted). When Congress codified the essence of our holding in § 7602(c), it apparently shared our concern about permitting the IRS to encroach upon the rights of potential criminal defendants. The Report of the Senate Finance Committee noted that “the provision is in no way intended to broaden the Justice Department’s right of criminal discovery or to infringe on the role of the grand jury as a principal tool of criminal prosecution.” S. Rep. No. 97-494, Vol. 1, p. 286 (1982).
This explanation for the restriction embodied in § 7602(c) suggests that Congress did not intend to make the enforcement of a treaty summons contingent upon the foreign tax investigation’s not having reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral. None of the civil-law countries with whom the United States has tax treaties providing for exchanges of information employ grand juries, and Canada has ceased to use them. Moreover, criminal discovery procedures differ considerably among countries with whom we have such treaties. The concerns that prompted Congress to pass § 7602(c) are therefore not present when the IRS issues summonses at the request of most foreign governments conducting investigations into possible violations of their own tax laws. If Congress had intended § 7602(c) to impose a restriction on the issuance of summonses pursuant to treaty requests parallel to the restriction it expressly imposes on summonses issued by the IRS in connection with domestic tax investigations, it would presumably have offered some reason for extending the sweep of the section beyond its plain language. In addition, Congress would likely have discussed the appropriateness of extending the protections afforded by United States law to citizens of other countries who are not subject to criminal prosecution here, and would doubtless have considered the problems posed by the application of § 7602(c) to requests by treaty partners, in particular the difficulty of determining when a foreign investigation has progressed to a point analogous to a Justice Department referral. Respondents have not directed us, however, to anything in the legislative history of § 7602(c) suggesting that Congress intended it to apply to summonses issued pursuant to treaty requests, or to any reference to the problems its application would have occasioned. We therefore see no reason to think that § 7602(c) means more than it says.
C
The only conceivable foundation for the Ninth Circuit’s rule that an IRS summons issued at the request of Canadian authorities may not be enforced unless the IRS provides assurance that the Canadian investigation has not proceeded to a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral is therefore the language of the 1942 Convention itself. Article XIX obliges the competent authority for the United States to furnish, upon request, relevant information that it is “in a position to obtain under its revenue laws.” Article XXI repeats this clause almost verbatim, permitting the IRS Commissioner to supply Canadian authorities with relevant information he “is entitled to obtain under the revenue laws of the United States of America.” Respondents contend that because the IRS would not be able, under American law, to issue an administrative summons to gather information for use by the Government once a Justice Department referral was in effect, the IRS is not in a position to obtain such information once Canadian authorities have reached a corresponding stage in their investigation.
(1)
We are not persuaded by this argument. “The clear import of treaty language controls unless ‘application of the words of the treaty according to their obvious meaning effects a result inconsistent with the intent or expectations of its signatories.’” Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U. S. 176, 180 (1982), quoting Maximov v. United States, 373 U. S. 49, 54 (1963). Articles XIX and XXI both refer to information that the IRS may obtain under American law. American law, however, does not contain the restriction respondents claim to find there. Section 7602(c) only limits the issuance of summonses when a Justice Department referral is in effect; it says nothing about decisions by foreign tax officials to investigate possible violations of their countries’ tax laws with a view to criminal prosecution outside the United States. The elements of good faith we outlined in United States v. Powell, 379 U. S. 48 (1964), do not contain such a restriction. Nor does our reasoning in United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U. S. 298 (1978), favor the result respondents urge, because the provision of information to Canadian authorities could not curtail the rights of potential criminal defendants in this country by undermining American discovery rules or diminishing the role of the grand jury. And respondents have not suggested that some other segment of American law, such as the law of privilege, prevents the IRS from issuing an administrative summons pursuant to a treaty request once a treaty partner has embarked on a tax investigation leading to a foreign criminal prosecution. Articles XIX and XXI of the 1942 Convention on their face therefore lend no support to respondents’ position.
(2)
Nontextual sources that often assist us in “giving effect to the intent of the Treaty parties,” Sumitomo, supra, at 185, such as a treaty’s ratification history and its subsequent operation, further fail to sustain respondents’ claim. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations did not hold hearings on the Convention prior to its ratification in 1942, and the Committee Report did not even mention the provisions for exchange of information. See S. Exec. Rep. No. 3, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. (1942), 1 Legislative History of United States Tax Conventions (Committee Print compiled by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation) 455 (1962) (Leg. Hist.). The sole reference to these provisions during the brief floor debate in the Senate contained no hint that the 1942 Convention was intended to incorporate domestic restrictions on the issuance of summonses by the IRS in connection with American tax investigations, such as the limitation later codified in § 7602(c). The President’s message accompanying transmittal of the proposed treaty to the Senate, see S. Exec. Doc. B, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. (1942), reprinted in Leg. Hist. 445, and the President’s Proclamation at the time the Convention was signed, see Leg. Hist. 475, 56 Stat. 1399, similarly contain no language supporting respondents’ argument. Indeed, given that a treaty should generally be “construe[d] . . . liberally to give effect to the purpose which animates it” and that “[e]ven where a provision of a treaty fairly admits of two constructions, one restricting, the other enlarging, rights which may be claimed under it, the more liberal interpretation is to be preferred,” Bacardi Corp. of America v. Domenech, 311 U. S. 150, 163 (1940) (citations omitted), the evident purpose behind Articles XIX and XXI — the reduction of tax evasion by allowing signatories to demand information from each other — counsels against interpreting those provisions to limit inquiry in the manner respondents desire. In any event, nothing in the history of the Convention’s ratification buttresses respondents’ claim.
(3)
Nor do other aids to interpretation strengthen their case. The practice of treaty signatories counts as evidence of the treaty’s proper interpretation, since their conduct generally evinces their understanding of the agreement they signed. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U. S. 243, 259 (1984); Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U. S. 276, 294-295 (1933). The Government’s regular compliance with requests for information by Canadian authorities without inquiring whether they intend to use the information for criminal prosecution therefore weighs in favor of its reading of Articles XIX and XXI. Similarly, “[although not conclusive, the meaning attributed to treaty provisions by the Government agencies charged with their negotiation and enforcement is entitled to great weight.” Sumitomo, 457 U. S., at 184-185. See also Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 187, 194 (1961). The IRS’ construction of the 1942 Convention repudiates rather than confirms the interpretation respondents ask us to adopt. Finally, the result urged by respondents would contravene Congress’ main reason for laying down an easily administrable test in § 7602(c): “[S]um-mons enforcement proceedings should be summary in nature and discovery should be limited.” S. Rep. No. 97-494, Vol. 1, p. 285 (1982). If respondents had their way, disputes would inevitably arise over whether a Canadian tax investigation had progressed to a point analogous to a Justice Department referral when Revenue Canada made its request for information, thereby “spawning] protracted litigation without any meaningful results for the taxpayer.” Ibid. It seems unlikely that Congress would have welcomed this re-suit when it ratified the 1942 Convention, or that Congress intended it when it approved the bill containing what is presently § 7602(c).
Ill
We conclude that the IRS need not attest that a Canadian tax investigation has not yet reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS in order to obtain enforcement of a summons issued pursuant to a request by Canadian authorities under the 1942 Convention. So long as the IRS itself acts in good faith, as that term was explicated in United States v. Powell, 379 U. S., at 57-58, and complies with applicable statutes, it is entitled to enforcement of its summons. 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.
Articles XIX and XXI of the Convention between the United States and Canada Respecting Double Taxation, Mar. 4,1942, 56 Stat. 1405-1406, T. S. No. 983, provide in part:
“ARTICLE XIX
“With a view to the prevention of fiscal evasion, each of the contracting States undertakes to furnish to the other contracting State, as provided in the succeeding Articles of this Convention, the information which its competent authorities have at their disposal or are in a position to obtain under its revenue laws in so far as such information may be of use to the authorities of the other contracting State in the assessment of the taxes to which this Convention relates.
“The information to be furnished under the first paragraph of this Article, whether in the ordinary course or on request, may be exchanged directly between the competent authorities of the two contracting States.”
“ARTICLE XXI
“1. If the Minister in the determination of the income tax liability of any person under any of the revenue laws of Canada deems it necessary to secure the cooperation of the Commissioner, the Commissioner may, upon request, furnish the Minister such information bearing upon the matter as the Commissioner is entitled to obtain under the revenue laws of the United States of America.”
Section 7602(c) of Title 26 reads:
“(c) No administrative summons when there is Justice Department referral
“(1) Limitation of authority
“No summons may be issued under this title, and the Secretary may not begin any action under section 7604 to enforce any summons, with respect to any person if a Justice Department referral is in effect with respect to such person.
“(2) Justice Department referral in effect
“For purposes of this subsection—
“(A) In general
“A Justice Department referral is in effect with respect to any person if—
“(i) the Secretary has recommended to the Attorney General a grand jury investigation of, or the criminal prosecution of, such person for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws, or
“(ii) any request is made under section 6103(h)(3)(B) for the disclosure of any return or return information (within the meaning of section 6103(b)) relating to such person.
“(B) Termination
“A Justice Department referral shall cease to be in effect with respect to a person when—
“(i) the Attorney General notifies the Secretary, in writing, that —
“(I) he will not prosecute such person for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws,
“(II) he will not authorize a grand jury investigation of such person with respect to such an offense, or
“(III) he will discontinue such a grand jury investigation.
“(ii) a final disposition has been made of any criminal proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of the internal revenue laws which was instituted by the Attorney General against such person, or
“(iii) the Attorney General notifies the Secretary, in writing, that he will not prosecute such person for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws relating to the request described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
“(3) Taxable years, etc., treated separately
“For purposes of this subsection, each taxable period (or, if there is no taxable period, each taxable event) and each tax imposed by a separate chapter of this title shall be treated separately.”
We need not, and do not, decide whether the IRS could issue a summons to honor a treaty request if the individual under investigation by the requesting foreign government were also under investigation by American authorities and a Justice Department referral were in effect with respect to him. Nor do we address the question whether the IRS could use in a criminal prosecution evidence it obtained from Canadian authorities pursuant to a treaty request made while a Justice Department referral was in effect.
See the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985, ch. 19, §§113-115, reprinted in Revised Statutes of Canada, ch. 27, §§ 113-115 (Supp. I 1985). See also McKibbon v. Queen, [1984] 1 S. C. R. 131, 137-157, 6 D. L. R. 4th 1, 20-35 (1984) (recounting the history of grand juries in Canada). Other common-law countries have eliminated the grand jury as well. See, e. g., Saywell v. Attorney-General, [1982] 2 N. Z. L. R. 97, 100-105 (H. C.) (discussing consequences for presentation of indictment of abolition of grand juries in New Zealand, England, and Australia).
As of September 30, 1988, the United States had in force income tax conventions containing exchange of information provisions with over 30 countries, ranging from France to Poland to Japan. Fogarasi, Gordon, Venuti, & Renfroe, Current Status of U. S. Tax Treaties, 17 Tax Mgmt. Int’I J. 507, 509 (1988). Not all of those countries distinguish between civil and criminal prosecutions for tax offenses as does the United States. In some Swiss Cantons, for example, tax fraud — the most severe offense — is prosecuted in the administrative rather than in the criminal courts, and a single administrative agency investigates and prosecutes all tax offenses. See Meier, Banking Secrecy in Swiss and International Taxation, 7 Int’I Law. 16, 26 (1973).
The difficulty of finding the equivalent of a Justice Department referral is particularly acute in Canadian tax investigations. Although criminal prosecution is centered in Canadian attorneys-general, just as criminal prosecution in the United States falls within the province of the Justice Department, “[t]he similarity appears to stop there.” Scheim & Cantillon Ross, Stuart v. United States: Standards for Section 7602 Summons in Treaty Matters, 17 Tax Mgmt. Int’I J. 479, 482 (1988). Revenue Canada routinely gathers virtually all of the information necessary for criminal prosecution before turning a case over to the Canadian Justice Department, see id,., at 482-484, and available Canadian agency manuals suggest “that a case is referred to Justice only when it is already in a stage amenable to Court presentation, and that some degree of cooperation continues after that point.” Id., at 482. Scheim and Cantillon Ross conclude: “It appears therefore that [Revenue Canada] adopts an institutional posture tilted towards prosecution well before referral.” Ibid. If this conclusion is correct, then it might be difficult in at least some eases to determine whether a Canadian tax investigation has reached a point analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS.
Contrary to Justice Scalia’s suggestion, see post, at 377, the Government relied on the preratification Senate debate in its brief, see Brief for United States 29, and n. 11, pointing out that the only reference to intergovernmental exchanges of information came in the following colloquy:
“Mr. TAFT . . .
“In other words, if an American citizen were using a Canadian bank deposit to evade income taxation, I think the convention would permit the United States Government to ask the Canadian Government to obtain information from its own bank and furnish it to this Government in connection with the enforcement of our internal-revenue laws.
“Mr. GEORGE. It does provide for exchange of information, as the Senator from Ohio points out.” 88 Cong. Ree. 4714 (1942).
Nor is reliance on the Senate’s preratification debates and reports improper. As Justice Scalia acknowledges, the American Law Institute’s most recent Restatement counsels consideration of such materials. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 314, Comment d (1987) (“indication that . . . the Senate ascribed a particular meaning to the treaty is relevant”); id., §325, Reporters’ Note 5 (“A court ... is required to take into account . . . (i) Committee reports, debates, and other indications of meaning that the legislative branch has attached to an agreement. . . ”). Consultation of these materials is eminently reasonable. Pace Justice Scalia, reviewing preratification Senate debates and reports is not akin to “determining the meaning of a bilateral contract between two corporations on the basis of what the board of directors of one of them thought it meant when authorizing the chief executive officer to conclude it.” Post, at 374. Senate debates do not occur behind closed doors, out of earshot of proposed treaty partners, nor are preratification Senate reports kept under seal. Both are public statements. They therefore bear no resemblance to the private deliberations of a board of directors prior to the board’s decision whether to authorize the chief executive officer to sign an agreement. Insofar as the contract analogy is apt, the better comparison is to a meeting of the board whose minutes and position papers the other corporation’s board and chief executive officer are invited to peruse. It is hornbook contract law that the proper construction of an agreement is that given by one of the parties when “that party had no reason to know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other had reason to know the meaning attached by the first party.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 201(2)(b) (1981). See also E. Farnsworth, Contracts 487-488 (1982). A treaty’s negotiating history, which Justice Scalia suggests would be a better interpretive guide than preratification Senate materials, see post, at 374, would in fact be a worse indicator of a treaty’s meaning, for that history is rarely a matter of public record available to the Senate when it decides to grant or withhold its consent.
A new United States-Canada Income Tax Convention became effective August 16, 1984, after the summonses involved in this case were issued. 1986-2 Cum. Bull. 258. Article XXVII of the new Convention closely resembles Articles XIX and XXI of the 1942 Convention. Yet neither the new Convention nor its supplementary protocols suggest any limitation on United States compliance with a treaty request dependent upon the status of a Canadian tax investigation. The hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, see Hearing on Tax Treaties before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-115 (1981), the technical explanation of the new Convention, see 1986-2 Cum. Bull. 275, 294, and the perfunctory ratification debate in the Senate, see 130 Cong. Ree. 19504-19509, 19512-19513 (1984), are similarly silent on this point. Thus, the Senate apparently did not believe that in ratifying the new Convention it was giving respondents’ claim the force of law, just as it did not appear to think, from the legislative history it left behind, that § 7602(e) accomplished that end on its own.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
M
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner Temple, a Mississippi resident, underwent surgery in October 1986 in which a “plate and screw device” was implanted in his lower spine. The device was manufactured by respondent Synthes Corp., Ltd. (U. S. A.) (Synthes), a Pennsylvania corporation. Dr. S. Henry LaRocca performed the surgery at St. Charles General Hospital in New Orleans, Louisiana. Following surgery, the device’s screws broke off inside Temple’s back.
Temple filed suit against Synthes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The suit, which rested on diversity jurisdiction, alleged defective design and manufacture of the device. At the same time, Temple filed a state administrative proceeding against Dr. LaRocca and the hospital for malpractice and negligence. At the conclusion of the administrative proceeding, Temple filed suit against the doctor and the hospital in Louisiana state court.
Synthes did not attempt to bring the doctor and the hospital into the federal action by means of a third-party complaint, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a). Instead, Synthes filed a motion to dismiss Temple’s federal suit for failure to join necessary parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Following a hearing, the District Court ordered Temple to join the doctor and the hospital as defendants within 20 days or risk dismissal of the lawsuit. According to the court, the most significant reason for requiring joinder was the interest of judicial economy. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-12. The court relied on this Court’s decision in Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U. S. 102 (1968), wherein we recognized that one focus of Rule 19 is “the interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies.” Id., at 111. When Temple failed to join the doctor and the hospital, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice.
Temple appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 898 F. 2d 152 (1990) (judgt. order). The court deemed it “obviously prejudicial to the defendants to have the separate litigations being carried on,” because Synthes’ defense might be that the plate was not defective but that the doctor and the hospital were negligent, while the doctor and the hospital, on the other hand, might claim that they were not negligent but that the plate was defective. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3. The Court of Appeals found that the claims overlapped and that the District Court therefore had not abused its discretion in ordering joinder under Rule 19. A petition for rehearing was denied.
In his petition for certiorari to this Court, Temple contends that it was error to label joint tortfeasors as indispensable parties under Rule 19(b) and to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice for failure to join those parties. We agree. Synthes does not deny that it, the doctor, and the hospital are potential joint tortfeasors. It has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit. See Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U. S. 322, 329-330 (1955); Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., 225 U. S. 111, 132 (1912). See also Nottingham v. General American Communications Corp., 811 F. 2d 873, 880 (CA5) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 854 (1987). Nothing in the 1966 revision of Rule 19 changed that principle. See Provident Bank, supra, at 116-117, n. 12. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 19(a) explicitly state that “a tortfeasor with the usual ‘joint-and-several’ liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability.” 28 U. S. C. App., p. 595. There is nothing in Louisiana tort law to the contrary. See Mullin v. Skains, 252 La. 1009, 1014, 215 So. 2d 643, 645 (1968); La. Civ. Code Ann., Arts. 1794, 1795 (West 1987).
The opinion in Provident Bank, supra, does speak of the public interest in limiting multiple litigation, but that case is not controlling here. There, the estate of a tort victim brought a declaratory judgment action against an insurance company. We assumed that the policyholder was a person “who, under § (a), should be ‘joined if feasible.’” 390 U. S., at 108, and went on to discuss the appropriate analysis under Rule 19(b), because the policyholder could not be joined without destroying diversity. Id., at 109-116. After examining the factors set forth in Rule 19(b), we determined that the action could proceed without the policyholder; he therefore was not an indispensable party whose absence required dismissal of the suit. Id., at 116, 119.
Here, no inquiry under Rule 19(b) is necessary, because the threshold requirements of Rule 19(a) have not been satisfied. As potential joint tortfeasors with Synthes, Dr. La-Rocca and the hospital were merely permissive parties. The Court of Appeals erred by failing to hold that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering them joined as defendants and in dismissing the action when Temple failed to comply with the court’s order. For these reasons, we grant the petition for certiorari, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and remand 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.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The ultimate issue in these cases is whether the holders of the Class B stock of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MoPac) are entitled to vote separately, as' a class, on the proposed plan of consolidation of MoPac and Texas and Pacific Railway Company (T & P) into the newly formed Texas and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (T&M). An application has been filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission requesting permission to effect a plan of consolidation under §§ 5 (2) and 5(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 54 Stat. 905, 908 (1940), 49 U. S. C. §§5(2) and 5(11). MoPac’s Board of Directors has announced that its Class B shareholders are not entitled to vote on the plan separately and apart from its Class A shareholders, and that it intends to submit the plan only to the collective vote of the Class A and Class B shareholders.
Three separate declaratory judgment actions were filed ' by different Class B shareholders seeking a declaration that the plan requires the separate approval of the holders of the Class B shares by majority vote. Upon a limited consolidation of the cases, the District Court held that MoPac’s Articles of Association prohibited the consolidation unless class voting was observed and that § 5 (11 ) of the Interstate Commerce Act, by adopting state law, required the separate approval of each class of shareholders. 233 F. Supp. 747. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that, despite Missouri law, the “plenary character of § 5 (11) . . . with its consequent preemptive nature” compelled a contrary result. 359 F. 2d 106, at 119. We granted certiorari. 385 U. S. 814. We have concluded that Missouri law, as provided by § 5 (11), is controlling on the point and that the judgment must, therefore, be reversed.
I. •
Background of the Parties and the Litigation.
MoPac, a Missouri corporation, is an interstate common carrier railroad. It had been in reorganization proceedings under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 205, until January 1,1955. After those proceedings terminated, the corporation’s preferred and common stock was replaced by two classes of $100 stated capital no par voting shares: Class A, which is preferentially entitled to noncumulative dividends not to exceed $5 per share annually, and Class B, which is entitled to all the earnings and the equity in excess of the Class A preferences. MoPac’s Articles of Association, Art. VII, § D (3), provide that class voting shall not be required save as to four types of corporate change, none of which shall be effected without the separate consent of the record holders of a majority-of the Class A and the Class B shares. The four specified changes are: (1) the issuance of additional shares; (2) the creation or issuance of any MoPac obligation or security convertible into or exchangeable for MoPac shares; (3) an alteration or change in “the preferences, qualifications, limitations, restrictions and special or relative rights of the Class A Stock or of .the Class B Stock”; and, finally, (4) the amendment or elimination of any of the foregoing requirements.
MoPac has 1,849,576 shares of Class A stock and 39,731 shares of Class B stock outstanding. T & P was incorporated by an Act - of Congress in 1871 and is also an interstate railroad of which MoPac owns 82.86% of the outstanding shares of stock. Mississippi River Fuel Corporation (Mississippi) is a Delaware corporation and owns a majority (57.95%) of the Class A shares of the stock of MoPac. Alleghany Corporation (Alleghany) is a Maryland corporation and owns a majority (51%) of the Class B stock of MoPac, subject to a voting trust. T & M is a Delaware corporation organized for the purpose of being the consolidated company upon the merger of MoPac and T & P.
The agreement and plan of consolidation were approved by the Board of Directors of MoPac and T & P in December of 1963. The plan provided for an exchange of each MoPac share (without regard to class) for four shares of the new corporation and for an exchange of the T & P stock (other than that owned by MoPac) on a basis of one share of T & P for 4.8 shares of the new company. In January of 1964, the three companies .filed a joint application with the Interstate Commerce Commission for an order under § 5 (2) of the Act authorizing the consolidation and the issuance of securities by T & M under § 20a. In this application MoPac advised that it would submit the proposed plan to its stockholders, for approval, by May of 1964 on the basis of a collective,, rather than class, vote.
There are a total of six individual petitioners, each of whom owns only a nominal number of Class B shares, and Alleghany which owns, as aforesaid, a majority of those shares. The respondents are MoPac, T & P, Mississippi, and some of théir directors or officers, only one of whom owns any Class B stock of MoPac. The first of the three suits which this cause involves was filed prior to the submission of the plan to the Commission ; the second and third subsequent thereto. Each of the suits attacks the plans of consolidation, alleging-, among other things, that the Class B stock has a much greater value than, that of the Class A- and that the exchange is unfair; that the collective voting plan would violate the Articles of Association, the law of Missouri (and, therefore, § 5 (11) of the Act) and would result in irreparable injury to the Class B shareholders. Each complaint , prays for a declaration that the plan of consolidation requires the separate vote of each class of stock. At trial the parties agreed that the court should first pass upon the voting rights question. The District Court held that class voting was required and certified the issue to the Court of Appeals which’ permitted an interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). Further proceedings in the District Court were stayed.
As we have indicated, the Court of Appeals held that, even though MoPac’s Articles of .Association required a class vote on consolidation and Missouri law, therefore, demanded such a vote, it, nevertheless was “impressed with the significance of the national transportation policy and its emphasis on railroad consolidation, with the stated exclusive and plenary character of §5 (11), and with its consequent preemptive nature.” 359 F. 2d, at 119. The Court felt that, by virtue of the federal statute, it was compelled to conclude that it should apply the general standard as to voting rights, i. e., the majority of all voting shares, rather than honor the exception, i. e., class voting, as provided under Missouri, law.
II.
Conclusion. ■
• We believe the Court of Appeals erred in so construing § 5 (11) of the Act. That section specifically provides that voluntary consolidations of railroads must have the assent “of a majority [vote of all shares], unless a different vote is required under applicable State law, in which case the number so required shall assent, of the votes of the holders of the shares entitled to vote . . . .” As the Court' of Appeals held, this section “bows in the direction of state law.” 359 F. 2d, at 114. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals decided that Mo. Rev. Stat. c. 351 was “the applicable state law.” As both courts found, § 351.055 (3) authorizes the issuance of classes of shares of stock and § 351.270 provides that where “the articles of incorporation require the vote or concurrence of the holders of a greater portion of the shares, or of any class or series thereof, than required by this chapter with respect to such action, the provisions of the articles of incorporation shall control this section.” But the Court of Appeals concluded that since § 351.425 permitted the plan to be approved by the vote of at least two-thirds of all the outstanding shares, §5(11) required1 that it control, rather than § 351.270. We think not. In using the language “required under applicable State law,” § 5 (11) embraced all state law, as the Court of Appeals held. This included the exception of § 351.270 as to those corporations whose articles of incorporation required class voting. The national transportation policy and the provisions of § 5 (11), rather than permitting the result- the Court of Appeals reached, require that “the articles of incorporation shall control . . . .” It follows that if a consolidation comes within the requirements of § D (3) of the articles of association, the approval by the separate vote of each class of stock is required. The District Court found that the plan of consolidation did come within § D (3). It is clear that the Court of Appeals did not disturb this finding, although it is not precisely clear what the court found on the question. At one point, it appears to say that “the articles seem to require” separate class voting, while it later assumes that they do so. Subsequently the opinion notes that the court is “not persuaded ... that MoPac’s Articles call for a class vote on a consolidation . . . .” 359 F. 2d, at 119. In any event, we agree with the trial court that the articles do require a separate class vote on the plan. We believe that the provision, that the company “shall not... (c) alter or change the preferences, qualifications, limitations, restrictions and special or relative rights of' the Class A Stock or of the Class B Stock” would clearly include the plan of consolidation here. MoPac, by consolidating the two railroads that it already controls, will change its Class A stock from voting shares preferentially entitled to noncumulative dividends of not to exceed $5 per share annually to shares that participate equally in all of the earnings of the company. The Class B stock which now enjoys all of the earnings and the equity in excess of the present Class A preferences would lose those special features. As the Court of Appeals found, the effectuation of the plan would “result in the present Class B holdings being engulfed by the larger number of Class A holdings.” 359 F. 2d, at 110. It is apropos to note here that while the equity of each Class A share remains limited to $100, the value of the equity of the Class B shares is approximately $6'500 per share. The plan proposes to exchange four shares of stock of T & M for one share of MoPac Class B, which, under such values, is like exchanging four rabbits for one horse. Moreover, the final proviso of § D (3) requires a separate class vote where any amendment or elimination of any of the provisions of the section itself is proposed. Under the plan this section would be entirely eliminated on.the basis of a collective vote rather than a separate class one. But MoPac argues that this would not be “company action.” We cannot agree. The boards of directors of MoPac and T & P, which it controls, drew up the plan and now request its approval by the Interstate Commerce Commission. This certainly is “company action” within the terms of the Articles.. Indeed, this point is so clear that we see no occasion for remanding the issue to the Court of Appeals for its consideration of the point, even though it be assumed that its opinion does not decide it. Effective judicial administration requires that we dispose of the matter here.
We do not, of course, reach the merits of the proposed plan which is the concern of the Commission in the first instance. Any reference to the effect of the plan is not to be construed as in any way passing upon its merits. With reference to voting rights, we hold only that in a consolidation as proposed here, Missouri law must be applied and that § 351.270 of that law requires the application of the Articles of Association of MoPac, which in turn, require the assent of the majority of the shareholders on a separate class-vote basis.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Section 5 (11):
“The authority conferred by this section shall be exclusive and plenary, and any carrier or corporation participating in or resulting from any transaction approved by the Commission thereunder, shall have full power (with the assent, in the case of a purchase and sale, a lease, at corporate consolidation, or a corporate merger, of a majority, unless a different vote is required under applicable State law, in which case the number so required shall assent, of the votes of the holders of the shares entitled to vote of the capital stock of such corporation at a regular meeting of such stockholders, the notice of such meeting to include such purpose, or at a special meeting thereof called for such purpose) to carry such transaction into effect and to own and operate any properties and exercise any control or franchises acquired through said transaction without invoking any approval under State authority . . ,
See Missouri Pac. R. Co. Reorganization, 290 I. C. C. 477 (1954); In re Missouri Pac. R. Co., 129 F. Supp. 392 (D. C. E. D. Mo. 1955), aff’d sub nom. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 5¼% S. S. B. C. v. Thompson, 225 F. 2d 761 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1955).
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 351.425 provides, in pertinent part: “. . . The plan of merger or consolidation shall be approved upon receiving the affirmative vote of the holders of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares entitled to vote at such meeting, of each of such corporations.”
It is interesting to note that the Interstate Commerce Commission itself required that Art. VII, § D (3) be inserted in MoPac’s Articles of Association. The Commission’s order provided:
“The certificate of incorporation [of the reorganized corporation] shall permit the authorization from time to time of additional shares of common stock of either class, but shall specifically provide that the new company shall not alter or change the rights of holders of either class of stock or authorize the issuance of additional shares of either class or of any other class or of participating or convertible preferred stock, without the consent of the holders of not less than a majority of the number of shares of common stock of each class at the time .outstanding.” 290 I. C. C. 477, at 665.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
After the convictions of petitioners had been affirmed, and while their cases were pending here, it was revealed that the United States had engaged in electronic surveillance which might have violated their Fourth Amendment rights and tainted their convictions. A remand to the District Court being necessary in each case for adjudication in the first instance, the questions now before us relate to the standards and procedures to be followed by the District Court in determining whether any of the Government's evidence supporting these convictions was the product of illegal surveillance to which any of the petitioners are entitled to object.
No. 133, O. T., 1967. Petitioners Alderman and Al-derisio, along with Ruby Kolod, now deceased, were convicted of conspiring to transmit murderous threats in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. §§ 371, 875 (c). Their convictions were affirmed on appeal, 371 F. 2d 983 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1967), and this Court denied certiorari, 389 U. S. 834 (1967). In their petition for rehearing, petitioners alleged they had recently discovered that Alderisio’s place of business in Chicago had been the subject of electronic surveillance by the Government. Reading the response of the Government to admit that Alderisio’s conversations had been overheard by unlawful electronic eavesdropping, we granted the petition for rehearing over the objection of the United States that “no overheard conversation in which any of the petitioners participated is arguably relevant to this prosecution.” In our per curiam opinion, 390 U. S. 136 (1968), we refused to accept the ex parte determination of relevance by the Department of Justice in lieu of adversary proceedings in the District Court, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The United States subsequently filed a motion to modify that order. Although accepting the Court’s order insofar as it required judicial determination of whether any of the prosecution’s evidence was the product of illegal surveillance, the United States urged that in order to protect innocent third parties participating or referred to in- irrelevant conversations overheard by the Government, surveillance records should first be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge, who would then turn over to the petitioners and their counsel only those materials arguably relevant to their prosecution. Petitioners opposed the motion, and the matter was argued before the Court last Term. We then set the case down for reargument at the opening of the current Term, 392 U. S. 919 (1968), the attention of the parties being directed to the disclosure issue and the question of standing to object to the Government’s use of the fruits of illegal surveillance.
Nos. 11 and 197. Both petitioners were convicted of conspiring to transmit to the Soviet Union information relating to the national defense of the United States, 18 U. S. C. §§ 794 (a), (c), and of conspiring to violate 18 U. S. C. § 951 by causing Butenko to act as an agent of the Soviet Union without prior notification to the Secretary of State. Butenko was also convicted of a substantive offense under 18 U. S. C. § 951. The Court of Appeals affirmed all but Ivanov’s conviction on the second conspiracy count. 384 F. 2d 554 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1967). Petitions for certiorari were then filed in this Court, as was a subsequent motion to amend the Ivanov petition to raise an issue similar to that which was presented in No. 133, O. T. 1967. Following the first argument in Alderman (sub nom. Kolod v. United States), the petitions for certiorari of both Ivanov and Butenko were granted, limited to questions nearly identical to those involved in the reargument of the Alderman case.
I.
The exclusionary rule fashioned in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), excludes from a criminal trial any evidence seized from the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Fruits of such evidence are excluded as well. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 391-392 (1920). Because the Amendment now affords protection against the uninvited ear, oral statements, if illegally overheard, and their fruits are also subject to suppression. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967).
In Mapp and Weeks, the defendant against whom the evidence was held to be inadmissible was the victim of the search. However, in the cases before us each petitioner demands retrial if any of the evidence used to convict him was the product of unauthorized surveillance, regardless of whose Fourth Amendment rights the surveillance violated. At the very least, it is urged that if evidence is inadmissible against one defendant or conspirator, because tainted by electronic surveillance illegal as to him, it is also inadmissible against his codefendant or coconspirator.
This expansive reading of the Fourth Amendment and of the exclusionary rule fashioned to enforce it is admittedly inconsistent with prior cases, and we reject it. The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Co-conspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing.
Thus in Goldstein v. United States, 316 U. S. 114 (1942), testimony induced by disclosing to witnesses their own telephonic communications intercepted by the Government contrary to 47 U. S. C. § 605 was held admissible against their coconspirators. The Court equated the rule under § 605 with the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), came to like conclusions. There, two defendants were tried together; narcotics seized from a third party were held inadmissible against one defendant because they were the product of statements made by him at the time of his unlawful arrest. But the same narcotics were found to be admissible against the codefendant because “[t]he seizure of this heroin invaded no right of privacy of person or premises which would entitle [him] to object to its use at his trial. Cf. Goldstein v. United States, 316 U. S. 114.” Wong Sun v. United States, supra, at 492.
The rule is stated in Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 261 (1960):
“In order to qualify as a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure’ one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of a search or seizure directed at someone else....
“Ordinarily, then, it is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he allege, and if the allegation be disputed that he establish, that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy.”
This same principle was twice acknowledged last Term. Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364 (1968); Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968).
We adhere to these cases and to the general rule that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted. Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 267 (1960). Cf. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44, 46 (1943). None of the special circumstances which prompted NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958), and Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953), are present here. There is no necessity to exclude evidence against one defendant in order to protect the rights of another. No rights of the victim of an illegal search are at stake when the evidence is offered against some other party. The victim can and very probably will object for himself when and if it becomes important for him to do so.
What petitioners appear to assert is an independent constitutional right of their own to exclude relevant and probative evidence because it was seized from another in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But we think there is a substantial difference for constitutional purposes between preventing the incrimination of a defendant through the very evidence illegally seized from him and suppressing evidence on the motion of a party who cannot claim this predicate for exclusion.
The necessity for that predicate was not eliminated by recognizing and acknowledging the deterrent aim of the rule. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965); Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206 (1960). Neither those cases nor any others hold that anything which deters illegal searches is thereby commanded by the Fourth Amendment. The deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated have been considered sufficient to justify the suppression of probative evidence even though the case against the defendant is weakened or destroyed. We adhere to that judgment. But we are not convinced that the additional benefits of extending the exclusionary rule to other defendants would justify further encroachment upon the public interest in prosecuting those accused of crime and having them acquitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth.
We do not deprecate Fourth Amendment rights. The security of persons and property remain's a fundamental value which law enforcement officers must respect. Nor should those who flout the rules escape unscathed. In this respect we are mindful that there is now a comprehensive statute making unauthorized electronic surveillance a serious crime. The general rule under the statute is that official eavesdropping and wiretapping are permitted only with probable cause and a warrant. Without experience showing the contrary, we should not assume that this new statute will be cavalierly disregarded or will not be enforced against transgressors.
Of course, Congress or state legislatures may extend the exclusionary rule and provide that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible against anyone for any purpose. But for constitutional purposes, we are not now inclined to expand the existing rule that unlawful wiretapping or eavesdropping, whether deliberate or negligent, can produce nothing usable against the person aggrieved by the invasion.
II.
In these cases, therefore, any petitioner would be entitled to the suppression of government evidence originating in electronic surveillance violative of his own Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Such violation would occur if the United States unlawfully overheard conversations of a petitioner himself or conversations occurring on his premises, whether or not he was present or participated in those conversations. The United States concedes this much and agrees that for purposes of a hearing to determine whether the Government’s evidence is tainted by illegal surveillance, the transcripts or recordings of the overheard conversations of any petitioner or of third persons on his premises must be duly and properly examined in the District Court.
MR. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart, who are in partial dissent on this phase of the case, object to our protecting the homeowner against the use of third-party conversations overheard on his premises by an unauthorized surveillance. Their position is that unless the conversational privacy of the homeowner himself is invaded, there is no basis in the Fourth Amendment for excluding third-party conversations overheard on his premises. We cannot agree. If the police make an unwarranted search of a house and seize tangible property belonging to third parties — even a transcript of a third-party conversation — the homeowner may object to its use against him, not because he had any interest in the seized items as “effects” protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment. Nothing seen or found on the premises may legally form the basis for an arrest or search warrant or for testimony at the homeowner’s trial, since the prosecution would be using the fruits of a Fourth Amendment violation. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963).
The Court has characteristically applied the same rule where an unauthorized electronic surveillance is carried out by physical invasion of the premises. This much the dissent frankly concedes. Like physical evidence which might be seized, overheard conversations are fruits of an illegal entry and are inadmissible in evidence. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961); Wong Sun v. United States, supra. When Silverman was decided, no right of conversational privacy had been recognized as such; the right vindicated in that case was the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one’s own home. In Wong Sun, the words spoken by Blackie Toy when the police illegally entered his house were not usable against him because they were the fruits of a physical invasion of his premises which violated the Fourth Amendment.
Because the Court has now decided that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s private conversations as well as his private premises, Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), the dissent would discard the concept that private conversations overheard through an illegal entry into a private place must be excluded as the fruits of a Fourth Amendment violation. Although officers without a valid warrant may not search a house for physical evidence or incriminating information, whether the owner is present or away, the dissent would permit them to enter that house without consent and without a warrant, install a listening device, and use any overheard third-party conversations against the owner in a criminal case, in spite of the obvious violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be secure in his own dwelling. Even if the owner is present on his premises during the surveillance, he would have no complaint unless his own conversations were offered or used against him. Information from a telephone tap or from the microphone in the kitchen or in the rooms of guests or children would be freely usable as long as the homeowner’s own conversations are not monitored and used against him. Indeed, if the police, instead of installing a device, secreted themselves on the premises, they could neither testify about nor use against the owner anything they saw or carried away, but would be free to use against him everything they overheard except his own conversations. And should police overhear third parties describing narcotics which they have discovered in the owner’s desk drawer, the police could not then open the drawer and seize the narcotics, but they could secure a warrant on the basis of what they had heard and forthwith seize the narcotics pursuant to that warrant.
These views we do not accept. We adhere to the established view in this Court that the right to be secure in one’s house against unauthorized intrusion is not limited to protection against a policeman viewing or seizing tangible property — “papers” and “effects.” Otherwise, the express security for the home provided by the Fourth Amendment would approach redundancy. The rights of the owner of the premises are as clearly invaded when the police enter and install a listening device in his house as they are when the entry is made to undertake a warrantless search for tangible property; and the prosecution as surely employs the fruits of an illegal search of the home when it offers overheard third-party conversations as it does when it introduces tangible evidence belonging not to the homeowner, but to others. Nor do we believe that Katz, by holding that the Fourth Amendment protects persons and their private conversations, was intended to withdraw any of the protection which the Amendment extends to the home or to overrule the existing doctrine, recognized at least since Silverman, that conversations as well as property are excludable from the criminal trial when they are found to be the fruits of an illegal invasion of the home. It was noted in Silverman, 365 U. S., at 511-512, that
“This Court has never held that a federal officer may without warrant and without consent physically entrench into a man’s office or home, there secretly observe or listen, and relate at the man’s subsequent criminal triai what was seen or heard.”
The Court proceeded to hold quite the contrary. We take the same course here.
III.
The remaining aspect of these cases relates to the procedures to be followed by the District Court in resolving the ultimate issue which will be before it — whether the evidence against any petitioner grew out of his illegally overheard conversations or conversations occurring on his premises. The question as stated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 488 (1963), is “ ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” See also Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341 (1939).
The Government concedes that it must disclose to petitioners any surveillance records which are relevant to the decision of this ultimate issue. And it recognizes that this disclosure must be made even though attended by potential danger to the reputation or safety of third parties or to the national security — unless the United States would prefer dismissal of the case to disclosure of the information. However, the Government contends that it need not be put to this disclose-or-dismiss option in the instant cases because none of the information obtained from its surveillance is “arguably relevant” to petitioners’ convictions, in the sense that none of the overheard conversations arguably underlay any of the evidence offered in these cases. Although not now insisting that its own evaluation of relevance should be accepted automatically and without judicial scrutiny, the United States urges that the records of the specified conversations be first submitted to the trial judge for an in camera examination. Any record found arguably relevant by the judge would be turned over to the petitioner whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, and that petitioner would then have the opportunity to use the disclosed information in his attempt to show that the Government has used tainted evidence to convict him. Material not arguably relevant would not be disclosed to any petitioner.
Although this may appear a modest proposal, especially since the standard for disclosure would be “arguable” relevance, we conclude that surveillance records as to which any petitioner has standing to object should be turned over to him without being screened in camera by the trial judge. Admittedly, there may be much learned from an electronic surveillance which ultimately contributes nothing to probative evidence. But winnowing this material from those items which might have made a substantial contribution to the case against a petitioner is a task which should not be entrusted wholly to the court in the first instance. It might be otherwise if the trial judge had only to place the transcript or other record of the surveillance alongside the record evidence and compare the two for textual or substantive similarities. Even that assignment would be difficult enough for the trial judge to perform unaided. But a good deal more is involved. An apparently innocent phrase, a chance remark, a reference to what appears to be a neutral person or event, the identity of a caller or the individual on the other end of a telephone, or even the manner of speaking or using words may have special significance to one who knows the more intimate facts of an accused’s life. And yet that information may be wholly colorless and devoid of meaning to one less well acquainted with all relevant circumstances. Unavoidably, this is a matter of judgment, but in our view the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court to identify those records which might have contributed to the Government’s case.
The United States concedes that when an illegal search has come to light, it has the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that its evidence is untainted. But at the same time petitioners acknowledge that they must go forward with specific evidence demonstrating taint. “[T]he trial judge must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous tree. This leaves ample opportunity to the Government to convince the trial court that its proof had an independent origin.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341 (1939). With this task ahead of them, and if the hearings are to be more than a formality and petitioners not left entirely to reliance on government testimony, there should be turned over to them the records of those overheard conversations which the Government was not entitled to use in building its case against them.
Adversary proceedings are a major aspect of our system of criminal justice. Their superiority as a means for attaining justice in a given case is nowhere more evident than in those cases, such as the ones at bar, where an issue must be decided on the basis of a large volume of factual materials, and after consideration of the many and subtle interrelationships which may exist among the facts reflected by these records. As the need for adversary inquiry is increased by the complexity of the issues presented for adjudication, and by the consequent inadequacy of ex parte procedures as a means for their accurate resolution, the displacement of well-informed advocacy necessarily becomes less justifiable.
Adversary proceedings will not magically eliminate all error, but they will substantially reduce its incidence by guarding against the possibility that the trial judge, through lack of time or unfamiliarity with the information contained in and suggested by the materials, will be unable to provide the scrutiny which the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule demands. It may be that the prospect of disclosure will compel the Government to dismiss some prosecutions in deference to national security or third-party interests. But this is a choice the Government concededly faces with respect to material which it has obtained illegally and which it admits, or which a judge would find, is arguably relevant to the evidence offered against the defendant.
We think this resolution will avoid an exorbitant expenditure of judicial time and energy and will not unduly prejudice others or the public interest. It must be remembered that disclosure will be limited to the transcripts of a defendant’s own conversations and of those which took place on his premises. It can be safely assumed that much of this he will already know, and disclosure should therefore involve a minimum hazard to others. In addition, the trial court can and should, where appropriate, place a defendant and his counsel under enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of the materials which they may be entitled to inspect. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16 (e). We would not expect the district courts to permit the parties or counsel to take these orders lightly.
None of this means that any defendant will have an unlimited license to rummage in the files of the Department of Justice. Armed with the specified records of overheard conversations and with the right to cross-examine the appropriate officials in regard to the connection between those records and the case made against him, a defendant may need or be entitled to nothing else. Whether this is the case or not must be left to the informed discretion, good sense, and fairness of the trial judge. See Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341-342 (1939).
IV.
Accordingly, in No. 133, O. T. 1967, the motion of the United States is denied to the extent that it requests an initial in camera inspection of the fruits of any unlawful surveillance and the withholding of those portions of the materials which the trial judge might deem irrelevant to these convictions. Primarily because of our decision with respect to standing, however, the order and judgment of January 29, 1968, are withdrawn. The order denying to petitioners a writ of certiorari is set aside. The petition for rehearing is granted, and the petition for certiorari is granted as to both Alderisio and Alderman. The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in No. 133, O. T. 1967, and the judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Nos. 11 and 197 are vacated, and each of the cases is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, that is, for a hearing, findings, and conclusions (1) on the question of whether with respect to any petitioner there was electronic surveillance which violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) if there was such surveillance with respect to any petitioner, on the nature and relevance to his conviction of any conversations which may have been overheard through that surveillance. The District Court should confine the evidence presented by both sides to that which is material to the question of the possible violation of a petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights, to the content of conversations illegally overheard by surveillance which violated those rights and to the relevance of such conversations to the petitioner’s subsequent conviction. The District Court will make such findings of fact on those questions as may be appropriate in light of the further evidence and of the entire existing record. If the District Court decides on the basis of such findings (1) that there was electronic surveillance with respect to one or more petitioners but not any which violated the Fourth Amendment, or (2) that although there was a surveillance in violation of one or more of the petitioners’ Fourth Amendment rights, the conviction of such petitioner was not tainted by the use of evidence so obtained, it will enter new final judgments of conviction based on the existing record as supplemented by its further findings, thereby preserving to all affected parties the right to seek further appropriate appellate review. If, on the other hand, the District Court concludes in such further proceedings that there was a violation of any petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights and that the conviction of the petitioner was tainted by such violation, it would then become its duty to accord such petitioner a new trial.
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Douglas, while joining the opinion of the Court, concurs in Part II of the opinion of Mr. Justice Fortas and would hold that the protection of the Fourth Amendment includes also those against whom the investigation is directed.
Mr. Justice Stewart.
I join Mr. Justice Harlan’s separate opinion, except insofar as it would authorize in camera proceedings in the Ivanov and Butenko cases. I would apply the same standards to all three cases now before us, agreeing to that extent with the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice Black dissents, adhering to his dissent in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 364 — 374 (1967).
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
In its brief on reargument, the Government suggests that no electronic surveillance was conducted at places owned by Alderisio, but rather was carried out only at premises owned by his associates or by firms which employed him. The Government also contends that Alderisio himself did not have desk space at the subject premises. Finally, the Government asserts that Alderman neither participated in any conversation overheard nor had any interest in the places which were the object of the surveillance. These allegations by the Government will have to be considered by the District Court in the first instance, and we express no opinion now on their merit.
In our order of June 17,1968, restoring the Government’s motion to the calendar for reargument, 392 U. S. 919-920, we requested counsel to include the following among issues to be discussed in briefs and oral argument:
“(1) Should the records of the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio’s place of business be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioners, and if so to what extent?
“(2) If in camera inspection is authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance and considerations of injury to persons or to reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to petitioners?
“(3) What standards are to be applied in determining whether each petitioner has standing to object to the use against him of the information obtained from the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio’s place of business? More specifically, does petitioner Alderisio have standing to object to the use of any or all information obtained from such electronic surveillance whether or not he was present on the premises or party to a particular overheard conversation? Also, does petitioner Alderman have standing to object to the use against him of any or all information obtained from the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio’s business establishment?”
The United States admits overhearing conversations of each petitioner, but where the surveillance took place and other pertinent details are unknown. In its brief the Government states:
“In some of the instances the installation had been specifically approved by the then Attorney General. In others the equipment was installed under a broader grant of authority to the F. B. I., in effect at that time, which did not require specific authorization.... [P] resent Department of Justice policy would call for specific authorization from the Attorney General for any use of electronic equipment in such cases.”
In all three cases, the District Court must develop the relevant facts and decide if the Government’s electronic surveillance was unlawful. Our assumption, for present purposes, is that the surveillance was illegal.
In each case the grant of certiorari, 392 U. S. 923, was limited to the following questions:
“On the assumption that there was electronic surveillance of petitioner or a codefendant which violated the Fourth Amendment,
“(1) Should the records of such electronic surveillance be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioner, and if so to what extent?
“(2) If in camera inspection is to be authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance, and considerations of national security or injury to persons or reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to the defendant?
“(3) What standards are to be applied in determining whether petitioner has standing to object to the use against him of information obtained from such illegal surveillance? More specifically, if illegal surveillance took place at the premises of a particular defendant,
“(a) Does that defendant have standing to object to the use against him of any or all information obtained from the illegal surveillance, whether or not he was present on the premises or party to the overheard conversation?
“(b) Does a codefendant have standing to object to the use against him of any or all information obtained from the illegal surveillance, whether or not he was present on the premises or party to the overheard conversation?”
As the issue was put and answered by the Court:
“The question now to be decided is whether we shall extend the sanction for violation of the Communications Act so as to make available to one not a party to the intercepted communication the objection that its use outside the courtroom, and prior to the trial, induced evidence which, except for that use, would be admissible.
“No court has ever gone so far in applying the implied sanction for violation of the Fourth Amendment. While this court has never been called upon to decide the point, the federal courts in numerous cases, and with unanimity, have denied standing to one not the victim of an unconstitutional search and seizure to object to the introduction in evidence of that which was seized. A fortiori the same rule should apply to the introduction of evidence induced by the use or disclosure thereof to a witness other than the victim of the seizure. We think no broader sanction should be imposed upon the Government in respect of violations of the Communications Act.” 316 U. S, at 121.
The Court noted that the principle had been applied “in at least fifty cases by the Circuit Courts of Appeals... not to mention many decisions by District Courts.” Id., at 121, n. 12.
The “person aggrieved” language is from Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (e). Jones thus makes clear that Rule 41 conforms to the general standard and is no broader than the constitutional rule.
McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451 (1948), is not authority to the contrary. It is not at all clear that the McDonald opinion would automatically extend standing to a codefendant. Two of the five Justices joining the majority opinion did not read the opinion to do so and found the basis for the eodefendant’s standing to be the fact that he was a guest on the premises searched. “But even a guest may expect the shelter of the rooftree he is under against criminal intrusion.” Id., at 461 (Jackson, J., concurring). Cf. Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960). Nor does Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293 (1966), lend any support to petitioners’ position, since the Court expressly put aside the issue of standing.
Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 211. Not only does the Act impose criminal penalties upon those who violate its provisions governing eavesdropping and wiretapping, 82 Stat. 213 (18 U. S. C. §2511 (1964 ed., Supp. IV)) (fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both), but it also authorizes the recovery of civil damages by a person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the Act, 82 Stat. 223 (18 U. S. C. §2520 (1964 ed., Supp. IV)) (permitting recovery of actual and punitive damages, as well as a reasonable attorney’s fee and other costs of litigation reasonably incurred).
Congress has not done so. In its recent wiretapping and eavesdropping legislation, Congress has provided only that an “aggrieved person” may move to suppress the contents of a wire or oral communication intercepted in violation of the Act. Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 221 (18 U. S. C. § 2518 (10) (a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV)). The Act’s legislative history indicates that “aggrieved person,” the limiting phrase currently found in Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (e), should be construed in accordance with existent standing rules. See S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., at 91, 106.
If the police enter a house pursuant to a valid warrant authorizing the seizure of specified gambling paraphernalia but discover illegal narcotics in the process of the search, the narcotics may be seized and introduced in evidence in the prosecution of the homeowner, whether the narcotics belong to him or to a third party. E. g., Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145, 155 (1947). But if the officers have neither a warrant nor the consent of the householder, it is elementary Fourth Amendment law that the narcotics are suppressible on his motion. In both cases, however, the homeowner’s interest in the narcotics and his standing to object to their seizure are the same; and insofar as the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “effects” is concerned, the right of the officer to seize the contraband without a warrant and use it in evidence is identical. The reason that the narcotics may be seized and introduced in evidence in the first ease where there was a valid warrant, in spite of the householder’s interest in the narcotics and his standing to object, but not in the second case where there was no warrant is not the simple reason suggested by Mr. Justice Harlan that the householder has a property interest in the narcotics and therefore has “standing” to object. Rather, it is because in the first case there was no illegal invasion of the premises, while in the second the officer’s entry and search violated the Fourth Amendment, the narcotics being the fruit of that illegality.
Mr. Justice Harlan
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
DECREE
This cause having come on to be heard on the Report of the Special Master heretofore appointed by the Court, and the exceptions filed thereto, and having been argued by counsel for the several parties, and this Court having stated its conclusions in its opinion announced on October 31, 1995, ante, p. 22, and having considered the positions of the respective parties as to the terms of the decree, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The boundary between the State of Louisiana and the State of Mississippi along the Mississippi River between North Latitude 32° 49' 25" and North Latitude 32° 44' lies along the line described as follows:
Beginning at Pt. 1 at North Latitude 32° 49' 25" and West Longitude 91° 09' 27"; thence to Pt. 2, Latitude 32° 49' and Longitude 91° 09' 34"; thence to Pt. 3, Latitude 32° 49' 47" and Longitude 91° 09' 37"; thence to Pt. 4, Latitude 32° 48' 30" and Longitude 91° 09' 39"; thence to Pt. 5, Latitude 32° 48' and Longitude 91° 09' 47"; thence to Pt. 6, Latitude 32° 47' 18" and Longitude 91° 09' 51"; thence to Pt. 7, Latitude 32° 47' 6" and Longitude 91° 09' 54"; thence to Pt. 8, Latitude 32° 47' and Longitude 91° 09' 59"; thence to Pt. 9, Latitude 32° 46' 50" and Longitude 91° 10' 7"; thence to Pt. 10, Latitude 32° 46' 35" and Longitude 91° 10' 14"; thence to Pt. 11, Latitude 32° 46' 20" and Longitude 91° 10' 16"; thence to Pt. 12, Latitude 32° 46' and Longitude 91° 10' 18"; thence to Pt. 13, Latitude 32° 45' 45" and Longitude 91° 10' 20"; thence to Pt. 14, Latitude 32° 45' 30" and Longitude 91° 10' 18"; thence to Pt. 15, Latitude 32° 45' 15" and Longitude 91° 10' 12"; thence to Pt. 16, Latitude 32° 45' and Longitude 91° 10' 01"; thence to Pt. 17, Latitude 32° 44' 45" and Longitude 91° 09' 49"; thence to Pt. 18, Latitude 32° 44' 30" and Longitude 91° 09' 38"; thence to Pt. 19, Latitude 32° 44' 23" and Longitude 91° 09' 30"; thence to Pt. 20, Latitude 32° 44' 15" and Longitude 91° 09' 18"; thence to Pt. 21, Latitude 32° 44' 07" and Longitude 91° 09'; thence to Pt. 22, Latitude 32° 44' and Longitude 91° 08' 44".
2. The State of Louisiana’s prayer that the claim of title by defendants Julia Donelson Houston, et al., in and to the lands and water bottoms lying between the Mississippi River on the east and the Louisiana-Mississippi boundary line as fixed in the preceding paragraph on the west be canceled and forever held for naught is DENIED.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
K
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (Coal Act or Act) includes the present 26 U. S. C. § 9706(a), providing generally that the Commissioner of Social Security “shall, before October 1, 1993,” assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operating company or a “related” entity, which shall then be responsible for funding the assigned beneficiary’s benefits. The question is whether an initial assignment made after that date is valid despite its untimeliness. We hold that it is.
I
We have spoken about portions of the Coal Act in two recent cases, Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438 (2002), and Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U. S. 498 (1998), the first of which sketches the Act’s history, 534 U. S., at 442-447. Here, it is enough to recall that in its current form the Act requires the Commissioner to assign, where possible, every coal industry retiree to a “signatory operator,” defined as a signatory of a coal wage agreement specified in § 9701(b)(1). §§ 9701(c)(1), 9706(a). An assignment should turn on a retiree’s employment history with a particular operator, § 9706(a), unless an appropriate signatory is no longer in business, in which case the proper assignee is a “related person” of that operator, defined in terms of corporate associations and relationships not in issue here, § 9701(c)(2). The Act recognizes that some retirees will be “unassigned.” § 9704(d).
Assignment to a signatory operator binds the operator to pay an annual premium to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, established under the Act to administer benefits. §9702. The premium has up to three components, starting with a “health benefit premium,” computed by multiplying the number of assigned retirees by the year’s “per beneficiary” premium, set by the Commissioner and based on the Combined Fund’s health benefit expenses for the prior year, adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index. § 9704(b). The second element is a “death benefit premium” for projected benefits to the retirees’ survivors, the premium being the operator’s share of “the amount, aetuarially determined, which the Combined Fund will be required to pay during the plan year for death benefits coverage.” § 9704(c).
A possible third constituent of the premium is for retirees who are not assigned to a particular operator, whose health and death benefits are nonetheless paid from the Combined Fund as if they were assigned beneficiaries. Before passage of the Coal Act, many operators withdrew from coal wage agreements, shifting the costs of paying for their retirees’ benefits to the remaining signatories, Sigmon Coal Co., supra, at 444, and an important object of the Coal Act was providing stable funding for the health benefits of these “orphan retirees,” House Committee on Ways and Means, Development and Implementation of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (Comm. Print 1995) (hereinafter Coal Act Implementation). See Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, § 19142, 106 Stat. 3037 (intent to “stabilize plan funding” and “provide for the continuation of a privately financed self-sufficient program”).
Before signatory operators may be compelled to contribute for the benefit of unassigned beneficiaries, however, funding from two other sources must run out. The United Mine Workers of America 1950 Pension Plan (UMWA Pension Plan) was required to make three substantial payments to the Combined Fund for this purpose on February 1, 1993, October 1, 1993, and October 1, 1994. § 9705(a)(1). The Act also calls for yearly payments to the Combined Fund from the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund (AML Fund), established for reclamation and restoration of land and water resources degraded by coal mining. 30 U. S. C. § 1231(c). Annual transfers from this AML Fund are limited to the greater of $70 million and the annual interest earned by the fund, and are subject to an aggregate limit equal to the amount of interest earned on the AML Fund between September 30, 1992, and October 1, 1995. §§ 1232(h)(2), (3)(B).
So far, these transfers from the UMWA Pension Plan and the AML Fund have covered the benefits of all unassigned beneficiaries. If they fall short, however, the third source comes into play (and the third element of an operator’s Combined Fund premium becomes actual): all assignee operators (that is, operators with assigned retirees) will have to pay an “unassigned beneficiaries premium,” being their applicable percentage portion of the amount needed to pay annual benefits for the unassigned. An operator’s “applicable percentage” is defined as “the percentage determined by dividing the number of eligible beneficiaries assigned under section 9706 to such operator by the total number of eligible beneficiaries assigned under section 9706 to all such operators (determined on the basis of assignments as of October 1, 1993).” 26 U. S. C. § 9704(f)(1). The signatory with the most assigned retirees thus would cover the greatest share of the benefits payable to the unassigned (as well as their spouses and certain dependants).
II
Although §9706 provides that the Commissioner “shall” complete all assignments before October 1, 1993, the Commissioner did not, and she now estimates that some 10,000 beneficiaries were first assigned to signatory operators after the statutory date. The parties disagree on the reason the Commissioner failed to meet the deadline, but that dispute need not be resolved here.
After October 1,1993, the Commissioner assigned 330 beneficiaries to respondents Peabody Coal Company and Eastern Associated Coal Corp., and a total of 270 beneficiaries to respondents Bellaire Corporation, NACCO Industries, Inc., and The North American Coal Corporation. These companies challenged the assignments in two separate actions before different District Courts, claiming that the statutory date sets a time limit on the Commissioner’s power to assign, so that a beneficiary not assigned on October 1, 1993 (and the beneficiary’s eligible dependants) must be left unassigned for life. If the respondent companies are right, the challenged assignments are void and the corresponding benefits must be financed not by them, but by the transfers from the UMWA Pension Plan and the AML Fund and, if necessary, by unassigned beneficiary premiums paid by other signatory operators to whom timely assignments were made.
The Commissioner denied that Congress intended the Commissioner’s tardiness in assignments to impose a permanent charge on the public AML Fund, otherwise earmarked for reclamation, or to raise the threat of permanently heavier financial burdens on companies that happened to get assignments before October 1, 1993. The Commissioner argued that Congress primarily intended coal operators to pay for their own retirees. The trustees of the Combined Fund intervened in one of the cases and took the Commissioner’s view that initial assignments made after September 30, 1993, are valid.
The companies obtained summary judgments in each case, on the authority of Dixie Fuel Co. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 171 F. 3d 1052 (CA6 1999), which went against the Commissioner on the issue here. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in two opinions likewise following Dixie Fuel—Peabody Coal Co. v. Massanari, 14 Fed. Appx. 393 (2001), and Bellaire Corp. v. Massanari, 14 Fed. Appx. 424 (2001)—but conflicting with the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Holland v. Pardee Coal Co., 269 F. 3d 424 (2001). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 534 U. S. 1112 (2002), and now reverse.
III
It misses the point simply to argue that the October 1, 1993, date was “mandatory,” “imperative,” or a “deadline,” as of course it was, however unrealistic the mandate may have been. The Commissioner had no discretion to choose to leave assignments until after the prescribed date, and the assignments in issue here represent a default on a statutory duty, though it may well be a wholly blameless one. But the failure to act on schedule' merely raises the real question, which is what the consequence of tardiness should be. The respondent companies call the failure “jurisdictional,” such that the affected beneficiaries (like truly orphan beneficiaries) may never be assigned, but instead must be permanent wards of the UMWA Pension Plan, the AML Fund, and, potentially, of coal operators without prior relationship to these beneficiaries. The companies, in other words, say that as to tardily assigned beneficiaries who were, perhaps, formerly their own employees, they go scot free. We think the claim is as unsupportable as it is counterintuitive.
A
First there is the companies’ position that couching the duty in terms of the mandatory “shall” together with a specific deadline leaves the Commissioner with no authority to make an initial assignment on or after October 1, 1993. We rejected a comparable argument in Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U. S. 253 (1986), dealing with the power of the Secretary of Labor to audit a grant recipient under a provision that he “ ‘shall’ issue a final determination... within 120 days” of receiving a complaint alleging misuse of federal grant funds. Id., at 255. Like the Court of Appeals here, the Ninth Circuit in Brock thought the mandate and deadline together implied that Congress “had intended to prevent the Secretary from acting” after the statutory period, id., at 257. We, on the contrary, expressed reluctance “to conclude that every failure of an agency to observe a procedural requirement voids subsequent agency action, especially when important public rights are at stake,” id., at 260, and reversed. As in this litigation, the Secretary’s responsibility in Brock was “substantial,” the “ability to complete it within 120 days [was] subject to factors beyond [the Secretary’s] control,” and “the Secretary’s delay, under respondent’s theory, would prejudice the rights of the taxpaying public.” Id., at 261. We accordingly read the 120-day provision as meant “to spur the Secretary to action, not to limit the scope of his authority,” so that untimely action was still valid. Id., at 265.
Nor, since Brock, have we ever construed a provision that the Government “shall” act within a specified time, without more, as a jurisdictional limit precluding action later. Thus, a provision that a detention hearing “ ‘shall be held immediately upon the [detainee’s] first appearance before the judicial officer’” did not bar detention after a tardy hearing, United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U. S. 711, 714 (1990) (quoting 18 U. S. C. § 3142(f)), and a mandate that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “ ‘shall report’ ” within a certain time did “not mean that [the] official lacked power to act beyond it,” Regions Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U. S. 448, 459, n. 3 (1998).
We have summed up this way: “if a statute does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with statutory timing provisions, the federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their own coercive sanction.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 63 (1993).
Hence the oddity at this date of a claim that late official action should shift financial burdens from otherwise responsible private purses to the public fisc, let alone siphon money from funds set aside expressly for a different public purpose, like the AML Fund for land reclamation. The point would be the same, however, even if Brock were the only case on the subject. The Coal Act was adopted six years after Brock came down, when Congress was presumably aware that we do not readily infer congressional intent to limit an agency’s power to get a mandatory job done merely from a specification to act by a certain time. See United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 495 (1997). The Brock example conse quently has to mean that a statute directing official action needs more than a mandatory “shall” before the grant of power can sensibly be read to expire when the job is supposed to be done. Nothing so limiting, however, is to be found in the Coal Act: no express language supports the companies, while structure, purpose, and legislative history go against them.
Structural clues support the Commissioner in the Coal Act’s other instances of combining the word “shall” with a specific date that could not possibly be read to prohibit action outside the statutory period. Congress, for example, provided that the UMWA Pension Plan “shall transfer to the Combined Fund” installments of $70 million on February 1, 1993, on October 1, 1993, and on October 1, 1994. § 9705(a)(1). It could not be that a failure to make a transfer on one of those precise dates, for whatever reason, would have left the UMWA Pension Plan with no authority to make the payment; October 1, 1994, was not even a business day. Or consider the Act’s mandatory provisions that the trustees of the Combined Fund “shall” be designated no later than 60 days from the enactment date, § 9702(a)(1), and that the designated trustees “shall, not later than 60 days after the enactment date,” give the Commissioner certain information about benefits, § 9704(h). No one could seriously argue that the entire scheme would have been nullified if appointments had been left to the 61st day, or that trustees (whose appointments could properly have been left to the 60th day) were powerless to divulge information to the SSA after the 60-day period had expired.
In each of these instances, we draw a conclusion on grounds of plausibility: if Congress had meant to set a coun-terintuitive limit on authority to act, it would have said more than it did, and would surely not have couched its intent in language Brock had already held to lack any clear jurisdictional significance. The same may be said here.
B
Nor do we think the result of appealing to plausibility is affected by either of two other textual features that the companies take as indicating inability to assign beneficiaries after the statutory date: the provision for unassigned beneficiary status itself, and the provision that an operator’s contribution for the benefit of the unassigned shall be calculated “on the basis of assignments as of October 1, 1993.” §§ 9704(f)(1), (2).
1
The companies characterize the provision for unassigned beneficiaries as the specification of a “consequence” for failure to assign a beneficiary to an operator or related person. Cf. Brock, 476 U. S., at 259. Specifying this consequence of failure, they say, shows that the failure must be governed by the consequence provided, not corrected by a tardy assignment corresponding to one that should have been made earlier. The specified consequence, in other words, reflects a legislative preference for finality over accurate initial assignments and creates a right on the part of the companies to rely permanently on the state of affairs as they were on October 1, 1993. We think this line of reasoning is unsound at every step.
To begin with, whatever might be inferable from the fact that a specific provision addressed the failure to make a timely assignment, the part of the Act referring to “unassigned” beneficiaries is not any such provision. The Act speaks of the beneficiaries not in terms of the Commissioner’s failure to assign them in time, but simply as “beneficiaries who are not assigned.” § 9704(d). The most obvious reason for beneficiaries’ being unassigned, in fact, is the disappearance of a beneficiary’s former employer, leaving no signatory operator for assignment under § 9706(a). This is not to say that failure of timely assignment does not also leave a beneficiary “unassigned” under the Act. It simply means that unassigned status has no significance peculiar to failure of timely assignment.
Second, to the extent that “unassigned” status is a consequence of mere untimeliness, there would be a far more obvious reason for specifying that consequence than a supposed desire for finality. On its face, the provision for a beneficiary left out through tardiness functions simply as a default rule to provide coverage under the new regime required to be in place by October 1, 1993; there had to be some source of funding for every beneficiary by then, and provisions for the “unassigned” employees tell the SSA what the source will be in the absence of any other. But we do not read a provision apparently made for want of something better as an absolute command to forgo something better for all time.
In fact, it is unrealistic to think that Congress understood unassigned status as an enduring “consequence” of uncompleted work, for nothing indicates that Congress even foresaw that some beneficiaries matchable with operators still in business might not be assigned before October 1, 1993. As the companies themselves point out, the Commissioner led Congress to believe as late as 1995 that all possible assignments had been made on time, see n. 3, supra, and such little legislative history as there is on the point tends to show that Congress assumed that any assignments that could be made at all (say, to an operator still in business) would be made on time. On October 8, 1992, on the heels of the Conference Committee Report on the Act and just before the vote in the Senate adopting the Act, Senator Wallop gave a detailed explanation of the Coal Act’s provisions for unassigned beneficiaries, which assumed that the “unassigned” would be true orphans:
“As a practical matter, not all beneficiaries can be assigned to a specific last signatory operator, related person or assigned operator for payment purposes. This is because in some instances, none of those persons remain in business, even as defined to include non-mining related businesses. Thus, provisions are made for unassigned beneficiary premiums.” 138 Cong. Rec. 34003 (1992).
The Senator’s report says that the transfer to the Combined Fund from the UMWA Pension Plan and AML Fund would be made because “unassigned beneficiaries were not employed by the assigned operators at the time of their retirement.... [I]f no operator remains in business under the formulations described above, that retiree becomes an unassigned beneficiary.... [The Coal Act’s] purpose is to assure that any beneficiary, once assigned, remains the responsibility of a particular operator, and that the number of unassigned beneficiaries is kept to an absolute minimum.” Ibid. It seems not to have crossed Congress’s mind that the category of the “unassigned” would include beneficiaries, let alone a lot of beneficiaries, who could be connected with an operator, albeit late. Providing a consequence of default was apparently just happenstance.
Congress plainly did, however, weigh finality on October 1, 1993, against accuracy of initial assignments in one circumstance, and accuracy won. Section 9704(d) speaks of “beneficiaries who are not assigned... for [any] plan year,” suggesting that assignment status may change from year to year. One way it may change is by correcting an erroneous assignment. Under the Act, an operator getting notice of an assignment has 30 days to request information regarding the basis of the assignment and then 30 days from receipt of that information to ask for reconsideration. §§ 9706(f)(1)— (2). If the Commissioner finds error, the Combined Fund trustees will fix it by reducing premiums and refunding any overpayments. § 9706(f)(3)(A)(i); see also § 9706(f)(3)(A)(ii). Nothing is said about finality on October 1,1993, and no time limit whatever is imposed on the Commissioner’s authority to reassign. The companies concede, as they must, that the statute permits reassignment after October 1, 1993.
The companies do, however, try to limit the apparent preference for accuracy by arguing that one feature of this provision for reconsideration in § 9706(f) implicitly supports them; this specific and isolated exception to an otherwise unequivocal bar to assignments after the statutory date suggests, they say, that the bar is otherwise absolute. Again, we think no such conclusion follows.
First, the argument is circular; it assumes that the availability of the § 9706(f) reconsideration process with no time limit is an exception to a bar on all assignment activity imposed by the October 1, 1993, time limit of § 9706(a). But the question, after all, is whether the October 1, 1993, mandate is in fact a bar. Section 9706(f) does not say it is, and nothing in that provision suggests it was enacted as an exception to the October 1, 1993, date. It has no language about operating notwithstanding the date specified in § 9706(a); on the contrary, it states that reassignment will be made “under subsection (a),” § 9706(f)(3)(A)(ii). But if the authority to reassign is contained in § 9706(a), then § 9706(f) is reasonably read not as lifting a jurisdictional time bar but simply as specifying a procedure for an aggrieved operator to follow in requesting the Commissioner to exercise the assignment power contained in § 9706(a) all along. In the combined operation of the two subsections, there is thus no implication that the Commissioner is powerless to make an initial assignment to an operator after the specified date; any suggestion goes the other way.
Second, there is no reason to read the provision in § 9706(f) for correction of erroneous assignments as implying that the Commissioner should not employ her § 9706(a) authority to make a tardy initial assignment in a situation like this. We do not read the enumeration of one case to exclude another unless it is fair to suppose that Congress considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no to it. United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. United States, 532 U. S. 822, 836 (2001). As we have held repeatedly, the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply to every statutory listing or grouping; it has force only when the items expressed are members of an “associated group or series,” justifying the inference that items not mentioned were excluded by deliberate choice, not inadvertence. United States v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 65 (2002). We explained this point as recently as last Term’s unanimous opinion in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U. S. 73, 81 (2002):
“Just as statutory language suggesting exclusiveness is missing, so is that essential extrastatutory ingredient of an expression-exclusion demonstration, the series of terms from which an omission bespeaks a negative implication. The canon depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or things that should be understood to go hand in hand, which [is] abridged in circumstances supporting a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded. E. Crawford, Construction of Statutes 337 (1940) (expressio unius ‘“properly applies only when in the natural association of ideas in the mind of the reader that which is expressed is so set over by way of strong contrast to that which is omitted that the contrast enforces the affirmative inference” ’ (quoting State ex rel. Curtis v. De Corps, 134 Ohio St. 295, 299, 16 N. E. 2d 459, 462 (1938))); United States v. Vonn, supra.”
As in Echazabal, respondents here fail to show any reason that Congress would have considered reassignments after appeal “to go hand in hand” with tardy initial assignments. Since Congress apparently never thought that initial assignments would be late, see supra, at 164-167, the better inference is that what we face here is nothing more than a case unprovided for.
2
The remaining textual argument for the companies’ side rests on the definition of an operator’s “applicable percentage” of the overall obligation of all assignee operators (or related persons) to fund benefits for the unassigned. Under § 9704(f)(1), it is defined as the percentage of the operator’s own assigned beneficiaries among all assigned beneficiaries “determined on the basis of assignments as of October 1, 1993” (parenthesis omitted). The companies argue that the.specification “as of” October 1, 1993, means that an assigned operator’s percentage of potential liability for the benefit of the unassigned is fixed according to the assignments made at that date, subject only to specific exceptions set out in § 9704(f)(2), requiring a change in the percentage when erroneously assigned retirees are reassigned or assignee operators go out of business. The companies contend that their position rests on plain meaning: “as of” the date means “as assignments actually stand” on the date. Yet the words “as of,” as used in the statute, can be read another way: since Congress required that all possible assignments be complete on October 1, 1993, see § 9706(a), it is equally fair to read assignments “as of” that date to mean “assignments as they shall be on that date, assuming the Commissioner complies with our command.” The companies’ reading is hospitable to early finality of assignments, while the alternative favors completeness and accuracy before finality prevails.
Once it is seen that there is no “plain” reading, however, there is nothing left of the “as of” argument except its stress that the applicable percentage can be modified only in accordance with the two exceptions recognizing changes for initial error or the demise of an assignee operator. The answer to this point, of course, has already been given. The enunciation of two exceptions does not imply an exclusion of a third unless there is reason to think the third was at least considered, whereas there is good reason to conclude that when Congress adopted the language in question it did not foresee a failure to make timely assignments. See supra, at 168-169. The phrase “as of” cannot be read to govern a situation that Congress clearly did not contemplate, nor does it require the absolute finality of assignments urged by the companies.
IV
This much is certain: the Coal Act rests on Congress’s stated finding that it was necessary to “identify persons most responsible for plan liabilities,” and on its express desire to “provide for the continuation of a privately financed self-sufficient program for the delivery of health care benefits,” Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, § 19142, 106 Stat. 3037. In the words of Senator Wallop’s report delivered shortly before enactment, the statute is “designed to allocate the greatest number of beneficiaries in the Plans to a prior responsible operator. For this reason, definitions are intended by the drafters to be given broad interpretation to accomplish this goal.” 138 Cong. Rec. 34001 (1992). To accept the companies’ argument that the specified date for action is jurisdictional would be to read the Act so as to allocate not the greatest, but the least, number of beneficiaries to a responsible operator. The way to reach the congressional objective, however, is to read the statutory date as a spur to prompt action, not as a bar to tardy completion of the business of ensuring that benefits are funded, as much as possible, by those identified by Congress as principally responsible.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals in both cases are accordingly
Reversed.
The Coal Act’s definition of “related persons” was the subject of our opinion last Term in Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438 (2002). For simplicity, we will not refer to related persons separately in the balance of this opinion.
According to a 1995 congressional Report, the total premium for a single beneficiary was $2,349.38 for the 1995 fiscal year. This figure includes only the health and death benefit premiums, since no unassigned beneficiaries premium has yet been charged. Coal Act Implementation 32-33. The 2002 per-beneficiary premium was approximately $2,725. General Accounting Office Report No. 02-243, Retired Coal Miners’ Health Benefit Funds: Financial Challenges Continue 8 (Apr. 2002).
The Commissioner’s proffered reason for the delay is that the Social Security Administration (SSA) was not permitted to expend appropriated funds to commence work on assignments until July 13, 1993, when Congress enacted the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-50, 107 Stat. 254. The Commissioner also states that the task of researching employment records for approximately 80,000 coal industry workers in order to determine the appropriate signatory operators was monumental and could not have been completed by October 1, 1993, without additional resources. The respondent companies counter that the Acting Commissioner assured Congress less than a month before the statutory date that SSA would meet its “statutory responsibility” to complete the assignments on time. Hearing on Provisions Relating to the Health Benefits of Retired Coal Miners before the House Ways and Means Committee, 103d Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1993) (hereinafter 1993 Coal Act Hearing), Ser. No. 103-59, p. 26 (Comm. Print 1994) (statement of Acting Commissioner Thompson). The same representative informed Congress in 1995 that SSA had “completed the process of making the initial assignment decisions by October 1, 1993, as required by law.” Hearing on the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., 23 (1995), Ser. No. 104-67, p. 23 (1997) (statement of Principal Deputy Commissioner Thompson).
The General Accounting Office estimated in 2000 that invalidation of assignments made after September 30, 1993, could require the Combined Fund to refund $57 million in premium payments. Letter of Gloria L. Jarmon to Hon. William V. Roth, Jr., Senate Committee on Finance 2 (Aug. 15, 2000), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai00267r.pdf (as visited Jan. 9, 2003) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
After the grant of certiorari, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit came down on the side of the Fourth Circuit. See Shenango Inc. v. Apfel, 307 F. 3d 174 (2002).
No one could disagree with Justice Scalia that “[w]hen a power is conferred for a limited time, the automatic consequence of the expiration of that time is the expiration of the power,” post, at 174-175 (dissenting opinion), but his assumption that the Commissioner’s power to assign retirees was “conferred for a limited time” assumes away the very question to be decided. Justice Scalia’s dissent is an elaboration on this circularity, forever returning as it must to his postulate that § 9706(a) constitutes a “time-limited mandate” that “expired” on the statutory date. Post, at 177, 178.
Justice Scalia’s closest approach to a nonconclusory justification for his position is the assertion of an entirely formal interpretive rule that a date figuring in the same statutory subsection as the creation of a mandatory obligation ipso facto negates any power of tardy performance. Post, at 176-177. Justice Scalia cites no authority for his formalism, which is contradicted by United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U. S. 711 (1990), where a single statutory subsection provided that a judicial officer “shall hold a hearing” and that “[t]he hearing shall be held immediately upon the person’s first appearance before the judicial officer.” Id., at 714 (quoting 18 U. S. C. § 3142(f)). Conversely, Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U. S. 253 (1986), United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43 (1993), and Regions Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U. S. 448 (1998), ascribed no significance to the formal placement of the time limitation. One can only ask why a statute providing that “The obligor shall perform its duty before October 1, 1993,” should be thought to differ fundamentally from one providing that “(i) The obligor shall perform its duty, (ii) The obligor’s duty shall be performed before October 1, 1993.” The accepted fact is that some time limits are jurisdictional even though expressed in a separate statutory section from jurisdictional grants, see, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1291 (providing that the courts of appeals “shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States”); § 2107 (providing that notice of appeal in civil cases must be filed “within thirty days after the entry of such judgment”); Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U. S. 257, 264 (1978) (stating that the limitation in §2107 is “ ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ ” (citation omitted)), while others are not, even when incorporated into the jurisdictional provision, see, e. g., Montalvo-Murillo, supra. Formalistic rules do not account for the difference, which is explained by contextual and historical indications of what Congress meant to accomplish. Here that intent is revealed in several obvious ways: in rules that define an operator’s liability in terms of employment history, see § 9706(a), in appellate rights to test the appropriateness of an initial assignment, see infra, at 167, and in the expressed understanding that the companies that got the benefit of a worker’s labor should pay for the worker’s benefits, see infra, at 164-166. What else, after all, would anyone naturally expect? As opposed to the sensible indications that the initial assignment deadline was not meant to be jurisdictional, Justice Scalia’s new formal rule would thwart the statute’s object and relieve the respondent companies of all responsibility, which other, less lucky operators might be required to shoulder. There undoubtedly was much political compromise in the development of the Coal Act, but politics does not justify turning the process of initial assignment into a game of chance.
The respondent companies attempt to distinguish Brock because we noted in that case that an aggrieved party could sue under the Administrative Procedure Act to “ ‘compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,’” 476 U. S., at 260, n. 7 (quoting 5 U. S. C. §706(1)). The companies assert that no such remedy would have applied to the Commissioner’s duty under § 9706(a). Whether or not this is the case, the companies do not argue that they were aggrieved by the failure to assign retirees by the statutory date. On the contrary, they temporarily avoided payment of premium amounts for which they would indisputably have been liable had the assignments been timely made. It therefore does not appear that there was a need to provide operators “with any remedy at all — much less the drastic remedy respondents] see[k] in this case — for the [Commissioner’s] failure to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case brings here a question as to the application of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the payment of compensation pursuant to employment contracts similar to those in Walling v. Belo Corp., 316 U. S.624.
Respondent is engaged in the business of cementing, testing and otherwise servicing oil wells, for which it uses its own peculiar equipment. To operate this equipment respondent retains a highly stabilized group of skilled and specially trained “field employees.” The volume of respondent’s business, however, is highly inconstant. Consequently, these employees are required to work a variable number of hours from day to day and from week to week.
Prior to passage of the Act in 1938, these employees were paid fixed monthly salaries. Thereafter, they were put on a “weekly-guarantee” plan similar to that which was to be involved in the Belo case. This plan was abandoned March 1, 1942, under pressure from the Administrator of the Act, and reinstated July 1, 1942, after the Belo decision had seemed to end all questions as to its legality. Since its reinstatement the plan has been continuously in effect, and embodied in formal written contracts between respondent and the employees to whom it has applied.
The part of these contracts now in issue is respondent’s agreement to pay these employees “a regular basic rate of [a specified number of] cents per hour for the first (40) hours of any workweek, and not less than one and one-half times such basic hourly rate of pay for all time over (40) hours in any workweek, with a guarantee that Employee shall receive for regular time and for such overtime as the necessities of the business may demand a sum not less than $ [a specified number] for each workweek.”
The regular basic rate so specified was in each case at or above the minimum prescribed by the Act or by the Administrator’s order, but that rate was always so related to the guaranteed flat sum that the employee became entitled to more than the guarantee only in weeks in which he worked more than 84 hours. The compensation actually paid was regularly consistent with the contractual obligation as stated.
Petitioner sued respondent under § 17 of the Act to enjoin against future adherence to this plan, on the ground that it failed to include overtime compensation as required by § 7 (a). He contended that the actual “regular rate” of compensation payable under these contracts was not the specified basic rate, but rather the quotient of the amount of the correlative guarantee divided by the number of hours worked in that week. This was said to follow from the fact that the employees usually worked less than 84 hours a week and nevertheless received the full guaranteed sum.
The District Court found, however, that the contracts were “bona fide,” and that they were “intended to and did really fix the regular rate” at which the men were employed. It denied relief and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, both Courts relying on our decision in the Belo case.
Petitioner admits a close similarity of facts and of his basic contentions in this and the Belo case. He argues, however, that the Belo decision should not be followed: (a) because there are factual differences between the two cases adequate to distinguish them, (b) because Belo has been implicitly overruled by later decisions of this Court, and (c) because the Belo decision is erroneous.
As to the first of these arguments, we note that the contracts in Belo and in this case are substantially identical, except for the amount of the hourly rate and of the fixed guarantee. Under the Belo contract, however, overtime would be paid in addition to the guaranteed wage after 54½ hours had been worked in any given week; under this contract, only after 84 hours. It is said that this 84 hours bears no relation to the usual workweek.
Actually, the employees in this case have no usual workweek. In many weeks they work more than 100 hours; in others less than 30. In about 20 per cent of the workweeks, they work in excess of 84 hours. Whenever they do, they are paid in accordance with the contract on the basis of the specified hourly rate with appropriate overtime.
No more can be said as to the relation between 54½ hours and the usual workweek in Belo. It appears from the record in that case that the employees there involved also worked fluctuating workweeks, and that the average workweek was substantially less than 54½ hours. Indeed, it appears that the Belo employees exceeded 54½ hours in considerably less than 20 per cent of the weeks worked. When they did so, they too were paid at the contractual rate with appropriate overtime. There is nothing here to suggest different treatment of the two cases.
Petitioner also points to alleged differences in the fact that respondent in this case paid the full weekly guarantee even when its employees worked less than 40 hours in the week, and the fact that respondent carried fixed rather than fluctuating overtime rates on its payroll records.
As to the first of these points, there is actually no difference between this case and Belo. The employees in both cases had a contractual right to the full guarantee however short their workweek, and those in Belo were paid it as well as those here. The second fact we think without significance. The function of the payroll records was merely to show the amounts of compensation payable. These records did not affect respondent’s contract obligations, nor suggest a practice at variance with the contract.
We think that whatever differences exist between this ease and Belo are without substance, and that it must either be followed or overruled.
This brings us to petitioner’s second argument, in which our attention is directed to three cases decided since Belo, wherein we held that certain plans of overtime compensation failed to meet the § 7 (a) requirement. It is urged that the provisions for overtime compensation in these cases were legally no less adequate than, and that the principles on which they were decided are necessarily inconsistent with, the overtime provision and the principles of the Belo case.
In Belo itself, the specified basic hourly rate was held to be the actual regular rate because, as to weeks in which employees worked more than 54½ hours, the specified rate determined the amount of compensation actually payable; as to weeks in which they worked less, the Court inferred from the collateral specification of a basic rate and provision for a legal but variable rate of overtime pay that the guaranteed flat sum then due also contemplated both basic pay and overtime. On the other hand, we find that in the three later cases relied on by petitioner, the agreed method by which wages were computed made a like inference impossible.
In Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U. S. 37, we considered a “split-day plan,” under which a prescribed “regular” hourly rate was payable for the first four hours of each eight-hour shift, and a prescribed “overtime” rate, of one and one-half the “regular” rate, was payable for the other four hours. In those weeks in which an employee worked statutory overtime, he was paid at the contract “overtime” rate for many straight-time hours and at the contract “regular” rate for many overtime hours. Obviously, these prescribed rates were not actual regular and overtime rates, although so named in the plan. Consequently, as in Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U. S. 572, we held that the regular rate was to be determined by dividing the wages actually paid by the hours actually worked. In so deciding, we expressly noted that Belo was not controlling because the wage plans involved in the two cases posed entirely different questions as to the application of § 7 (a).
In Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U. S. 419, and Walling v. Harnischfeger Corp., 325 U. S. 427, the contracts established two alternative methods for computing each employee’s wages. One was to multiply his straight-time hours of work by a specified basic hourly rate, and his overtime hours by one and one-half that rate, and add the products. The other was to multiply the number of jobs done by a specified piecework rate. The employee was entitled to be paid the greater of these two sums. The method of computing the amount due at piecework rates, which were constant for work done on both straight-time and overtime hours, of course negated any possible inference that the payment of such amount contemplated legal overtime compensation. The specified hourly rates were so low, however, relative to piecework rates, that the latter were always, or almost always, determinative of the wage actually to be paid. These cases held merely that such specified hourly rates were not the “regular” rates of wage payments to which they were not related, and which were computed according to a necessarily inconsistent method. Again, Belo was expressly distinguished.
Indeed, it would seem that the Court’s opinions in these cases, far from undermining Beló, showed an affirmative concern that language appropriate to the situations then before us should not be extended to the different situation involved in this and the Belo case.
Finally, petitioner maintains that Belo was wrongly decided and that we should “define the area of [its] continued vitality, if any.” His argument on this score is substantially the same as that advanced on behalf of the Administrator and considered by the Court in the Belo case itself.
The reasons stated in the Belo opinion for rejecting this argument are equally valid today, and need not be repeated. Moreover, our holding in Belo has been a rule of decision in this Court for five years, and recognized as such on each appropriate occasion. Knowing of the Belo decision, the Congress has permitted § 7 (a) to stand unmodified and the courts have applied it as so construed. Employers and employees (including those involved in this case) have regulated their affairs on the faith of it. Even if we doubted the wisdom of the Belo decision as an original proposition, we should not be inclined to depart from it at this time.
Affirmed.
52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq. The relevant overtime provisions, contained in § 7 (a), 29 U. S. C. § 207 (a), are as follows:
“No employer shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, employ any of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce—
“(3) for a workweek longer than forty hours after the expiration of the second year from such date, unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”
This Court decided the Belo case June 8,1942.
Compare the almost identical wording of the Belo contract, 316 U. S. at 628.
For instance, the lowest specified basic rate in May, 1944, when this case was tried, was 40 cents an hour. Compensation at this rate for 40 hours and at one and one-half this rate for 44 additional hours equals $42.40. Actually, the correlative weekly guarantee was the slightly greater sum of $42.69.
57 F. Supp. 408.
152 F. 2d 622.
See the statement and explanation of the Belo contract, 316 U. S. at 627-629.
The record shows that of 4,284 man-weeks worked by respondent’s California field employees between July 5, 1942, and March 11, 1944, about 3% were less than 20 hours in length, about 13% were less than 40 hours, about 67% were from 40 to 84 hours, about 20% were over 84 hours, and about 7% over 104 hours, some running as high as 140 and 150 hours. This “work-week” was the basis for determining compensation, but it did not represent the number of hours actually worked by the employee. In the course of typical cementing and testing operations, many hours counted as working time were spent waiting while the drilling crew was running the casing, the cement was setting, the perforation work was being done by another company, or the testing tool was standing in the well hole.
See Transcript of Record, Supreme Court of the United States, Walling v. A. H. Belo Corp., No. 622, O. T. 1941, pp. 194-337.
316 U. S. at 631-632.
Fleming v. A. H. Belo Corp., 121 F. 2d 207, at 210, note 6.
316 U. S. at 631-632. In Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U. S. 572, decided the same day as Belo, the employees also worked an irregular number of hours each week, but were simply paid a fixed weekly wage. The Court noted the absence of any agreement between the contracting parties for the payment of a specified rate and overtime, and of any contractual limitation on the number of hours the employee could be required to work for the fixed wage. It also noted that these factors were not absent from the Belo plan. See 316 U. S. at 581.
Theoretically, when an employee had so accumulated 40 “regular” hours in one week, all subsequent hours were compensable as “overtime.” Actually, no employee ever did so. See 323 U. S. at 41.
“Nothing in this Court’s decision in Walling v. Belo Corp., supra, sanctions the use of the split-day plan. The controversy there centered about the question whether the regular rate should be computed from the guaranteed weekly wage or whether it should be identical with the hourly rate set forth in the employment contract. There was no question, as here, pertaining to the applicability of the regular rate to the first 40 hours actually and regularly worked, with the overtime rate applying to all hours worked in excess thereof.” Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U. S. 37, at 42.
In the Harnischfeger case, the scheme was actually a little different from that in the Young erman-Reynolds case, which is stated in the text. In Harnischfeger, the employee was credited with (a) the product of the total number of hours worked multiplied by the basic rate, plus (b) the amount by which piecework earnings during all hours worked exceeded the product in (a), plus (c) the product of the number of overtime hours worked multiplied by one-half the basic hourly rate. The difference is that in Harnischfeger some provision was made for overtime; but in both cases the provision for overtime was inadequate, and for the same reason. See 325 U. S. at 431-432.
“This Court’s decision in Walling v. Belo Corp., 316 U. S. 624, lends no support to respondent’s position. The particular wage agreements there involved were upheld because it was felt that in fixing a rate of 67 cents an hour the contracts did in fact set the actual regular rate at which the workers were employed. The case is no authority, however, for the proposition that the regular rate may be fixed by contract at a point completely unrelated to the payments actually and normally received each week by the employees.” Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U. S. 419, at 426.
See also the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Walling v. Harnischfeger Corp., 325 U. S. 427, 433. The Court did not expressly refer to Belo in its opinion in the Harnischfeger case; but, as it did in Young erman-Reynolds, which involves substantially the same question and was decided the same day, we consider that further reference to Belo would have been redundant.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1966 Pedro Perales, a San Antonio truck driver, then aged 34, height 6' 11", weight about 220 pounds, filed a claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Sections 216 (i) (1), 68 Stat. 1080, and 223 (d)(1), 81 Stat. 868, of that Act, 42 U. S. C. § 416 (i) (1) and 42 U. S. C. § 423 (d)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. V), both provide that the term “disability” means “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which...,” Section 205 (g), 42 TJ. S. C. §405 (g), relating to judicial review, states, “The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive....”
The issue here is whether physicians’ written reports of medical examinations they have made of a disability claimant may constitute “substantial evidence” supportive of a finding of nondisability, within the § 205 (g) standard, when the claimant objects to the admissibility of those reports and when the only live testimony is presented by his side and is contrary to the reports.
I
In his claim Perales asserted that on September 29, 1965, he became disabled as a result of an injury to his back sustained in lifting an object at work. He was seen by a neurosurgeon, Dr. Ralph A. Munslow, who first recommended conservative treatment. When this provided no relief, myelography was performed and surgery for a possible protruded intervertebral disc at L-5 was advised. The patient at first hesitated about surgery and appeared to improve. On recurrence of pain, however, he consented to the recommended procedure. Dr. Munslow operated on November 23. The surgical note is in the margin. No disc protrusion or other definitive pathology was identified at surgery. The post-operative diagnosis was: “Nerve root compression syndrome, left.” The patient was discharged from Dr. Munslow’s care on January 25, 1966, with a final diagnosis of “Neuritis, lumbar, mild.”
Mr. Perales continued to complain, but Dr. Munslow and Dr. Morris H. Lampert, a neurologist called in consultation, were still unable to find any objective neurological explanation for his complaints. Dr. Munslow advised that he return to work.
In April 1966 Perales consulted Dr. Max Morales, Jr., a general practitioner of San Antonio. Dr. Morales hospitalized the patient from April 15 to May 2. His final discharge diagnosis was: “Back sprain, lumbo-sacral spine.”
Perales then filed his claim. As required by § 221 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 421, the claim was referred to the state agency for determination. The agency obtained the hospital records and a report from Dr. Morales. The report set forth no physical findings or laboratory studies, but the doctor again gave as his diagnosis: “Back sprain — lumbo-sacral spine,” this time “moderately severe,” with “Ruptured disk not ruled out.” The agency arranged for a medical examination, at no cost to the patient, by Dr. John H. Langston, an orthopedic surgeon. This was done May 25.
Dr. Langston's ensuing report to the Division of Disability Determination was devastating from the claimant's standpoint. The doctor referred to Perales’ being “on crutches or cane” since his injury. He noted a slightly edematous condition in the legs, attributed to “inactivity and sitting around”; slight tenderness in some of the muscles of the dorsal spine, thought to be due to poor posture; and “a very mild sprain [of those muscles] which would resolve were he actually to get a little exercise and move.” Apart from this, and from the residuals of the pantopaque myelography and hemilaminectomy, Dr. Langston found no abnormalities of the lumbar spine. Otherwise, he described Perales as a “big physical healthy specimen... obviously holding back and limiting all of his motions, intentionally.... His upper extremities, though they are completely uninvolved by his injury, he holds very rigidly as though he were semi-paralyzed. His reach and grasp are very limited but intentionally so.... Neurological examination is entirely normal to detailed sensory examination with pinwheel, vibratory sensations, and light touch. Reflexes are very active and there is no atrophy anywhere.” The orthopedist’s summarization, impression, and prognosis are in the margin.
The state agency denied the claim. Perales requested reconsideration. Dr. Morales submitted a further report to the agency and an opinion to the claimant’s attorney. This outlined the surgery and hospitalizations and his own conservative and continuing treatment of the patient, the medicines prescribed, the administration of ultrasound therapy, and the patient’s constant complaints. The doctor concluded that the patient had not made a complete recovery from his surgery, that he was not malingering, that his injury was permanent, and that he was totally and permanently disabled. He recommended against any further surgery.
The state agency then arranged for an examination by Dr. James M. Bailey, a board-certified psychiatrist with a subspecialty in neurology. Dr. Bailey’s report to the agency on August 30, 1966, concluded with the following diagnosis:
“Paranoid personality, manifested by hostility, feelings of persecution and long history of strained interpersonal relationships.
“I do not feel that this patient has a separate psychiatric illness at this time. It appears that his personality is conducive to anger, frustrations, etc.”
The agency again reviewed the file. The Bureau of Disability Insurance of the Social Security Administration made its independent review. The report and opinion of Dr. Morales, as the claimant’s attending physician, were considered, as were those of the other examining physicians. The claim was again denied.
Perales requested a hearing before a hearing examiner. The agency then referred the claimant to Dr. Langston and to Dr. Richard H. Mattson for electromyography studies. Dr. Mattson’s notes referred to “some chronic or past disturbance of function in the nerve supply” to the left and right anterior tibialis muscles and right extensor digitorium brevis muscles that was “strongly suggestive of lack of maximal effort” and was “the kind of finding that is typically associated with a functional or psychogenic component to weakness.” There was no evidence of “any active process effecting [sic] the nerves at present.” Dr. Langston advised the agency that Dr. Mattson’s finding of “very poor effort” verified what Dr. Langston had found on the earlier physical examination.
The requested hearing was set for January 12, 1967, in San Antonio. Written notice thereof was given the claimant with a copy to his attorney. The notice contained a definition of disability, advised the claimant that he should bring all medical and other evidence not already presented, afforded him an opportunity to examine all documentary evidence on file prior to the hearing, and told him that he might bring his own physician or other witnesses and be represented at the hearing by a lawyer.
The hearing took place at the time designated. A supplemental hearing was held March 31. The claimant appeared at the first hearing with his attorney and with Dr. Morales. The attorney formally objected to the introduction of the several reports of Drs. Langston, Bailey, Mattson, and Lampert, and of the hospital records. Various grounds of objection were asserted, including hearsay, absence of an opportunity for cross-examination, absence of proof the physicians were licensed to practice in Texas, failure to demonstrate that the hospital records were proved under the Business Records Act, and the conclusory nature of the reports. These objections were overruled and the reports and hospital records were introduced. The reports of Dr. Morales and of Dr. Munslow were then submitted by the claimant’s counsel and admitted.
At the two hearings oral testimony was submitted by claimant Perales, by Dr. Morales, by a former fellow employee of the claimant, by a vocational expert, and by Dr. Lewis A. Leavitt, a physician board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and chief of, and professor in, the Department of Physical Medicine at Baylor University College of Medicine. Dr. Leavitt was called by the hearing examiner as an independent “medical adviser,” that is, as an expert who does not examine the claimant but who hears and reviews the medical evidence and who may offer an opinion. The adviser is paid a fee by the Government. The claimant, through his counsel, objected to any testimony by Dr. Leavitt not based upon examination or upon a hypothetical. Dr. Leavitt testified over this objection and was cross-examined by the claimant’s attorney. He stated that the consensus of the various medical reports was that Perales had a mild low-back syndrome of musculo-ligamentous origin.
The hearing examiner, in reliance upon the several medical reports and the testimony of Dr. Leavitt, observed in his written decision, “There is objective medical evidence of impairment which the heavy preponderance of the evidence indicates to be of mild severity.... Taken altogether, the Hearing Examiner is of the conclusion that the claimant has not met the burden of proof.” He specifically found that the claimant “is suffering from a low back syndrome of musculo-liga-mentous origin, and of mild severity”; that while he “has an emotional overlay to his medical impairment it does not require psychiatric treatment and is of minimal contribution, if any, to his medical impairment or to his general ability to engage in substantial gainful activity”; that “[n]either his medical impairment nor his emotional overlay, singly or in combination, constitute a disability as defined” in the Act; and that the claimant is capable of engaging as a salesman in work in which he had previously engaged, of working as a watchman or guard where strenuous activity is not required, or as a ticket-taker or janitor. The hearing examiner’s decision, then, was that the claimant was not entitled to a period of disability or to disability insurance benefits.
It is to be noted at this point that § 205 (d) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 405 (d), provides that the Secretary has power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence and that the Secretary’s regulations, authorized by § 205 (a), 42 U. S. C. § 405 (a), provide that a claimant may request the issuance of subpoenas, 20 CFR § 404.926. Perales, however, who was represented by counsel, did not request subpoenas for either of the two hearings.
The claimant then made a request for review by the Appeals Council and submitted as supplemental evidence a judgment dated June 2, 1967, in Perales’ favor against an insurance company for workmen’s compensation benefits aggregating $11,665.84, plus medical and related expenses, and a medical report letter dated December 28, 1966, by Dr. Coyle W. Williams, apparently written in support of a welfare claim made by Perales. In his letter the doctor noted an essentially negative neurological and physical examination except for tenderness in the lumbar area and limited straight leg raising. He observed, “I cannot explain all his symptoms on a physical basis. I would recommend he would re-condition himself and return to work. My estimation, he has a 15% permanent partial disability the body as a whole.” The Appeals Council ruled that the decision of the hearing examiner was correct.
Upon this adverse ruling the claimant instituted the present action for review pursuant to § 205 (g). Each side moved for summary judgment on the administrative transcript. The District Court stated that it was reluctant to accept as substantial evidence the opinions of medical experts submitted in the form of unsworn written reports, the admission of which would have the effect of denying the opposition an opportunity for cross-examination; that the opinion of a doctor who had never examined the claimant is entitled to little or no probative value, especially when opposed by substantial evidence including the oral testimony of an examining physician; and that what was before the court amounted to hearsay upon hearsay. The case was remanded for a new hearing before a different examiner. Perales v. Secretary, 288 F. Supp. 313 (WD Tex. 1968). On appeal the Fifth Circuit noted the absence of any request by the claimant for subpoenas and held that, having this right and not exercising it, he was not in a position to complain that he had been denied the rights of confrontation and of cross-examination. It held that the hearsay evidence in the case was admissible under the Act; that, specifically, the written reports of the physicians were admissible in the administrative hearing; that Dr. Leavitt’s testimony also was admissible; but that all this evidence together did not constitute substantial evidence when it was objected to and when it was contradicted by evidence from the only live witnesses. Cohen v. Perales, 412 F. 2d 44 (1969).
On rehearing, the Court of Appeals observed that it did not mean by its opinion that uncorroborated hearsay could never be substantial evidence supportive of a hearing examiner’s decision adverse to a claimant. It emphasized that its ruling that uncorroborated hearsay could not constitute substantial evidence was applicable only when the claimant had objected and when the hearsay was directly contradicted by the testimony of live medical witnesses and by the claimant in person. Cohen v. Perales, 416 F. 2d 1250 (1969). Certiorari was granted in order to review and resolve this important procedural due process issue. 397 U. S. 1035 (1970).
II
We therefore are presented with the not uncommon situation of conflicting medical evidence. The trier of fact has the duty to resolve that conflict. We have, on the one hand, an absence of objective findings, an expressed suspicion of only functional complaints, of malingering, and of the patient’s unwillingness to do anything about remedying an unprovable situation. We have, on the other hand, the claimant’s and his personal physician’s earnest pleas that significant and disabling residuals from the mishap of September 1966 are indeed present.
The issue revolves, however, around a system which produces a mass of medical evidence in report form. May material of that kind ever be “substantial evidence” when it stands alone and is opposed by live medical evidence and the client’s own contrary personal testimony? The courts below have held that it may not.
III
The Social Security Act has been with us since 1935. Act of August 14, 1936, 49 Stat. 620. It affects nearly all of us. The system’s administrative structure and procedures, with essential determinations numbering into the millions, are of a size and extent difficult to comprehend. But, as the Government’s brief here accurately pronounces, “Such a system must be fair — and it must work.”
Congress has provided that the Secretary
“shall have full power and authority to make rules and regulations and to establish procedures... necessary or appropriate to carry out such provisions, and shall adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same in order to establish the right to benefits hereunder.” § 205 (a), 42 U. S. C. §405 (a).
Section 205 (b) directs the Secretary to make findings and decisions; on request to give reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing; and in the course of any hearing to receive evidence. It then provides:
“Evidence may be received at any hearing before the Secretary even though inadmissible under rules of evidence applicable to court procedure.”
In carrying out these statutory duties the Secretary has adopted regulations that state, among other things:
“The hearing examiner shall inquire fully into the matters at issue and shall receive in evidence the testimony of witnesses and any documents which are relevant and material to such matters.... The... procedure at the hearing generally... shall be in the discretion of the hearing examiner and of such nature as to afford the parties a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing.” 20 CFR § 404.927.
From this it is apparent that (a) the Congress granted the Secretary the power by regulation to establish hearing procedures; (b) strict rules of evidence, applicable in the courtroom, are not to operate at social security hearings so as to bar the admission of evidence otherwise pertinent; and (c) the conduct of the hearing rests generally in the examiner’s discretion. There emerges an emphasis upon the informal rather than the formal. This, we think, is as it should be, for this administrative procedure, and these hearings, should be understandable to the layman claimant, should not necessarily be stiff and comfortable only for the trained attorney, and should be liberal and not strict in tone and operation. This is the obvious intent of Congress so long as the procedures are fundamentally fair.
IV
With this background and this atmosphere in mind, we turn to the statutory standard of “substantial evidence” prescribed by § 205 (g). The Court has considered this very concept in other, yet similar, contexts. The National Labor Relations Act, § 10 (e), in its original form, provided that the NLRB’s findings of fact “if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive.” 49 Stat. 454. The Court said this meant “supported by substantial evidence” and that this was ’
“more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197, 229 (1938).
The Court has adhered to that definition in varying statutory situations. See NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U. S. 292, 300 (1939); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474, 477-487 (1951) ; Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U. S. 607, 619-620 (1966).
V
We may accept the propositions advanced by the claimant, some of them long established, that procedural due process is applicable to the adjudicative administrative proceeding involving “the differing rules of fair play, which through the years, have become associated with differing types of proceedings,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420, 442 (1960); that “the 'right’ to Social Security benefits is in one sense 'earned,’ ” Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 610 (1960); and that the
“extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be 'condemned to suffer grievous loss’.... Accordingly... 'consideration of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action.’ ” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 262-263 (1970).
The question, then, is as to what procedural due process requires with respect to examining physicians’ reports in a social security disability claim hearing.
We conclude that a written report by a licensed physician who has examined the claimant and who sets forth in his report his medical findings in his area of competence may be received as evidence in a disability hearing and, despite its hearsay character and an absence of cross-examination, and despite the presence of opposing direct medical testimony and testimony by the claimant himself, may constitute substantial evidence supportive of a finding by the hearing examiner adverse to the claimant, when the claimant has not exercised his right to subpoena the reporting physician and thereby provide himself with the opportunity for cross-examination of the physician.
We are prompted to this conclusion by a number of factors that, we feel, assure underlying reliability and probative value:
1. The identity of the five reporting physicians is significant. Each report presented here was prepared by a practicing physician who had examined the claimant. A majority (Drs. Langston, Bailey, and Mattson) were called into the case by the state agency. Although each received a fee, that fee is recompense for his time and talent otherwise devoted to private practice or other professional assignment. We cannot, and do not, ascribe bias to the work of these independent physicians, or any interest on their part in the outcome of the administrative proceeding beyond the professional curiosity a dedicated medical man possesses.
2. The vast workings of the social security administrative system make for reliability and impartiality in the consultant reports. We bear in mind that the agency operates essentially, and is intended so to do, as an adjudicator and not as an advocate or adversary. This is the congressional plan. We do not presume on this record to say that it works unfairly.
3. One familiar with medical reports and the routine of the medical examination, general or specific, will recognize their elements of detail and of value. The particular reports of the physicians who examined claimant Perales were based on personal consultation and personal examination and rested on accepted medical procedures and tests. The operating neurosurgeon, Dr. Munslow, provided his pre-operative observations and diagnosis, his findings at surgery, his post-operative diagnosis, and his post-operative observations. Dr. Lampert, the neurologist, provided the history related to him by the patient, Perales’ complaints, the physical examination and neu-rologic tests, and his professional impressions and recommendations. Dr. Langston, the orthopedist, did the same post-operatively, and described the orthopedic tests and neurologic examination he performed, the results and his impressions and prognosis. Dr. Mattson, who did the post-operative electromyography, described the results of that test, and his impressions. And Dr. Bailey, the psychiatrist, related the history, the patient’s complaints, and the psychiatric diagnosis that emerged from the typical psychiatric examination.
These are routine, standard, and unbiased medical reports by physician specialists concerning a subject whom they had seen. That the reports were adverse to Perales’ claim is not in itself bias or an indication of nonprobative character.
4. The reports present the impressive range of examination to which Perales was subjected. A specialist in neurosurgery, one in neurology, one in psychiatry, one in orthopedics, and one in physical medicine and rehabilitation add up to definitive opinion in five medical specialties, all somewhat related, but different in their emphases. It is fair to say that the claimant received professional examination and opinion on a scale beyond the reach of most persons and that this case reveals a patient and careful endeavor by the state agency and the examiner to ascertain the truth.
5. So far as we can detect, there is no inconsistency whatsoever in the reports of the five specialists. Yet each result was reached by independent examination in the writer’s field of specialized training.
6. Although the claimant complains of the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the reporting physicians, he did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded him under 20 CFR § 404.926 to request subpoenas for the physicians. The five-day period specified by the regulation for the issuance of the subpoenas surely afforded no real obstacle to this, for he was notified that the documentary evidence on file was available for examination before the hearing and, further, a supplemental hearing could be requested. In fact, in this very case there was a supplemental hearing more than two and a half months after the initial hearings. This inaction on the claimant’s part supports the Court of Appeals’ view, 412 F. 2d, at 50-51, that the claimant as a consequence is to be precluded from now complaining that he was denied the rights of confrontation and cross-examination.
7. Courts have recognized the reliability and probative worth of written medical reports even in formal trials and, while acknowledging their hearsay character, have admitted them as an exception to the hearsay rule. Notable is Judge Parker’s well-known ruling in the war-risk insurance case of Long v. United States, 59 F. 2d 602, 603-604 (CA4 1932),. which deserves quotation here, but which, because of its length, we do not reproduce. The Second Circuit has made a like ruling in White v. Zutell, 263 P. 2d 613, 615 (1959), and in so doing, relied on the Business Records Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1732.
8. Past treatment by reviewing courts of written medical reports in social security disability cases is revealing. Until the decision in this case, the courts of appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, with only an occasional criticism of the medical report practice, uniformly recognized reliability and probative value in such reports. The courts have reviewed administrative determinations, and upheld many adverse ones, where the only supporting evidence has been reports of this kind, buttressed sometimes, but often not, by testimony of a medical adviser such as Dr. Leavitt. In these cases admissibility was not contested, but the decisions do demonstrate traditional and ready acceptance of the written medical report in social security disability cases.
9. There is an additional and pragmatic factor which, although not controlling, deserves mention. This is what Chief Judge Brown has described as “[t]he sheer magnitude of that administrative burden,” and the resulting necessity for written reports without "elaboration through the traditional facility of oral testimony.” Page v. Celebrezze, 311 F. 2d 757, 760 (CA5 1963). With over 20,000 disability claim hearings annually, the cost of providing live medical testimony at those hearings, where need has not been demonstrated by a request for a subpoena, over and above the cost of the examinations requested by hearing examiners, would be a substantial drain on the trust fund and on the energy of physicians already in short supply.
VI
1. Perales relies heavily on the Court’s holding and statements in Goldberg v, Kelly, supra, particularly the comment that due process requires notice “and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses....” 397 U. S., at 267-268. Kelly, however, had to do with termination of AFDC benefits without prior notice. It also concerned a situation, the Court said, “where credibility and veracity are at issue, as they must be in many termination proceedings.” 397 U. S., at 269.
The Perales proceeding is not the same. We are not concerned with termination of disability benefits once granted. Neither are we concerned with a change of status without notice. Notice was given to claimant Perales. The physicians’ reports were on file and available for inspection by the claimant and his counsel. And the authors of those reports were known and were subject to subpoena and to the very cross-examination that the claimant asserts he has not enjoyed. Further, the specter of questionable credibility and veracity is not present; there is professional disagreement with the medical conclusions, to be sure, but there is no attack here upon the doctors’ credibility or veracity. Kelly affords little comfort to the claimant.
2. Perales also, as the Court of Appeals stated, 412 F. 2d, at 53, 416 F. 2d, at 1251, would describe the medical reports in question as “mere uncorroborated hearsay” and would relate this to Mr. Chief Justice Hughes’ sentence in Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S., at 230: “Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence.”
Although the reports are hearsay in the technical sense, because their content is not produced live before the hearing examiner, we feel that the claimant and the Court of Appeals read too much into the single sentence from Consolidated Edison. The contrast the Chief Justice was drawing, at the very page cited, was not with material that would be deemed formally inadmissible in judicial proceedings but with material “without a basis in evidence having rational probative force.” This was not a blanket rejection by the Court of administrative reliance on hearsay irrespective of reliability and probative value. The opposite was the case.
3. The claimant, the District Court, and the Court of Appeals also criticize the use of Dr. Leavitt as a medical adviser. 288 F. Supp., at 314, 412 F. 2d, at 53-54. See also Mefford v. Gardner, 383 F. 2d 748, 759-761 (CA6 1967). Inasmuch as medical advisers are used in approximately 13% of disability claim hearings, comment as to this practice is indicated. We see nothing “reprehensible” in the practice, as the claimant would describe it. The trial examiner is a layman; the medical adviser is a board-certified specialist. He is used primarily in complex cases for explanation of medical problems in terms understandable to the layman-examiner. He is a neutral adviser. This particular record discloses that Dr. Leavitt explained the technique and significance of electromyography. He did offer his own opinion on the claimant’s condition. That opinion, however, did not differ from the medical reports. Dr. Leavitt did not vouch for the accuracy of the facts assumed in the reports. No one understood otherwise. See Doe v. Department of Transportation, 412 F. 2d 674, 678-680 (CA8 1969). We see nothing unconstitutional or improper in the medical adviser concept and in the presence of Dr. Leavitt in this administrative hearing.
4. Finally, the claimant complains of the system of processing disability claims. He suggests, and is joined in this by the briefs of amici, that the Administrative Procedure Act, rather than the Social Security Act, governs the processing of claims and specifically provides for cross-examination, 5 U. S. C. § 556 (d) (1964 ed., Supp. V). The claimant goes on to assert that in any event the hearing procedure is invalid on due process grounds. He says that the hearing examiner has the responsibility for gathering the evidence and “to make the Government’s case as strong as possible”; that naturally he leans toward a decision in favor of the evidence he has gathered; that justice must satisfy the appearance of justice, citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14 (1954), and In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955); and that an “independent hearing examiner such as in the” Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act should be provided.
We need not decide whether the APA has general application to social security disability claims, for the social security administrative procedure does not vary from that prescribed by the APA. Indeed, the latter is modeled upon the Social Security Act. See Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure, contained in Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies, S. Doc. No. 8, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 157 (1941); see also the remarks of Senator McCarran, chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, 92 Cong. Rec. 2155. The cited § 556 (d) provides that any documentary evidence “may be received” subject to the exclusion of the irrelevant, the immaterial, and the unduly repetitious. It further provides that a “party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence... and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts” and in “determining claims for money or benefits... an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.”
These provisions conform, and are consistent with, rather than differ from or supersede, the authority given the Secretary by the Social Security Act’s §§ 205 (a) and (b) “to establish procedures,” and “to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same in order to establish the right to benefits,” and to receive evidence “even though inadmissible under rules of evidence applicable to court procedure.” Hearsay, under either Act, is thus admissible up to the point of relevancy.
The matter comes down to the question of the procedure’s integrity and fundamental fairness. We see nothing that works in derogation of that integrity and of that fairness in the admission of consultants’ reports, subject as they are to being material and to the use of the subpoena and consequent cross-examination. This precisely fits the statutorily prescribed “cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.” That is the standard. It is clear and workable and does not fall short of procedural due process.
Neither are we persuaded by the advocate-judge-multiple-hat suggestion. It assumes too much and would bring down too many procedures designed, and working well, for a governmental structure of great and growing complexity. The social security hearing examiner, furthermore, does not act as counsel. He acts as an examiner charged with developing the facts. The 44.2% reversal rate for all federal disability hearings in cases where the state agency does not grant benefits, M. Rock, An Evaluation of the SSA Appeals Process, Report No. 7, U. S. Department of HEW, p. 9 (1970), attests to the fairness of the system and refutes the implication of impropriety.
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. We intimate no view as to the merits. It is for the District Court now to determine whether the Secretary’s findings, in the light of all material proffered and admissible, are supported by “substantial evidence” within the command of §205 (g).
It is so ordered.
Not pertinent here are the durational aspects of disability-specified in the statute’s definition.
“Midline incision is made in upper border of the spine of L4 downward in the midline to the upper sacrum. Dissection is carried down and in the subperiosteal space exposing the interspaces at L4-5 and L5 SI. At each interspace, partial laminectomy is carried out on the left and of the bone adjacent to the interspace followed by resection of the intervening ligament in order that the interspace could be thoroughly explored both by inspection as well as by palpation. In each instance, there was no protrusion of the disc identified. Further resection downward over the sacrum is carried out in order that we do not overlook the fragment of disc that may have extruded extra-durally in this space but none is found.
“There seems to be more tightness of structures particularly of the roots in the dural sac and the lumbar area than one usually encountered. It is felt that this is the situation representing the root compression syndrome, the exact mechanics of which is not apparent. It is felt that for this reason that hemilaminectomy of the left L-5 would afford the patient additional decompression and this is carried out. After this had been done the dural sac bulges upward in a more normal position. Repeat inspection through the intact dura reveals no evidence of an intradural mass. Likewise the anterior aspect of the canal appears normal....”
“IMPRESSION: He may have a very mild chronic back sprain associated with the congenital anomalies as seen on x-ray, but it has been a long time since I have been so impressed with the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
. This case presents two unrelated questions.. Appellant challenges his Kentucky conviction for disorderly eondüct on the ground that the conviction and the State’s' statute are repugnant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He also challenges the constitutionality of the enhanced penalty he .received under Kentucky’s two-tier system for adjudicating certain criminal cases, whereby a person charged with a misdemeanor may be tried first in an inferior court and, if dissatisfied with the outcome, may have a trial de novo in a court of general criminal jurisdiction but must run the risk, if convicted, of receiving a greater punishment.
Appellant Colten and 15 to 20 other college students . gathered at the Blue Grass Airport outside Lexington, Kentucky, to show their support for a state gubernatorial' candidate and to demonstrate their lack of regard for Mrs. Richard Nixon, then about to leave Lexington from the airport after a public appearance in the city. When the demonstration had ended, the students got into their automobiles and formed a procession of six to 10 cars along the airport access road to 'the main high-' way. A state "policeman, observing that one of the first cars in the entourage carried an expired Louisiana license plate, directed the driver,' one Mendez, to pull, off the road.. He complied. Appellant Colten, followed by other motorists in the procession, also pulled off the highway, and Colten approached the officer to find out what was the matter. The policeman explained that the Mendez car bore an expired plate and that a traffic summons would be issued. Colten made some effort to enter into a conversation about the summons. His theory was that Mendez .may have received an extension of time in which to obtain new plates. In order to avoid Colten and to complete the issuance of the summons, the policeman took Mendez to the patrol car. Meanwhile, other students had left their cars and additional policemen, having completed their duties at the airport and having noticed the roadside scene, stopped their cars in the traffic lane abreast of the students’ vehiclés. At least one officer took responsibility for directing traffic, although testimony differed as to the need for doing so. * Testimony also differed as to the. number, of policemen and students present, how many students left their cars and how many were at one time or another standing in the roadway. A state police captain asked on four .pr five occasions that the group disperse. At least five times ■police asked Colten to leave. A state trooper made two requests, remarking at least once: “Now, this is none of your affair . . . get back-in your car and please move on and clear the road.” In. response to at least one of these requests Colten replied that he wished to make a transportation arrangement for his friend Mendez and the occupants of the Mendez car, which he Understood was to be towed away. - Another officer asked' three times that Colten depart and when Colten failed to move away he was arrested for violating Kentucky’s disorderly conduct statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. §437.016 (Supp. 1968). The arresting officer testified that Colten’s response to the order had been to say that he intended to stay and see what might happen. Colten disputed this. He testified that he expressed a willingness to leave but wanted first to make a transportation arrangement. At trial he added that he feared violence on the part of the police.
The complaint and warrant 'charging disorderly conduct, which carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a fine of $500, were addressed to the Quarterly Court of Fayette County, where Colten was tried, convicted, and fined $10. Exercising his right to a trial de novo in a court of general jurisdiction, Colten “appealed,” as the Kentucky rules style this recourse, Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.02, to the Criminal Division of the Fayette Circuit Court. By.consent,- trial was tó the court and Col-ten was convicted of disorderly conduct and this time fined $50. The Kentucky Court of Appeals .affirmed. Colten v. Commonwealth, 467 S. W. 2d 374 (1971). It rejected Colten’s constitutional challenges to the statute and his claim that the punishment imposed was impermissible, under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969). We noted probable jurisdiction. 404 U. S. 1014 (1972).
I
Colten was convicted of violating Ky. Rev. Stat. § 437.016 (l)(f) (Supp. 1968), which states:
“(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk théreof, he:
“(f) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse'. ...”
The Kentucky Court of Appeals interpreted the statute in the following way:
“As- reasonably construed, the statute does not prohibit the lawful exercise of any constitutional right. We think that the plain meaning of the statute, in requiring that the proscribed conduct be done ‘with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof,’ is that the specified intent must be the predominant intent. Predominance can be determined-either (1) from the fact that no bona fide intent to exercise a constitutional right appears to háve existed or (2) from the faqt that the interest to be advanced by the particular exercise of a constitutional right is insignificant in comparison with the inconvenience, annoyance or alarm caused by the exercise.” 467 S. W. 2d, at 377.
The evidence warranted a finding, the Kentucky court concluded, that at the time of his arrest, “Colten was not undertaking to exercise any constitutionally protected freedom.” Rather, he “appears to have had no purpose other than, to cause inconvenience and annoyance. So the statute as applied here did not chill or stifle the exercise of any constitutional right.” Id., at 378.
Based on our own examination of the record, we perceive no justification for setting aside the conclusion of the state court that when arrested appellant was not engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment. Colten insists that in seeking to arrange transportation for Mendez and in observing the issuance of a trafile citation he was disseminating and receiving information. But this is a strained, near-frivolous contention and we have little doubt that Cólten’s conduct in refusing to move on after being directed to do so was not, without more, protected by the First Amendment. Nor can we believe that Colten, although he, was not trespassing or disobeying any traffic regulation himself, could not be required to move on. He had no constitutional right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or to engage the issuing officer in conversation at that time. The State has a legitimate interest in enforcing its traffic laws and its officers were entitled to enforce them free from possible interference or interruption from bystanders, even those claiming a third-party interest in the transaction. Here the police had cause for apprehension that a roadside strip, crowded with persons and automobiles, might expose the. entourage, passing motorists, and police to the risk of accident. We cannot disagree with the finding below that the order to disperse was suited to the occasion. We thus see nothing • unconstitutional in the manner in which the statute was applied.
II
Neither are we convinced that the statute is either impermissibly vague or broad. We perceive no violation of “[t]he underlying principle . . . that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.” United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617 (1954); cf. Connolly v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926). Here the statute authorized conviction for refusing to disperse with the intent of causing inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. Any person who stands in a group of persons along a highway where the police are investigating a traffic violation and seeks to engage the attention of an officer issuing a summons should understand that he could be conyicted under subdivision (f) of Kentucky’s statute if he fails to obey an order to move on. The root of the vagueness doctrine is a rough idea of fairness. It is not a principle designed to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing criminal statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited. • We agree with the Kentucky court when it said: “We believe that citizens who desire to obey the statute will have no difficulty in understanding it . . , .” Colten v. Commonwealth, 467 S. W. 2d, at 378.
Colten also argues that the Kentucky statute is over-broad. He relies on Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965), where the Court held unconstitutional a breach-of-peace statute construed to forbid causing agitation or disquiet coupled with refusing to move on when ordered to do so. The Court invalidated the statute on the ground that it permitted conviction where the mere expression of unpopular views prompted the order that is disobeyed. Colten argues that the Kentucky statute must be stricken down for the same reason. '
As the Kentucky statute was construed by the state court, however, a crime is committed only where there is no bona fide intention to exercise a constitutional right — in which event, by definition, the statute infringes no protected speech or conduct — or where the interest so clearly outweighs the collective interest sought to be asserted that the latter, must be deemed insubstantial. The court hypothesized, for example, that one could be convicted for disorderly conduct if at a symphony concert he arose and began lecturing to the audience on leghorn chickens. 467 S. W. 2d, at 377. In so confining the reaeh of its statute, the Kentucky court avoided the shortcomings of the statute invalidated in the Cox case. Individuals may not be convicted under the Kentucky statute merely for expressing unpopular or annoying ideas. The statute, comes into operation only when the, individual’s interest in expression, judged in the light of all relevant factors, is “minuscule” compared to a- particular public interest in preventing that' expression or conduct at that time and place. As we understand this case, appellant’s own conduct was not immune under the First Amendment and neither is his conviction vulnerable on the ground that the statute threatens constitutionally protected conduct of others.
Ill
Kentucky, like many other States, has a two-tier system for adjudicating less serious criminal cases. Iri Kentucky, at the option of the arresting officer, those crimes classified under state law as misdemeanors may be charged and tried in a so-called inferior court, where, as in the normal trial setting, a defendant may- choose to have á trial or to plead guilty: If convicted after .trial or on a guilty plea, however, he has a right to a trial de novo in a court of general criminal jurisdiction, Brown v. Hoblitzell, 307 S. W. 2d 739 (Ky. 1957), so long as he applies within the statutory time. The right to a new: trial is absolute. A defendant need not allege error in the inferior court proceeding. If he seeks a new trial, the Kentucky statutory scheme contemplates that the slate be wiped clean. Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.06. Prosecution and defense begin anew. By the same token neither the judge nor jury that determines, guilt or fixes a penalty in the trial de novo is in any way bound by the inferior court’s findings or judgment. The case is to be regarded exactly as if it had been brought there in the first instance. A convicted defendant may seek review in the state appellate courts in the same manner as a person tried initially in the general criminal court. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23.032.(Supp. 1968). However, a defendant convicted after a trial or plea in an inferior court may not seek ordinary appellate review of the inferior court’s ruling. His recourse is the trial de novo.
While by definition two-tier systems throughout the States have in common the trial dé novo feature, there are differences in the kind of trial available in the inferior courts of first instance, whether known as county, municipal, police, or justice of the peace courts, or are otherwise referred to. Depending upon the jurisdiction and offense charged, many such systems provide as complete protection for a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights as do courts empowered to try more serious crimes. Others, however, lack some of the safeguards provided in more serious, criminal cases. Although appellant here was entitled to a six-man jury, cf. Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970), which he waived, some States do .not provide for trial by jury, even in instances where the authorized punishment would entitle the accused'to such tribunal. ,Cf. Duncan- v. Louisiana, 391’ U. S. 145 (1968).' Some, including Kentucky, do not record proceedings and the judges may not be trained for their positions éither by experience or schooling.
Two justifications are asserted for such tribunals: first, in this day of increasing burdens on state-judiciaries, these courts are designed, in the interest of both the defendant and the State, to provide speedier and less costly adjudications than may be possible in the criminal courts of general jurisdiction where the full range of constitutional guarantees is available; second, if the' defendant is not satisfied with the results of his first trial he has the unconditional right to a new trial in a superior court, unprejudiced by the proceedings or the outcome in the. inferior courts. Colten, however, considers the Kentucky system to be infirm because the judge in a trial de novo is empowered to sentence anew and is, not bound- to stay within the limits of the sentence imposed by the inferior court. He bases his attack both on the Due Process Clause, as interpreted in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), and on the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The issues appellant raises Nave produced a division among the state courts that have considered' them as. well as a conflict among the federal circuits.
Colten rightly reads Pearce to forbid, following a successful appeal and reconviction,- the imposition of a greater punishment than was imposed, after the first trial, absent specified findings that have not been made' here. He insists that the Pearce rule is applicable here and that there is no relevant difference, between the Pearce model and the Kentucky two-tier trial de novo system; Both, he asserts, involve recon-viction and resentencing, both provide the convicted de- . fendant with the right to-“appeal” .and in both — even though under the Kentucky scheme the “appeal” is in reality a trial de novo — a penalty for the same crime is fixed' twice, with the same potential for an increased penalty upon a successful “appeal.”
But Pearce did not turn simply on the fact of conviction, appeal, reversal, reconviction, and a greater sentence. The court was there concerned with two defendants who, after their' convictions had been set aside on appeal, were reconvicted for the same offenses and sentenced to longer prison terms. In one case the term was increased from 10 to 25 years. Positing that a more severe penalty after reconviction would violate due process of law if imposed as purposeful punishment for having successfully appealed, the court concluded that such untoward sentences occurred with sufficient frequency to warrant the imposition of a prophylactic rule to ensure “that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction . . . [would] play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial . . .” and to ensure that the apprehension of such vindictiveness does not “deter a defendant’s exercisé of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his first conviction _” ' 395 TJ. S., at 725.
Our view of the Kentucky two-tier system of administering criminal justice, however, does not lead us to believe, and there is nothing in the record' or presented in the briefs to show, that the hazard of being penalized for seeking a new trial, which underlay the holding of Pearce, also .inheres in the de novo trial arrangement. Nor are we convinced that defendants convicted in Kentucky’s inferior courts would be deterred from seeking a second trial out of fear of judicial vindictiveness. The possibility of vindictiveness, found to exist in Pearce, is not inherent in the Kentucky two-tier system.
We note first the obvious: that the court which conducted Colten’s trial and imposed the final sentence was not the court with whose work Colten was sufficiently dissatisfied to seek a different result on appeal; and it is not the court that is asked to do over what it thought it had already done correctly. Nor is the de novo court even asked to find error in another court’s work. Rather, the Kentucky court in which Colten had the unrestricted-right to have a hew trial was merely asked to accord the same trial, under the same rules and procedures, available to defendants whose cases are begun in that court in the first instance. It would also appear that, however understandably a court of general jurisdiction might feel that the defendant who has had a due process trial ought to be satisfied with it, the de novo court in the two-tier system is much more likely to reflect the attitude of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in this case when it stated that “the inferior courts are not designed or. equipped to conduct error-free trials, or to insure full recognition of constitutional freedoms. They are courts of convenience, to. provide speedy and inexpensive means of disposition of charges of minor offenses.” Colten v. Commonwealth, 467 S. W. 2d, at 379. We see no reason, and none is offered, to assume that the de novo court will deal, any more strictly with those who insist on a'trial in the superior court after conviction in the Quarterly Court than it' would with those defendants . whose cases are filed originally in the superior court and who choose to put the State to its proof in a trial subject to constitutional guarantees.
It may often be that the superior court will impose a punishment more severe than that received from the inferior court. But. it no more follows that such a sentence is a vindictive penalty for seeking \ superior court trial than that the inferior court imposed a lenient penalty. The trial de novo represents a completely fresh determination of guilt or innocence. It is not an appeal on the record. As far as we know, the record from the lower court is not before the superior court and is irrelevant to its proceedings. In all likelihood, the trial de novo court is not even informed of the sentence imposed in the inferior court and can hardly be said to have “enhanced” the sentence. In Kentucky, disorderly conduct is punishable by six months in jail and a fine of-$500. The inferior court fined Colten $10, the trial de novo court $50. We haive no -basis for concluding that the latter court did anything other than invoke the normal processes of a criminal trial and then sentence in accordance with the normal standards applied in that court to cases tried there in' the first instance. We cannot conclude, on the basis of the present record or our understanding, that the prophylactic rule-announced in Pearce is appropriate in the context of the system by which Kentucky administers criminal justice in the less serious criminal cases.
It is suggested, however, that the sentencing strictures imposed bj Pearce are essential in order to minimize an asserted unfairness to criminal defendants who must endure a trial in an inferior court with less-than-adequate protections in order to secure a trial comporting completely with constitutional guarantees. We are not persuaded, however, that the Kentucky arrangement' for dealing with the less serious offenses disadvantages defendants any more or any less than trials conducted in a court of general jurisdiction in the first instance, as long as the latter are always available'. Proceedings in the inferior courts are simple and speedy, and, if the results in Colten’s case are any evidence, the penalty is not characteristically severe. Such proceedings offer, a defendant the opportunity to learn about the prosecution’s case and, if he chooses, he need not reveal his own. He may also plead guilty without a trial'and promptly secure a dé novo trial in a court of general criminal jurisdiction. He cannot, and .will not, face the realistic threat of a prison sentence in the inferior court without having the help of counsel, whose advice will also be available in determining whether to seek a new trial, with the slate wiped clean, or to' accept the penalty imposed by the inferior court. The State has no such options. Should it not prevail in the lower court, the case is terminated, whereas the defendant has the choice of beginning anew. In reality his choices are to accept the decision of the judge and the sentence imposed in the inferior court or to reject what in effect is no more than an offer in settlement of his case and seek the judgment of judge or jury in the superior court, with sentence to be determined by the full record made in that court. We cannot say that the Kentucky trial de novo system, as such, is unconstitutional or that it presents hazards warranting the restraints called for in North Carolina v. Pearce, particularly since such restraints might, to the detriment of both defendant and State, diminish the. likelihood that inferior courts would'impose lenient sentences ’whose effect would be to limit the discretion of a superior court judge or jury if the defendant is retried and found guilty.
Colten’s alternative contention is that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the imposition of an enhanced penalty upon reconviction. The Pearce Court rejected the same contention in the context of that case, 395 U. S., at 719-720. Colten urges that his claim is stronger because the Kentucky system forces a defendant to expose himself to jeopardy as a price for securing a trial that comports with the Constitution. That was, of course, the situation in Pearce, where reversal of the first conviction was for constitutional error. The contention also ignores that ^ defendant can bypass the inferior court simply by pleading guilty and erasing immediately thereafter any consequence that would otherwise follow from tendering the plea.
The judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
This version of the facts is taken largely from the opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Colten v. Commonwealth, 467 S. W. 2d 374, 375-376 (Ky. 1971). Colten testified that only the arresting officer ordered him to leave and that the three orders were uttered in such rapid succession that he had little opportunity to comply. App. 49-51. This was disputed by a policeman who testified that earlier he twice asked appellant to leave and gave the admonition quoted in the text. Id., at 23-24. Our own examination of the record indicates that the Kentucky.courts' resolution of this factual dispute was a fair one. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 545 n. 8 (1965).
In his brief appellant makes a passing reference to the possibility of violence on the part of police and suggests that he remained on the scene to avert misdeeds or to be a potential witness to them. Yet he builds no factual basis for a reasonable apprehension of violence and seemingly dispels whatever force such a contention might have when- he states in his brief: “In the overwhelming majority of cases, that suspicion, [of police brutality] is undoubtedly wrong, but it is there.” Brief for Appellant 36.
Appellant attacks on overbreadth grounds other subsections of the disorderly conduct statute, such as those that prohibit the making of an “unreasonable noise” and the use of “abusive or obscene language.” Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 437.016 (b), (c) (Supp. 1968). But Colten was not convicted of violating these subsections and they are not properly before us in this case.'
E. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §22-371 et seq. (1956 and Supp. 1971-1972); Ark. Stat. Ann. §44-501 et seq. (1964); Colo. Rule Crim. Proc. 37 (f); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 924.41 et seq. (Supp. 1972-1973); Ind. Ann. Stat. §9-713 et seq. (1956 and Supp. 1971); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3610 et seq. (Supp. 1971); Me. Dist. Ct. Crim. Rule 37 et seq.; Md. Ann. Code, Art. 5, § 43 (1968); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.1226 (Supp. 1972); Minn. Stat. §§ 488.20, 633.20 et seq. (1969); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 1201, 1202 (Supp. 1971); Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 22; Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §95-2001 et seq. (1947); Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-601 et seq. (1964); Nev. Rev. Stat. §189.010 et seq. (1969); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 502:18, 502-A:11-12 (1968); N. M. Stat. Ann. §36-15-1 et seq. (Supp. 1971); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15-177 et seq., 20-138 (1965 and Supp. 1971); N. D. Cent. Code § 33-12-40 et seq. (1960); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, §3001 et seq. (Supp. 1972-1973); Pa. Const., Sched..Art. 5, § 16 (r) (iii) (Philadelphia); Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 44.17, 45.10 (1966); Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-129 et seq. (1950); Wash. Rev. Code §3.50.380 et seq. (Supp. 1971); W. Va. Code Ann. §50-18-1 et seq. (1966 and Supp. 1971).
Misdemeanors are defined as those crimes punishable by a maximum of one year in jail and a $500 fine. Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 25.010, 26.010 (1962 and Supp. 1968).
What the Kentucky Court of Appeals calls inferior courts include county, quarterly, justice’s and police courts. In all cases in which the punishment is limited to a fine of $20, the inferior courts have original jurisdiction. Ky. Rev. Stat. §25.010 (1962). In all other misdemeanor cases their jurisdiction is -concurrent with that, of the circuit courts.
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23.032 (Supp. 1968). Kentucky denominates an application for a trial de novo an “appeal.” However, the right to a new trial is unconditional and exists even when a defendant seeks redetermination of questions of law. Ky. Rules Crim. Proc. 12.02, 12.06.
A general discussion of how these courts operate may be found in 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Justices of the Peace §§ 49-120.
E. gr., Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania. Mann v. Commonwealth, - Mass. -, 271 N. E. 2d 331 (1971); State v. Spencer, 276 N. C. 535, 173 S. E. 2d 765. (1970); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, § 3001 et seq. (Supp. 1972-1973); Pa. Const., Sched. Art. 5, § 16 (r)(iii) (Philadelphia).
E. g., North Carolina, Virginia. State v. Sparrow, 276 N. C. 499, 173 S. E. 2d 897 (1970); Evans v. City of Richmond, 210 Va. 403, 171 S. E. 2d 247 (1969).
See, e. g., People v. Olary, 382 Mich. 559, 170 N. W. 2d 842 (1969) ; State v. DeBonis, 58 N. J. 182; 276 A. 2d .137 (1971). However, the trial judge in the Fayette Quarterly Court, where Colten was tried, is a professional.
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), applies: Bronstein v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 251, 475 P. 2d 235 (1970); State v. Shak, 51 Haw. 626, 466 P. 2d 420 (1970); Eldridge v. State, 256 Ind. 113, 267 N. E. 2d 48 (1971); Cherry v. State, 9 Md. App. 416, 264 A. 2d 887 (1970); Commonwealth v. Harper, 219 Pa. Super.. 109, 280 A. 2d 637 (1971).
Contra: Mann v. Commonwealth, - Mass. -, 271 N. E. 2d 331 (1971); People v. Olary, 382 Mich. 559, 170 N. W. 2d 842 (1969); State v. Stanosheck, 186 Neb. 17, 180 N. W. 2d 226 (1970); State v. Sparrow, 276 N. C. 499, 173 S. E. 2d 897 (1970); Evans v. City of Richmond, 210 Va. 403, 171. S. E. 2d 247 (1969).
New Mexico prohibits enhanced sentencing altogether. N. M. Stat. Ann. §36-15-3 (Supp. 1971).
Pearce applies: Rice v. North Carolina, 434 F. 2d 297 (CA4 1970), vacated and remanded on ground of possible mootness, 404 U. S. 244 (1971); contra: Lemieux v. Robbins, 414 F. 2d 353 (CA1 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1017 (1970). See also Manns v. Allman, 324 F. Supp. 1149 (WD Va. 1971), holding that Pearce does not apply where an enhanced penalty is imposed by a jury rather than a judge.
In Colten’s case the súperior court judge did'know about the $10 fine. Colten’s counsel in closing argument stated what the penalty had been, App. 93, although clearly he need not have done so.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Upon consideration of the entire record and the confession of error by the Solicitor General, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reversed. Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner and his employee, one Perniciaro, were jointly indicted and tried on the charges contained in an eight-count indictment. The defendants were acquitted under Counts 1 to 7, the first of which charged petitioner and Perniciaro with conspiring for the purpose of enabling Perniciaro to evade military service by failing to make known to the draft board facts which might have resulted in Perniciaro being placed in a different draft classification. The defendants were convicted under Count 8, however, which charged petitioner and Perniciaro with failing to report facts in writing to the local draft board which might have resulted in Perniciaro being placed in a different draft classification, contrary to § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 894, 50 U. S. C. § 311 and § 626.1 (b) of the Selective Service Regulations.
The Government now concedes that the Selective Service Regulations imposed no legal obligation upon petitioner, as an employer of a registrant under the Selective Training and Service Act, to make such reports to the local board. It is also conceded that petitioner was tried and convicted upon the assumption that he was under such a legal obligation. We agree that the plain language of the Regulation and the record of this case support these conclusions.
The Government urges that although the judgment of conviction against petitioner should be reversed, the indictment should not be dismissed since the prosecution may wish to try petitioner a second time on the charges contained in Count 8, as an aider and abettor.
There is no showing of facts sufficient for us to pass judgment on the question. Accordingly, we intimate no opinion on the propriety of this procedure or the issues which it might present. See Sealfon v. United States, 332 U. S. 575 (1948). Those questions will be open in the District Court on our remand of the cause.
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1998, petitioner CIGNA Corporation changed the nature of its basic pension plan for employees. Previously, the plan provided a retiring employee with a defined benefit in the form of an annuity calculated on the basis of his preretirement salary and length of service. The new plan provided most retiring employees with a (lump sum) cash balance calculated on the basis of a defined annual contribution from CIGNA as increased by compound interest. Because many employees had already earned at least some old-plan benefits, the new plan translated already-earned benefits into an opening amount in the employee’s cash balance account.
Respondents, acting on behalf of approximately 25,000 beneficiaries of the CIGNA Pension Plan (which is also a petitioner here), challenged CIGNA’s adoption of the new plan. They claimed in part that CIGNA had failed to give them proper notice of changes to their benefits, particularly because the new plan in certain respects provided them with less generous benefits. See Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), §§ 102(a), 104(b), 88 Stat. 841, 848, as amended, § 204(h), as added, 100 Stat. 243, and as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 1022(a), 1024(b), 1054(h).
The District Court agreed that the disclosures made by CIGNA violated its obligations under ERISA. In determining relief, the court found that CIGNA’s notice failures had caused the employees “likely harm.” The court then reformed the new plan and ordered CIGNA to pay benefits accordingly. It found legal authority for doing so in ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (authorizing a plan “participant or beneficiary” to bring a “civil action” to “recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan”).
We agreed to decide whether the District Court applied the correct legal standard, namely, a “likely harm” standard, in determining that CIGNA’s notice violations caused its employees sufficient injury to warrant legal relief. To reach that question, we must first consider a more general matter — whether the ERISA section just mentioned (ERISA’s recovery-of-benefits-due provision, § 502(a)(1)(B)) authorizes entry of the relief the District Court provided. We conclude that it does not authorize this relief. Nonetheless, we find that a different equity-related ERISA provision, to which the District Court also referred, authorizes forms of relief similar to those that the court entered. § 502(a)(3), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3).
Section 502(a)(3) authorizes “appropriate equitable relief” for violations of ERISA. Accordingly, the relevant standard of harm will depend upon the equitable theory by which the District Court provides relief. We leave it to the District Court to conduct that analysis in the first instance, but we identify equitable principles that the court might apply on remand.
I
Because our decision rests in important part upon the circumstances present here, we shall describe those circumstances in some detail. We still simplify in doing so. But the interested reader can find a more thorough description in two District Court opinions, which set forth that court’s findings reached after a lengthy trial. See 559 F. Supp. 2d 192 (Conn. 2008); 534 F. Supp. 2d 288 (Conn. 2008).
A
Under CIGNA’s pre-1998 defined-benefit retirement plan, an employee with at least five years’ service would receive an annuity annually paying an amount that depended upon the employee’s salary and length of service. Depending on when the employee had joined CIGNA, the annuity would equal either (1) 2 percent of the employee’s average salary over his final three years with CIGNA, multiplied by the number of years worked (up to 30); or (2) l/3 percent of the employee’s average salary over his final five years with CIGNA, multiplied by the number of years worked (up to 35). Calculated either way, the annuity would approach 60 percent of a longtime employee’s final salary. A well-paid longtime employee, earning, say, $160,000 per year, could receive a retirement annuity paying the employee about $96,000 per year until his death. The plan offered many employees at least one other benefit: They could retire early, at age 55, and receive an only-somewhat-redueed annuity.
In November 1997, CIGNA sent its employees a newsletter announcing that it intended to put in place a new pension plan. The new plan would substitute an “account balance plan” for CIGNA’s pre-existing defined-benefit system. App. 991a (emphasis deleted). The newsletter added that the old plan would end on December 31, 1997, that CIGNA would introduce (and describe) the new plan sometime during 1998, and that the new plan would apply retroactively to January 1, 1998.
Eleven months later CIGNA filled in the details. Its new plan created an individual retirement account for each employee. (The account consisted of a bookkeeping entry backed by a CIGNA-funded trust.) Each year CIGNA would contribute to the employee’s individual account an amount equal to between 3 percent and 8.5 percent of the employee’s salary, depending upon age, length of service, and certain other factors. The account balance would earn compound interest at a rate equal to the return on 5-year treasury bills plus one-quarter percent (but no less than 4.5 percent and no greater than 9 percent). Upon retirement the employee would receive the amount then in his or her individual account — in the form of either a lump sum or whatever annuity the lump sum then would buy. As promised, CIGNA would open the accounts and begin to make contributions as of January 1, 1998.
But what about the retirement benefits that employees had already earned prior to January 1,1998? CIGNA promised to make an initial contribution to the individual’s account equal to the value of that employee’s already-earned benefits. And the new plan set forth a method for calculating that initial contribution. The method consisted of calculating the amount as of the employee’s (future) retirement date of the annuity to which the employee’s salary and length of service already (i. e., as of December 31,1997) entitled him and then discounting that sum to its present (1 e., January 1, 1998) value.
An example will help: Imagine an employee born on January 1, 1966, who joined CIGNA in January 1991 on his 25th birthday, and who (during the five years preceding the plan changeover) earned an average salary of $100,000 per year. As of January 1,1998, the old plan would have entitled that employee to an annuity equal to $100,000 times 7 (years then worked) times 1% percent, or $11,667 per year — when he retired in 2031 at age 65. The 2031 price of an annuity paying $11,667 per year until death depends upon interest rates and mortality assumptions at that time. If we assume the annuity would pay 7 percent until the holder’s death (and we use the mortality assumptions used by the plan, see App. 407a (incorporating the mortality table prescribed by Rev. Rul. 95-6,1995-1 Cum. Bull. 80)), then the 2081 price of such an annuity would be about $120,500. And CIGNA should initially deposit in this individual’s account on January 1, 1998, an amount that will grow to become $120,500, 33 years later, in 2031, when the individual retires. If we assume a 5 percent average interest rate, then that amount presently (i. e., as of January 1,1998) equals about $24,000. And (with one further mortality-related adjustment that we shall describe infra, at 429-430) that is the amount, more or less, that the new plan’s transition rules would have required CIGNA initially to deposit. Then CIGNA would make further annual deposits, and all the deposited amounts would earn compound interest. When the employee retired, he would receive the resulting lump sum.
The new plan also provided employees a guarantee: An employee would receive upon retirement either (1) the amount to which he or she had become entitled as of January 1, 1998, or (2) the amount then in his or her individual account, whichever was greater. Thus, the employee in our example would receive (in 2031) no less than an annuity paying $11,667 per year for life.
B
1
The District Court found that CIGNA’s initial descriptions of its new plan were significantly incomplete and misled its employees. In November 1997, for example, CIGNA sent the employees a newsletter that said the new plan would “significantly enhance” its “retirement program,” would produce “an overall improvement in... retirement benefits,” and would provide “the same benefit security” with “steadier benefit growth.” App. 990a, 991a, 993a. CIGNA also told its employees that they would “see the growth in [their] total retirement benefits from CIGNA every year,” id., at 952a, that its initial deposit “represented] the full value of the benefit [they] earned for service before 1998,” Record E-503 (Exh. 98), and that “[o]ne advantage the company will not get from the retirement program changes is cost savings,” App. 993a.
In fact, the new plan saved the company $10 million annually (though CIGNA later said it devoted the savings to other employee benefits). Its initial deposit did not “represen[t] the full value of the benefit” that employees had “earned for service before 1998.” And the plan made a significant number of employees worse off in at least the following specific ways:
First, the initial deposit calculation ignored the fact that the old plan offered many CIGNA employees the right to retire early (beginning at age 55) with only-somewhat-reduced benefits. This right was valuable. For example, as of January 1, 1998, respondent Janice Amara had earned vested age-55 retirement benefits of $1,833 per month, but CIGNA’s initial deposit in her new-plan individual retirement account (ignoring this benefit) would have allowed her at age 55 to buy an annuity benefit of only $900 per month.
Second, as we previously indicated but did not explain, supra, at 428, the new plan adjusted CIGNA’s initial deposit downward to account for the fact that, unlike the old plan’s lifetime annuity, an employee’s survivors would receive the new plan’s benefits (namely, the amount in the employee’s individual account) even if the employee died before retiring. The downward adjustment consisted of multiplying the otherwise-required deposit by the probability that the employee would live until retirement — a 90 percent probability in the example of our 32-year-old, supra, at 427-428. And that meant that CIGNA’s initial deposit in our example — the amount that was supposed to grow to $120,500 by 2031 — would be less than $22,000, not $24,000 (the number we computed). The employee, of course, would receive a benefit in return — namely, a form of life insurance. But at least some employees might have preferred the retirement benefit and consequently could reasonably have thought it important to know that the new plan traded away one-tenth of their already-earned benefits for a life insurance policy that they might not have wanted.
Third, the new plan shifted the risk of a fall in interest rates from CIGNA to its employees. Under the old plan, CIGNA had to buy a retiring employee an annuity that paid a specified sum irrespective of whether falling interest rates made it more expensive for CIGNA to pay for that annuity. And falling interest rates also meant that any sum CIGNA set aside to buy that annuity would grow more slowly over time, thereby requiring CIGNA to set aside more money to make any specific sum available at retirement. Under the new plan CIGNA did not have to buy a retiring employee an annuity that paid a specific sum. The employee would simply receive whatever sum his account contained. And falling interest rates meant that the account’s lump sum would earn less money each year after the employee retired. Annuities, for example, would become more expensive (any fixed purchase price paying for less annual income). At the same time falling interest meant that the individual account would grow more slowly over time, leaving the employee with less money at retirement.
Of course, interest rates might rise instead of fall, leaving CIGNA’s employees better off under the new plan. But the latter advantage does not cancel out the former disadvantage, for most individuals are risk averse. And that means that most of CIGNA’s employees would have preferred that CIGNA, rather than they, bear these risks.
The amounts likely involved are significant. If, in our example, interest rates between 1998 and 2031 averaged 4 percent rather than the 5 percent we assumed, and if in 2031 annuities paid 6 percent rather than the 7 percent we assumed, then CIGNA would have had to make an initial deposit of $35,500 (not $24,000) to assure that employee the $11,667 annual annuity payment to which he had already become entitled. Indeed, that $24,000 that CIGNA would have contributed (leaving aside the life-insurance problem) would have provided enough money to buy (in 2031) an annuity that assured the employee an annual payment of only about $8,000 (rather than $11,667).
We recognize that the employee in our example (like others) might have continued to work for CIGNA after January 1,1998; and he would thereby eventually have earned a pension that, by the time of his retirement, was worth far more than $11,667. But that is so because CIGNA made an additional contribution for each year worked after January 1, 1998. If interest rates fell (as they did), it would take the employee several additional years of work simply to catch up (under the new plan) to where he had already been (under the old plan) as of January 1,1998 — a phenomenon known in pension jargon as “wear away,” see 534 F. Supp. 2d, at 303-304 (referring to respondents’ requiring 6 to 10 years to catch up).
The District Court found that CIGNA told its employees nothing about any of these features of the new plan — which individually and together made clear that CIGNA’s descriptions of the plan were incomplete and inaccurate. The District Court also found that CIGNA intentionally misled its employees. A focus group and many employees asked CIGNA, for example, to “ ‘[djisclose details’ ” about the plan, to provide “‘individual comparisons,’” or to show “‘[a]n actual projection for retirement.’” Id., at 342. But CIGNA did not do so. Instead (in the words of one internal document), it “ ‘focus[ed] on NOT providing employees before and after samples of the Pension Plan changes.’ ” Id., at 343.
The District Court concluded, as a matter of law, that CIGNA’s representations (and omissions) about the plan, made between November 1997 (when it announced the plan) and December 1998 (when it put the plan into effect) violated:
(1) ERISA §204(h), implemented by Treas. Reg. § 1.411(d)-6, 26 CFR § 1.411(d)-6 (2000), which (as it existed at the relevant time) forbade an amendment of a pension plan that would “provide for a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual” unless the plan administrator also sent a “written notice” that provided either the text of the amendment or summarized its likely effects, 29 U. S. C. § 1054(h) (2000 ed.) (amended 2001); Treas. Reg. § 1.411(d) — 6, Q&A-10, 63 Fed. Reg. 68682 (1998); and
(2) ERISA §§ 102(a) and 104(b), which require a plan administrator to provide beneficiaries with summary plan descriptions and with summaries of material modifications, “written in a maimer calculated to be understood by the average plan participant,” that are “sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to reasonably apprise such participants and beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plan,” 29 U. S. C. §§ 1022(a), 1024(b) (2006 ed. and Supp. III).
2
The District Court then turned to the remedy. First, the court agreed with CIGNA that only employees whom CIGNA’s disclosure failures had harmed could obtain relief. But it did not require each individual member of the relevant CIGNA employee class to show individual injury. Rather, it found (1) that the evidence presented had raised a presumption of “likely harm” suffered by the members of the relevant employee class, and (2) that CIGNA, though free to offer contrary evidence in respect to some or all of those employees, had failed to rebut that presumption. It concluded that this unrebutted showing was sufficient to warrant class-applicable relief.
Second, the court noted that § 204(h) had been interpreted by the Second Circuit to permit the invalidation of plan amendments not preceded by a proper notice, prior to the 2001 amendment that made this power explicit. 559 F. Supp. 2d, at 207 (citing Frommert v. Conkright, 433 F. 3d 254, 263 (2006)); see 29 U. S. C. § 1054(h)(6) (2006 ed.) (entitling participants to benefits “without regard to [the] amendment” in case of an “egregious failure”). But the court also thought that granting this relief here would harm, not help, the injured employees. That is because the notice failures all concerned the new plan that took effect in December 1998. The court thought that the notices in respect to the freezing of old-plan benefits, effective December 31, 1997, were valid. To strike the new plan while leaving in effect the frozen old plan would not help CIGNA’s employees.
The court considered treating the November 1997 notice as a sham or treating that notice and the later 1998 notices as part and parcel of a single set of related events. But it pointed out that respondents “ha[d] argued none of these things.” 559 F. Supp. 2d, at 208. And it said that the court would “not make these arguments now on [respondents’] behalf.” Ibid.
Third, the court reformed the terms of the new plan’s guarantee. It erased the portion that assured participants who retired the greater of “A” (that which they had already earned as of December 31,1997, under the old plan, $11,667 in our example) or “B” (that which they would earn via CIGNA’s annual deposits under the new plan, including CIGNA’s initial deposit). And it substituted a provision that would guarantee each employee “A” (that which they had already earned, as of December 31, 1997, under the old plan) plus “B” (that which they would earn via CIGNA’s annual deposits under the new plan, excluding CIGNA’s initial deposit). In our example, the District Court’s remedy would no longer force our employee to choose upon retirement either an $11,667 annuity or his new-plan benefits (including both CIGNA’s annual deposits and CIGNA’s initial deposit). It would give him an $11,667 annuity plus his new-plan benefits (with CIGNA’s annual deposits but without CIGNA’s initial deposit).
Fourth, the court “order[ed] and enjoin[ed] the CIGNA Plan to reform its records to reflect that all class members... now receive [the just described] A + B’ benefits,” and that it pay appropriate benefits to those class members who had already retired. Id., at 222.
Fifth, the court held that ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) provided the legal authority to enter this relief. That provision states that a “civil action may be brought” by a plan “participant or beneficiary... to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The court wrote that its orders in effect awarded “benefits under the terms of the plan” as reformed. 559 F. Supp. 2d, at 212.
At the same time the court considered whether ERISA § 502(a)(3) also provided legal authority to enter this relief. That provision states that a civil action may be brought
“by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3) (emphasis added).
The District Court decided not to answer this question because (1) it had just decided that the same relief was available under § 502(a)(1)(B), regardless, cf. Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U. S. 489, 515 (1996); and (2) the Supreme Court has “issued several opinions... that have severely curtailed the kinds of relief that are available under § 502(a)(3),” 559 F. Supp. 2d, at 205 (citing Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U. S. 356 (2006); Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204 (2002); and Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248 (1993)).
3
The parties cross-appealed the District Court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a brief summary order, rejecting all their claims, and affirming “the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated” in the District Court’s “well-reasoned and scholarly opinions.” 348 Fed. Appx. 627 (2009). The parties filed cross-petitions for writs of certiorari in this Court. We granted the request in CIGNA’s petition to consider whether a showing of “likely harm” is sufficient to entitle plan participants to recover benefits based on faulty disclosures.
II
CIGNA in the merits briefing raises a preliminary question. Brief for Petitioners 13-20. It argues first and foremost that the statutory provision upon which the District Court rested its orders, namely, the provision for recovery of plan benefits, § 502(a)(1)(B), does not in fact authorize the District Court to enter the kind of relief it entered here. And for that reason, CIGNA argues, whether the District Court did or did not use a proper standard for determining harm is beside the point. We believe that this preliminary question is closely enough related to the question presented that we shall consider it at the outset.
A
The District Court ordered relief in two steps. Step 1: It ordered the terms of the plan reformed (so that they provided an “A plus B,” rather than a “greater of A or B” guarantee). Step 2: It ordered the plan administrator (which it found to be CIGNA) to enforce the plan as reformed. One can fairly describe step 2 as consistent with § 502(a)(1)(B), for that provision grants a participant the right to bring a civil action to “recover benefits due... under-the terms of his plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). And step 2 orders recovery of the benefits provided by the “terms of [the] plan” as reformed.
But what about step 1? Where does § 502(a)(1)(B) grant a court the power to change the terms of the plan as they previously existed? The statutory language speaks of “enforc[ing]” the “terms of the plan,” not of changing them. 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The provision allows a court to look outside the plan’s written language in deciding what those terms are, i.e., what the language means. See UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, 526 U. S. 358, 377-379 (1999) (permitting the insurance terms of an ERISA-governed plan to be interpreted in light of state insurance rules). But we have found nothing suggesting that the provision authorizes a court to alter those terms, at least not in present circumstances, where that change, akin to the reform of a contract, seems less like the simple enforcement of a contract as written and more like an equitable remedy. See infra, at 441.
Nor can we accept the Solicitor General’s alternative rationale seeking to justify the use of this provision. The Solicitor General says that the District Court did enforce the plan’s terms as written, adding that the “plan” includes the disclosures that constituted the summary plan descriptions. In other words, in the view of the Solicitor General, the terms of the summaries are terms of the plan.
Even if the District Court had viewed the summaries as plan “terms” (which it did not, see supra, at 433), however, we cannot agree that the terms of statutorily required plan summaries (or summaries of plan modifications) necessarily may be enforced (under § 502(a)(1)(B)) as the terms of the plan itself. For one thing, it is difficult to square the Solicitor General’s reading of the statute with ERISA § 102(a), the provision that obliges plan administrators to furnish summary plan descriptions. The syntax of that provision, requiring that participants and beneficiaries be advised of their rights and obligations “under the plan,” suggests that the information about the plan provided by those disclosures is not itself part of the plan. See 29 U. S. C. § 1022(a). Nothing in § 502(a)(1)(B) (or, as far as we can tell, anywhere else) suggests the contrary.
Nor do we find it easy to square the Solicitor General’s reading with the statute’s division of authority between a plan’s sponsor and the plan’s administrator. The plan’s sponsor (e. g., the employer), like a trust’s settlor, creates the basic terms and conditions of the plan, executes a written instrument containing those terms and conditions, and provides in that instrument “a procedure” for making amendments. §402, 29 U. S. C. §1102. The plan’s administrator, a trustee-like fiduciary, manages the plan, follows its terms in doing so, and provides participants with the summary documents that describe the plan (and modifications) in readily understandable form. §§3(21)(A), 101(a), 102, 104, 29 U. S. C. §§ 1002(21)(A), 1021(a), 1022, 1024 (2006 ed. and Supp. III). Here, the District Court found that the same entity, CIGNA, filled both roles. See 534 F. Supp. 2d, at 331. But that is not always the case. Regardless, we have found that ERISA carefully distinguishes these roles. See, e. g., Varity Corp., 516 U. S., at 498. And we have no reason to believe that the statute intends to mix the responsibilities by giving the administrator the power to set plan terms indirectly by including them in the summary plan descriptions. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U. S. 73, 81-85 (1995).
Finally, we find it difficult to reconcile the Solicitor General’s interpretation with the basic summary plan description objective: clear, simple communication. See §§2(a), 102(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1001(a), 1022(a) (2006 ed.). To make the language of a plan summary legally binding could well lead plan administrators to sacrifice simplicity and comprehensibility in order to describe plan terms in the language of lawyers. Consider the difference between a will and the summary of a will or between a property deed and its summary. Consider, too, the length of Part I of this opinion, and then consider how much longer Part I would have to be if we had to include all the qualifications and nuances that a plan drafter might have found important and feared to omit lest they lose all legal significance. The District Court’s opinions take up 109 pages of the Federal Supplement. None of this is to say that plan administrators can avoid providing complete and accurate summaries of plan terms in the manner required by ERISA and its implementing regulations. But we fear that the Solicitor General’s rule might bring about complexity that would defeat the fundamental purpose of the summaries.
For these reasons taken together we conclude that the summary documents, important as they are, provide communication with beneficiaries about the plan, but that their statements do not themselves constitute the terms of the plan for purposes of § 502(a)(1)(B). We also conclude that the District Court could not find authority in that section to reform CIGNA’s plan as written.
B
If § 502(a)(1)(B) does not authorize entry of the relief here at issue, what about nearby § 502(a)(3)? That provision allows a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary “to obtain other appropriate equitable relief” to redress violations of (here relevant) parts of ERISA “or the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3) (emphasis added). The District Court strongly implied, but did not directly hold, that it would base its relief upon this subsection were it not for (1) the fact that the preceding “plan benefits due” provision, § 502(a)(1)(B), provided sufficient authority; and (2) certain cases from this Court that narrowed the application of the term “appropriate equitable relief,” see, e. g., Mertens, 508 U. S. 248; Great-West, 534 U. S. 204. Our holding in Part II-A, supra, removes the District Court’s first obstacle. And given the likelihood that, on remand, the District Court will turn to and rely upon this alternative subsection, we consider the court’s second concern. We find that concern misplaced.
We have interpreted the term “appropriate equitable relief” in §502(a)(3) as referring to “‘those categories of relief’ ” that, traditionally speaking (i. e., prior to the merger of law and equity), “‘were typically available in equity.’” Sereboff, 547 U. S., at 361 (quoting Mertens, 508 U. S., at 256). In Mertens, we applied this principle to a claim seeking money damages brought by a beneficiary against a private firm that provided a trustee with actuarial services. We found that the plaintiff sought “nothing other than compensatory damages” against a nonfiduciary. Id., at 253, 255 (emphasis deleted). And we held that such a claim, traditionally speaking, was legal, not equitable, in nature. Id., at 255.
In Great-West, we considered a claim brought by a fiduciary against a tort-award-winning beneficiary seeking monetary reimbursement for medical outlays that the plan had previously made on the beneficiary’s behalf. We noted that the fiduciary sought to obtain a lien attaching to (or a constructive trust imposed upon) money that the beneficiary had received from the tort-case defendant. But we noted that the money in question was not the “particular” money that the tort defendant had paid. And, traditionally speaking, relief that sought a lien or a constructive trust was legal relief, not equitable relief, unless the funds in question were “particular funds or property in the defendant’s possession.” 534 U. S., at 213 (emphasis added).
The case before us concerns a suit by a beneficiary against a plan fiduciary (whom ERISA typically treats as a trustee) about the terms of a plan (which ERISA typically treats as a trust). See LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U. S. 248, 253, n. 4 (2008); Varity Corp., supra, at 496-497. It is the kind of lawsuit that, before the merger of law and equity, respondents could have brought only in a court of equity, not a court of law. 4 A. Scott, W. Fratcher, & M. Ascher, Trusts §24.1, p. 1654 (5th ed. 2007) (hereinafter Scott & Ascher) (“Trusts are, and always have been, the bailiwiek of the courts of equity”); Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheat. 45, 56 (1817) (a trustee was “only suable in equity”).
With the exception of the relief now provided by § 502(a)(1)(B), Restatement (Second) of Trusts §§ 198(l)-(2) (1957) (hereinafter Second Restatement); 4 Scott & Ascher §24.2.1, the remedies available to those courts of equity were traditionally considered equitable remedies, see Second Restatement § 199; J. Adams, Doctrine of Equity: A Commentary on the Law as Administered by the Court of Chancery 61 (7th Am. ed. 1881) (hereinafter Adams); 4 Scott & Ascher § 24.2.
The District Court’s affirmative and negative injunctions obviously fall within this category. Mertens, supra, at 256 (identifying injunctions, mandamus, and restitution as equitable relief). And other relief ordered by the District Court resembles forms of traditional equitable relief. That is because equity chancellors developed a host of other “distinctively equitable” remedies — remedies that were “fitted to the nature of the primary right” they were intended to protect. 1 S. Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 108, pp. 139-140 (5th ed. 1941) (hereinafter Pomeroy). See generally 1 J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 692 (12th ed. 1877) (hereinafter Story). Indeed, a maxim of equity states that “[ejquity suffers not a right to be without a remedy.” R. Francis, Maxims of Equity 29 (1st Am. ed. 1823). And the relief entered here, insofar as it does not consist of injunctive relief, closely resembles three other traditional equitable remedies.
First, what the District Court did here may be regarded as the reformation of the terms of the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGANdelivered the opinion of the Court.
Government agencies sometimes come into possession of firearms lawfully owned by individuals facing serious criminal charges. If convicted, such a person cannot recover his guns because a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), prohibits any felon from possessing firearms. In this case, we consider what § 922(g)allows a court to do when a felon instead seeks the transfer of his guns to either a firearms dealer (for future sale on the open market) or some other third party. We hold that § 922(g)does not bar such a transfer unless it would allow the felon to later control the guns, so that he could either use them or direct their use.
I
The Federal Government charged petitioner Tony Henderson, then a U.S. Border Patrol agent, with the felony offense of distributing marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D). A Magistrate Judge required that Henderson surrender all his firearms as a condition of his release on bail. Henderson complied, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took custody of the guns. Soon afterward, Henderson pleaded guilty to the distribution charge; as a result of that conviction, § 922(g)prevents him from legally repossessing his firearms.
Following his release from prison, Henderson asked the FBI to transfer the guns to Robert Rosier, a friend who had agreed to purchase them for an unspecified price. The FBI denied the request. In a letter to Henderson, it explained that "the release of the firearms to [Rosier] would place you in violation of [§ 922(g)], as it would amount to constructive possession" of the guns. App. 121.
Henderson then returned to the court that had handled his criminal case to seek release of his firearms. Invoking the court's equitable powers, Henderson asked for an order directing the FBI to transfer the guns either to his wife or to Rosier. The District Court denied the motion, concluding (as the FBI had) that Henderson could not "transfer the firearms or receive money from their sale" without "constructive[ly] possessi[ng]" them in violation of § 922(g). No. 3:06-cr-211 (MD Fla., Aug. 8, 2012), App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a-6a, 12a. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the same ground, reasoning that granting Henderson's motion would amount to giving a felon "constructive possession" of his firearms. 555 Fed.Appx. 851, 853 (2014)(per curiam).
We granted certiorari, 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 402, 190 L.Ed.2d 289 (2014), to resolve a circuit split over whether, as the courts below held, § 922(g)categorically prohibits a court from approving a convicted felon's request to transfer his firearms to another person.We now vacate the decision below.
II
A federal court has equitable authority, even after a criminal proceeding has ended, to order a law enforcement agency to turn over property it has obtained during the case to the rightful owner or his designee. See, e.g.,United States v. Martinez,241 F.3d 1329, 1330-1331 (C.A.11 2001)(citing numerous appellate decisions to that effect); Tr. of Oral Arg. 41 (Solicitor General agreeing). Congress, however, may cabin that power in various ways. As relevant here, § 922(g)makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a felony to "possess in or affecting commerce[ ] any firearm or ammunition." That provision prevents a court from instructing an agency to return guns in its custody to a felon-owner like Henderson, because that would place him in violation of the law. The question here is how § 922(g)affects a court's authority to instead direct the transfer of such firearms to a third party.
Section 922(g)proscribes possession alone, but covers possession in every form. By its terms, § 922(g)does not prohibit a felon from owningfirearms. Rather, it interferes with a single incident of ownership-one of the proverbial sticks in the bundle of property rights-by preventing the felon from knowingly possessinghis (or another person's) guns. But that stick is a thick one, encompassing what the criminal law recognizes as "actual" and "constructive" possession alike. 2A K. O'Malley, J. Grenig, & W. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal § 39.12, p. 55 (6th ed. 2009) (hereinafter O'Malley); see National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead,232 U.S. 58, 67, 34 S.Ct. 209, 58 L.Ed. 504 (1914)(noting that in "legal terminology" the word "possession" is "interchangeably used to describe" both the actual and the constructive kinds). Actual possession exists when a person has direct physical control over a thing. See Black's Law Dictionary 1047 (5th ed. 1979) (hereinafter Black's); 2A O'Malley § 39.12, at 55. Constructive possession is established when a person, though lacking such physical custody, still has the power and intent to exercise control over the object. See Black's 1047; 2A O'Malley § 39.12, at 55. Section 922(g)thus prevents a felon not only from holding his firearms himself but also from maintaining control over those guns in the hands of others.
That means, as all parties agree, that § 922(g)prevents a court from ordering the sale or other transfer of a felon's guns to someone willing to give the felon access to them or to accede to the felon's instructions about their future use. See Brief for United States 23; Reply Brief 12. In such a case, the felon would have control over the guns, even while another person kept physical custody. The idea of constructive possession is designed to preclude just that result, "allow[ing] the law to reach beyond puppets to puppeteers." United States v. Al-Rekabi,454 F.3d 1113, 1118 (C.A.10 2006). A felon cannot evade the strictures of § 922(g)by arranging a sham transfer that leaves him in effective control of his guns. And because that is so, a court may no more approve such a transfer than order the return of the firearms to the felon himself.
The Government argues that § 922(g)prohibits still more-that it bars a felon, except in one circumstance, from transferring his firearms to another person, no matter how independent of the felon's influence. According to the Government, a felon "exercises his right to control" his firearms, and thus violates § 922(g)'s broad ban on possession, merely by "select[ing] the [ir] first recipient," because that choice "determine[s] who [will] (and who [will] not) next have access to the firearms." Brief for United States 24. And that remains so even if a felon never retakes physical custody of the guns and needs a court order to approve and effectuate the proposed transfer. The felon (so says the Government) still exerts enough sway over the guns' disposition to "have constructive possession" of them. Id.,at 25. The only time that is not true, the Government claims, is when a felon asks the court to transfer the guns to a licensed dealer or other party who will sell the guns for him on the open market. See id.,at 20-22; Tr. of Oral Arg. 18-21. Because the felon then does not control the firearms' final destination, the Government avers, he does not constructively possess them and a court may approve the transfer. See ibid.
But the Government's theory wrongly conflates the right to possess a gun with another incident of ownership, which § 922(g)does not affect: the right merely to sell or otherwise dispose of that item. Cf. Andrus v. Allard,444 U.S. 51, 65-66, 100 S.Ct. 318, 62 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)(distinguishing between entitlements to possess and sell property). Consider the scenario that the Government claims would violate § 922(g). The felon has nothing to do with his guns before, during, or after the transaction in question, except to nominate their recipient. Prior to the transfer, the guns sit in an evidence vault, under the sole custody of law enforcement officers. Assuming the court approves the proposed recipient, FBI agents handle the firearms' physical conveyance, without the felon's participation. Afterward, the purchaser or other custodian denies the felon any access to or influence over the guns; the recipient alone decides where to store them, when to loan them out, how to use them, and so on. In short, the arrangement serves only to divest the felon of his firearms-and even that much depends on a court's approving the designee's fitness and ordering the transfer to go forward. Such a felon exercises not a possessory interest (whether directly or through another), but instead a naked right of alienation-the capacity to sell or transfer his guns, unaccompanied by any control over them.
The Government's view of what counts as "possession" would also extend § 922(g)'s scope far beyond its purpose. Congress enacted that ban to keep firearms away from felons like Henderson, for fear that they would use those guns irresponsibly. See Small v. United States,544 U.S. 385, 393, 125 S.Ct. 1752, 161 L.Ed.2d 651 (2005). Yet on the Government's construction, § 922(g)would prevent Henderson from disposing of his firearms even in ways that guarantee he never uses them again, solely because he played a part in selecting their transferee. He could not, for example, place those guns in a secure trust for distribution to his children after his death. He could not sell them to someone halfway around the world. He could not even donate them to a law enforcement agency. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. Results of that kind would do nothing to advance § 922(g)'s purpose.
Finally, the Government's expansive idea of constructive possession fits poorly with its concession that a felon in Henderson's position may select a firearms dealer or other third party to sell his guns and give him the proceeds. After all, the felon chooses the guns' "first recipient" in that case too, deciding who "next ha[s] access to the firearms." Brief for United States 24; see supra,at 1785. If (as the Government argues) that is all it takes to exercise control over and thus constructively possess an item, then (contrary to the Government's view) the felon would violate § 922(g)merely by selecting a dealer to sell his guns. To be sure, that person will predictably convey the firearms to someone whom the felon does not know and cannot control: That is why the Government, as a practical matter, has no worries about the transfer. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-21. But that fact merely demonstrates how the Government's view of § 922(g)errs in its focus in a case like this one. What matters here is notwhether a felon plays a role in deciding where his firearms should go next: That test would logically prohibit a transfer even when the chosen recipient will later sell the guns to someone else. What matters instead is whether the felon will have the ability to use or direct the use of his firearms after the transfer. That is what gives the felon constructive possession.
Accordingly, a court facing a motion like Henderson's may approve the transfer of guns consistently with § 922(g)if, but only if, that disposition prevents the felon from later exercising control over those weapons, so that he could either use them or tell someone else how to do so. One way to ensure that result, as the Government notes, is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms dealer, himself independent of the felon's control, for subsequent sale on the open market. See, e.g.,United States v. Zaleski,686 F.3d 90, 92-94 (C.A.2 2012). Indeed, we can see no reason, absent exceptional circumstances, to disapprove a felon's motion for such a sale, whether or not he has picked the vendor. That option, however, is not the only one available under § 922(g). A court may also grant a felon's request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them, so long as the recipient will not allow the felon to exert any influence over their use. In considering such a motion, the court may properly seek certain assurances: for example, it may ask the proposed transferee to promise to keep the guns away from the felon, and to acknowledge that allowing him to use them would aid and abet a § 922(g)violation. See id.,at 94; United States v. Miller,588 F.3d 418, 420 (C.A.7 2009). Even such a pledge, of course, might fail to provide an adequate safeguard, and a court should then disapprove the transfer. See, e.g., State v. Fadness,363 Mont. 322, 341-342, 268 P.3d 17, 30 (2012)(upholding a trial court's finding that the assurances given by a felon's parents were not credible). But when a court is satisfied that a felon will not retain control over his guns, § 922(g)does not apply, and the court has equitable power to accommodate the felon's request.
Neither of the courts below assessed Henderson's motion for a transfer of his firearms in accord with these principles. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Court of Appeals added that Henderson's "equitable argument rings hollow" because a convicted felon has "unclean hands to demand return [or transfer] of his firearms." 555 Fed.Appx., at 854. That view is wrong, as all parties now agree. See Brief for Petitioner 35-39; Brief for United States 31, n. 8; Tr. of Oral Arg. 33, 42. The unclean hands doctrine proscribes equitable relief when, but only when, an individual's misconduct has "immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks." Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.,290 U.S. 240, 245, 54 S.Ct. 146, 78 L.Ed. 293 (1933). The doctrine might apply, for example, if a felon requests the return or transfer of property used in furtherance of his offense. See, e.g.,United States v. Kaczynski,551 F.3d 1120, 1129-1130 (C.A.9 2009)(holding that the Unabomber had unclean hands to request the return of bomb-making materials). But Henderson's felony conviction had nothing to do with his firearms, so the unclean hands rule has no role to play here.
Compare 555 Fed.Appx. 851, 853-854 (C.A.11 2014)(per curiam) (case below) (holding that § 922(g)bars any transfer); United States v. Felici,208 F.3d 667, 670 (C.A.8 2000)(same), with United States v. Zaleski,686 F.3d 90, 92-94 (C.A.2 2012)(holding that § 922(g)permits some transfers); United States v. Miller,588 F.3d 418, 419-420 (C.A.7 2009)(same).
The Government calls our attention to several cases in which courts have found constructive possession of firearms based on evidence that a felon negotiated and arranged a sale of guns while using a third party to make the physical handoff to the buyer. See, e.g.,United States v. Nungaray,697 F.3d 1114, 1116-1119 (C.A.9 2012); United States v. Virciglio,441 F.2d 1295, 1297-1298 (C.A.5 1971). But the facts in the cited cases bear no similarity to those here. In each, the defendant-felon controlled the guns' movement both before and during the transaction at issue (and even was present at the delivery site). As the Government explains, the felon could "make a gun appear" at the time and place of his choosing and decide what would happen to it once it got there. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. Indeed, he could have chosen to take the firearms for himself or direct them to someone under his influence. The felon's management of the sale thus exemplified, and served as evidence of, his broader command over the guns' location and use-the very hallmark of possession. But as just explained, that kind of control is absent when a felon can do no more than nominate an independent recipient for firearms in a federal agency's custody. The decisions the Government invokes thus have no bearing on this case; nor does our decision here, which addresses only § 922(g)'s application to court-supervised transfers of guns, prevent the Government from bringing charges under § 922(g)in cases resembling those cited.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs below, petitioners here, worked as police officers for the city of Shelby, Mississippi. They allege that they were fired by the city's board of aldermen, not for deficient performance, but because they brought to light criminal activities of one of the aldermen. Charging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, they sought compensatory relief from the city. Summary judgment was entered against them in the District Court, and affirmed on appeal, for failure to invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983in their complaint.
We summarily reverse. Federal pleading rules call for "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2); they do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See Advisory Committee Report of October 1955, reprinted in 12A C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, R. Marcus, and A. Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 644 (2014 ed.) (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "are designed to discourage battles over mere form of statement"); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, § 1215, p. 172 (3d ed. 2002)(Rule 8(a)(2)"indicates that a basic objective of the rules is to avoid civil cases turning on technicalities"). In particular, no heightened pleading rule requires plaintiffs seeking damages for violations of constitutional rights to invoke § 1983expressly in order to state a claim. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit,507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993)(a federal court may not apply a standard "more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)" in "civil rights cases alleging municipal liability"); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.,534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002)(imposing a "heightened pleading standard in employment discrimination cases conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)").
The Fifth Circuit defended its requirement that complaints expressly invoke § 1983as "not a mere pleading formality." 743 F.3d 59, 62 (2013)(internal quotation marks omitted). The requirement serves a notice function, the Fifth Circuit said, because "[c]ertain consequences flow from claims under § 1983, such as the unavailability of respondeat superior liability, which bears on the qualified immunity analysis." Ibid.This statement displays some confusion in the Fifth Circuit's perception of petitioners' suit. No "qualified immunity analysis" is implicated here, as petitioners asserted a constitutional claim against the city only, not against any municipal officer. See Owen v. Independence,445 U.S. 622, 638, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980)(a "municipality may not assert the good faith of its officers or agents as a defense to liability under § 1983").
Our decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), are not in point, for they concern the factual allegations a complaint must contain to survive a motion to dismiss. A plaintiff, they instruct, must plead facts sufficient to show that her claim has substantive plausibility. Petitioners' complaint was not deficient in that regard. Petitioners stated simply, concisely, and directly events that, they alleged, entitled them to damages from the city. Having informed the city of the factual basis for their complaint, they were required to do no more to stave off threshold dismissal for want of an adequate statement of their claim. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2) and (3), (d)(1), (e). For clarification and to ward off further insistence on a punctiliously stated "theory of the pleadings," petitioners, on remand, should be accorded an opportunity to add to their complaint a citation to § 1983. See 5 Wright & Miller, supra,§ 1219, at 277-278("The federal rules effectively abolish the restrictive theory of the pleadings doctrine, making it clear that it is unnecessary to set out a legal theory for the plaintiff's claim for relief." (footnotes omitted)); Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2)("The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.").
* * *
For the reasons stated, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552b, mandates that federal agencies hold their meetings in public. This case requires us to consider whether the Act applies to informal international conferences attended by members of the Federal Communications Commission. We also must decide whether the District Court may exercise jurisdiction over a suit that challenges agency conduct as ultra vires after the agency has addressed that challenge in an order reviewable only by the Court of Appeals.
I
Members of petitioner Federal Communications Commission (FCC) participate with their European and Canadian counterparts in what is referred to as the Consultative Process. This is a series of conferences intended to facilitate joint planning of telecommunications facilities through an exchange of information on regulatory policies. At the time of the conferences at issue in the present case, only three American corporations — respondents ITT World Communications, Inc. (ITT), and RCA Global Communications, Inc., and Western Union International — provided overseas record telecommunications services. Although the FCC had approved entry into the market by other competitors, European regulators had been reluctant to do so. The FCC therefore added the topic of new carriers and services to the agenda of the Consultative Process, in the hope that exchange of information might persuade the European nations to cooperate with the FCC’s policy of encouraging competition in the provision of telecommunications services.
Respondents, opposing the entry of new competitors, initiated this litigation. First, respondents filed a rulemaking petition with the FCC concerning the Consultative Process meetings. The petition requested that the FCC disclaim any intent to negotiate with foreign governments or to bind it to agreements at the meetings, arguing that such negotiations were ultra vires the agency’s authority. Further, the petition contended that the Sunshine Act required the Consultative Process sessions, as “meetings” of the FCC, to be held in public. See 5 U. S. C. §552b(b). The FCC denied the rulemaking petition, and respondents filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Respondent ITT then filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint, like respondents’ rule-making petition, contended (i) that the agency’s negotiations with foreign officials at the Consultative Process were ultra vires the agency’s authority and (ii) that future meetings of the Consultative Process must conform to the requirements of the Sunshine Act. The District Court dismissed the ultra vires count on jurisdictional grounds, but ordered the FCC to comply with the Sunshine Act. Respondent ITT appealed, and the Commission cross-appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered on consolidated appeal the District Court’s judgment and the FCC’s denial of the rulemaking petition. The District Court judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. 226 U. S. App. D. C. 67, 699 F. 2d 1219 (1983). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the Sunshine Act applied to meetings of the Consultative Process. It reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the ultra vires count, however. Noting that exclusive jurisdiction for review of final agency action lay in the Court of Appeals, that court held that the District Court nonetheless could entertain under 5 U. S. C. §703 a suit that alleged that FCC participation in the Consultative Process should be enjoined as ultra vires the agency’s authority. The case was remanded for consideration of the merits of respondents’ ultra vires claim.
The Court of Appeals also concluded that the FCC erroneously had denied respondents’ rulemaking petition. Consistent with its affirmance of the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that the FCC had erred in concluding that the Sunshine Act did not apply to the Consultative Process sessions. Further, the court found the record “patently inadequate” to support the FCC’s conclusion that attendance at sessions of the Consultative Process was within the scope of its authority. 226 U. S. App. D. C., at 95, 699 F. 2d, at 1247. Although remanding to the FCC, the court suggested that the agency stay consideration of the rulemaking petition, as the District Court’s action upon respondents’ complaint might moot the question of rulemaking.
We granted certiorari, to decide whether the District Court could exercise jurisdiction over the ultra vires claim and whether the Sunshine Act applies to sessions of the Consultative Process. 464 U. S. 932 (1983). We reverse.
HH HH
We consider initially the jurisdiction of the District Court to enjoin FCC action as ultra vires. Exclusive jurisdiction for review of final FCC orders, such as the FCC’s denial of respondents’ rulemaking petition, lies in the Court of Appeals. 28 U. S. C. §2842(1); 47 U. S. C. § 402(a). Litigants may not evade these provisions by requesting the District Court to enjoin action that is the outcome of the agency’s order. See Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U. S. 62, 69 (1970); Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans, 379 U. S. 411, 419-422 (1965). Yet that is what respondents have sought to do in this case. In substance, the complaint filed in the District Court raised the same issues and sought to enforce the same restrictions upon agency conduct as did the petition for rulemaking that was denied by the FCC. See supra, at 465-466. The appropriate procedure for obtaining judicial review of the agency’s disposition of these issues was appeal to the Court of Appeals as provided by statute.
The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes an action for review of final agency action in the District Court to the extent that other statutory procedures for review are inadequate. 5 U. S. C. §§703, 704. Respondents contend that these provisions confer jurisdiction in the present suit because the record developed upon consideration of the rule-making petition by the agency does not enable the Court of Appeals fairly to evaluate their ultra vires claim. If, however, the Court of Appeals finds that the administrative record is inadequate, it may remand to the agency, see Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 593-594 (1980), or in some circumstances refer the case to a special master, see 28 U. S. C. § 2347(b)(3). Indeed, in the present case, the Court of Appeals has remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings. We conclude that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over respondents’ ultra vires claim.
HH H-i
The Sunshine Act, 5 U. S. C. §552b(b), requires that “meetings of an agency” be open to the public. Section 552b(a)(2) defines “meetings” as “the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business.” Under these provisions, the Sunshine Act does not require that Consultative Process sessions be held in public, as the participation by FCC members in these sessions constitutes neither a “meeting” as defined by §552b(a)(2) nor a meeting “of the agency” as provided by § 552b(b).
A
Congress in drafting the Act’s definition of “meeting” recognized that the administrative process cannot be conducted entirely in the public eye. “[I]nformal background discussions [that] clarify issues and expose varying views” are a necessary part of an agency’s work. See S. Rep. No. 94-354, p. 19 (1975). The Act’s procedural requirements effectively would prevent such discussions and thereby impair normal agency operations without achieving significant public benefit. Section 552b(a)(2) therefore limits the Act’s application to meetings “where at least a quorum of the agency’s members . . . conduct or dispose of official agency business.” S. Rep. No. 94-354, at 2.
Three Commissioners, the number who attended the Consultative Process sessions, did not constitute a quorum of the seven-member Commission. The three members were, however, a quorum of the Telecommunications Committee. That Committee is a “subdivision . . . authorized to act on behalf of the agency.” The Commission had delegated to the Committee, pursuant to § 5(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 155(d)(1), the power to approve applications for common carrier certification. See 47 CFR §0.215 (1983). The Sunshine Act applies to such a subdivision as well as to an entire agency. §552b(a)(l).
It does not appear, however, that the Telecommunications Committee engaged at these sessions in “deliberations [that] determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business.” This statutory language contemplates discussions that “effectively predetermine official actions.” See S. Rep. No. 94-354, at 19; accord, id., at 18. Such discussions must be “sufficiently focused on discrete proposals or issues as to cause or be likely to cause the individual participating members to form reasonably firm positions regarding matters pending or likely to arise before the agency.” R. Berg & S. Klitzman, An Interpretive Guide to the Government in the Sunshine Act 9 (1978) (hereinafter Interpretive Guide). On the cross-motions for summary judgment, however, respondent ITT alleged neither that the Committee formally acted upon applications for certification at the Consultative Process sessions nor that those sessions resulted in firm positions on particular matters pending or likely to arise before the Committee. Rather, the sessions provided general background information to the Commissioners and permitted them to engage with their foreign counterparts in an exchange of views by which decisions already reached by the Commission could be implemented. As we have noted, Congress did not intend the Sunshine Act to encompass such discussions.
The Court of Appeals did not reach a contrary result by finding that the Commissioners were deliberating upon matters within their formally delegated authority. Rather, that court inferred from the members’ attendance at the sessions an undisclosed authority, not formally delegated, to engage in discussions on behalf of the Commission. The court then concluded that these discussions were deliberations that resulted in the conduct of official agency business, as the discussions “play[ed] an integral role in the Commission’s policymaking processes.” 226 U. S. App. D. C., at 89, 699 F. 2d, at 1241.
We view the Act differently. It applies only where a subdivision of the agency deliberates upon matters that are within that subdivision’s formally delegated authority to take official action for the agency. Under the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, any group of members who exchange views or gathered information on agency business apparently could be viewed as a “subdivision. . . authorized to act on behalf of the agency.” The term “subdivision” itself indicates agency members who have been authorized to exercise formally delegated authority. See Interpretive Guide, at 2-3. Moreover, the more expansive view of the term “subdivision” adopted by the Court of Appeals would require public attendance at a host of informal conversations of the type Congress understood to be necessary for the effective conduct of agency business. In any event, it is clear that the Sunshine Act does not extend to deliberations of a quorum of the subdivision upon matters not within the subdivision’s formally delegated authority. Such deliberations lawfully could not “determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business” within the meaning of the Act. As the Telecommunications Committee at the Consultative Process sessions did not consider or act upon applications for common carrier certification — its only formally delegated authority— we conclude that the sessions were not “meetings” within the meaning of the Sunshine Act.
B
The Consultative Process was not convened by the FCC, and its procedures were not subject to the FCC’s unilateral control. The sessions of the Consultative Process therefore are not meetings “of an agency” within the meaning of § 552b(b). The Act prescribes procedures for the agency to follow when it holds meetings and particularly when it chooses to close a meeting. See n. 6, supra. These provisions presuppose that the Act applies only to meetings that the agency has the power to conduct according to these procedures. And application of the Act to meetings not under agency control would restrict the types of meetings that agency members could attend. It is apparent that Congress, in enacting requirements for the agency’s conduct of its own meetings, did not contemplate as well such a broad substantive restraint upon agency processes. See S. Rep. No. 94-354, at 1.
IV
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 552b(b) provides:
“Members [of a federal agency] shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this section. Except as provided in subsection (c), every portion of every meeting of an agency shall be open to public observation.”
Subsection (c) contains exceptions, that are not relevant to the present case. Section 552b(a)(2) defines “meeting” as
“the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business.”
Section 552b(a)(l) defines the term “agency” to include “any agency . . . headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members . . . and any subdivision thereof authorized to act on behalf of the agency.”
The District Court had jurisdiction over the Sunshine Act claim under 5 ü. S. C. § 552b(h)(l).
Title 5 U. S. C. §703 provides in part:
“The form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action ... in a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Court of Appeals accepted respondents’ contention that review in the Court of Appeals was inadequate to vindicate respondents’ claims. See infra, at 469.
The finding of the Court of Appeals that the administrative record was inadequate to support the FCC’s denial of a petition for rulemaking on the issue of the scope of the FCC’s authority to negotiate is not before the Court.
ITT urges that the ultra vires claim, unlike the petition for rulemaking, focuses on past rather than future agency conduct. It is true that the complaint in the District Court sought, in addition to prospective relief, a declaration that the Commission had violated the Administrative Procedure Act. See App. 71. But the gravamen of both the judicial complaint and the petition for rulemaking was to require the agency to conduct future sessions on the terms that ITT proposed. Indeed, it seems questionable whether a complaint that sought only a declaration that past conduct was unlawful would present to the District Court a case or controversy over which it could exercise subject-matter jurisdiction. Cf. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937). In any event, even if the question of the lawfulness of the agency’s past conduct were the central element of respondent ITT’s judicial complaint, the District Court under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should have dismissed the complaint, as respondents could have challenged the agency’s past conduct by motion before the agency for a declaratory ruling, 47 CFR § 1.2 (1983). See Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans, 379 U. S. 411, 421, 426 (1965); Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570, 574, 577 (1952).
Meetings within the scope of the Act must be held in public unless one of the Act’s exemptions is applicable. § 552b(b). The agency must announce, at least a week before the meeting, its time, place, and subject matter and whether it will be open or closed. § 552b(e)(l). For closed meetings, the agency’s counsel must publicly certify that one of the Act’s exemptions permits closure. § 552b(f )(1). Most closed meetings must be transcribed or recorded. Ibid.
The evolution of the statutory language reflects the congressional intent precisely to define the limited scope of the statute’s requirements. See generally H. R. Rep. No. 94-880, pt. 2, p. 14 (1976). For example, the Senate substituted the term “deliberations” for the previously proposed terms — “assembly or simultaneous communication,” H. R. 11656, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., §552b(a)(2) (1976), or “gathering,” S. 5, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., §201(a) (1975) — in order to “exclude many discussions which are informal in nature.” S. Rep. No. 94-354, p. 10 (1975); see id., at 18. Similarly, earlier versions of the Act had applied to any agency discussions that “coneer[n] the joint conduct or disposition of agency business,” H. R. 11656, supra, § 552b(a)(2). The Act now applies only to deliberations that “determine or result in” the conduct of “official agency business.” The intent of the revision clearly was to permit preliminary discussion among agency members. See 122 Cong. Rec. 28474 (1976) (remarks of Rep. Fascell).
Since the Consultative Process sessions at issue here, held in October 1979, the Commission’s membership has been reduced to five. Pub. L. 97-253, § 501(b), 96 Stat. 805 (effective July 1, 1983).
Common carriers “in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio” or “radio transmission of energy,” 47 U. S. C. § 153(h), must obtain from the Commission a certificate of public convenience or necessity before undertaking construction or operation of additional communications lines. 47 U. S. C. § 214. Permits must be obtained also for construction of radio broadcasting stations. 47 U. S. C. § 319.
The Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States prepared the Interpretive Guide at Congress’ request, § 552b(g), and after extensive consultation with the affected agencies. See Interpretive Guide, at v.
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment 6-11, 46-50, and Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 23-27, in Civ. No. 80-0428 (Dist. Ct. DC).
This point is made by the memorandum amicus curiae submitted to the Court by the American Bar Association: “The . . . decision [of the Court of Appeals] places . . . agencies in an untenable position. [Ujnder the court's decision, [agency] members may not meet with persons from outside the agency to discuss any matter within the official concern of the agency without complying with the provisions of the Sunshine Act. Such a result would have a pronounced (and deleterious) effect on the interaction between the agencies and the public . . . .” Memorandum, at 5-6.
Ultra vires action by a subdivision would be of no legal effect.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the issue of whether the contents of a communication overheard on a regularly used telephone extension with the consent of one party to the conversation are admissible in federal court. Petitioner was convicted of violations of 18 U. S. C. § 875 (b) and (c) for transmitting an interstate communication which threatened the life of one Sparks in order to obtain from him a stock certificate which Sparks held as collateral for a loan. On March 16, 1955, petitioner, who was in New York, spoke by telephone with Sparks, who was in Pueblo, Colorado. Anticipating another call from petitioner, Sparks requested that members of the Pueblo police force overhear the conversation. When petitioner phoned Sparks in the early morning of March 17, two police officers at Sparks’ direction listened to the conversation on a telephone extension in another room of the Sparks home. This extension had not been installed there just for this purpose but was a regular connection, previously placed and normally used. At the trial the police officers testified over timely objection that during this conversation petitioner had threatened Sparks’ life because he would not surrender the certificate. Petitioner was convicted and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 236 F. 2d 514. We granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 965.
Benanti v. United States, ante, p. 96, determined that information obtained and divulged by state agents in violation of Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act is inadmissible in federal court. The pertinent portion of Section 605 states: Since there was a divulgence of the contents of a communication, the only issue on the facts before us is whether there has been an unauthorized interception within the meaning of Section 605. The federal courts have split in their determination of this question. Some courts have held that the statute proscribes the use of an extension telephone to allow someone to overhear, a conversation without the consent of both parties. Others have concluded that the statute is inapplicable where one party has consented. We hold that Section 605 was not violated in the case before us because there has been no “interception” as Congress intended that the word be used. Every statute must be interpreted in the light of reason and common understanding to reach the results intended by the legislature. Cf. Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457; American Security & Trust Co. v. Commissioners, 224 U. S. 491. That principle would be violated if we attributed to Congress acceptance of the results that would occur here from the position argued by petitioner.
“. . . no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person . . . .”
The telephone extension is a widely used instrument of home and office, yet with nothing to evidence congressional intent, petitioner argues that Congress meant to place a severe restriction on its ordinary use by subscribers, denying them the right to allow a family member, an employee, a trusted friend, or even the police to listen to a conversation to which a subscriber is a party. Section 605 points to the opposite conclusion. Immediately following the portion quoted above, the statute continues:
“. . . no person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio and use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto . . . .”
The clear inference is that one entitled to receive the communication may use it for his own benefit or have another use it for him. The communication itself is not privileged, and one party may not force the other to secrecy merely by using a telephone. It has been conceded by those who believe the conduct here violates Section 605 that either party may record the conversation and publish it. The conduct of the party would differ in no way if instead of repeating the message he held out his handset so that another could hear out of it. We see no distinction between that sort of action and permitting an outsider to use an extension telephone for the same purpose.
The error in accepting petitioner’s argument is brought into sharper focus by the fact that Section 605 is penal in nature, the first violation being punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both. For example, it follows from petitioner’s argument that every secretary who listens to a business conversation at her employer’s direction in order to record it would be marked as a potential federal criminal. It is unreasonable to believe that Congress meant to extend criminal liability to conduct which is wholly innocent and ordinary.
Common experience tells us that a call to a particular telephone number may cause the bell to ring in more than one ordinarily used instrument. Each party to a telephone conversation takes the risk that the other party may have an extension telephone and may allow another to overhear the conversation. When such takes place there has been no violation of any privacy of which the parties may complain. Consequently, one element of Section 605, interception, has not occurred.
Affirmed.
The grant of certiorari was limited to the following question, as phrased by petitioner: “Is the listening in of third parties on an extension telephone in an adjoining room, without consent of the sender, an interception of a telephone message, and the divulgence of the contents of such conversation prohibited by statute, to wit Sec. 605, Title 47, U. S. C. A.” Implicit in this phrasing of the question is the fact that one party to the conversation did consent.
48 Stat. 1103, 47 U. S. C. §605.
We do not decide the question of whether § 605 is violated where a message is intercepted but not divulged since the police officers did divulge the contents of the overheard conversation when they testified in court. Cf. Benanti v. United States, ante, p. 96.
United States v. Polakoff, 112 F. 2d 888; James v. United States, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 201, 191 F. 2d 472; United States v. Hill, 149 F. Supp. 83; see Reitmeister v. Reitmeister, 162 F. 2d 691.
United States v. White, 228 F. 2d 832; Flanders v. United States, 222 F. 2d 163; United States v. Sullivan, 116 F. Supp. 480, affirmed, 95 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 219 F. 2d 760; United States v. Lewis, 87 F. Supp. 970, reversed on other grounds, Billeci v. United States, 87 U. S. App. D. C. 274, 184 F. 2d 394; cf. Rayson v. United States, 238 F. 2d 160; United States v. Bookie, 229 F. 2d 130; United States v. Pierce, 124 F. Supp. 264, affirmed, 224 F. 2d 281.
For example, in 1934 the Bell Telephone System, including affiliates, had 1,315,000 extension telephones out of a total of 13,378,000. In 1956 the System had 8,465,000 extension telephones out of a total of 50,990,000. Exhibit 1364 of the Federal Communications Commission Special Telephone Investigation; Federal Communications Commission, “Statistics of the Communications Industry in the United States for the year ended December 31, 1956.”
See United States v. Polakoff, 112 F. 2d 888, 889:
“We need not sa.y that a man may never make a record of what he hears on the telephone by having someone else listen at an extension, or, as in the case at bar, even by allowing him to interpose a recording machine. The receiver may certainly himself broadcast the message as he pleases, and the sender will often give consent, express or implied, to the interposition of a listener.” (Emphasis added.)
Note also that the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission which control the recording of telephone conversations presuppose that either party may record a conversation and declare that tariff regulations of telephone companies which bar the use of recording devices are unjust and unreasonable and so in violation of § 201 of the Federal Communications Act. In the Matter of Use of Recording Devices in Connection with Telephone Service, 11 F. C. C. 1033, 1053.
48 Stat. 1100, 47 U. S. C. § 501. Additional violations are punishable by the same fine and not more than two years’ imprisonment, or both.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for the discharge of the writ of habeas corpus and the remand of respondent to the custody of the United States Marshal in order that a hearing be held under 18 U. S. C. § 3184.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we must decide, first, whether the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies to time during which respondents were neither under indictment nor subjected to any official restraint, and, second, whether certain delays occasioned by interlocutory appeals were properly weighed in assessing respondents’ right to a speedy trial. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit weighed most of the 90 months from the time of respondents’ arrests and initial indictment in November 1975 until the District Court’s dismissal of the indictment in May 1983 towards respondents’ claims under the Speedy Trial Clause. We conclude that the time that no indictment was outstanding against respondents should not weigh towards respondents’ speedy trial claims. We also find that in this case the delay attributable to interlocutory appeals by the Government and respondents does not establish a violation of the Speedy Trial Clause. Accordingly, we reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals that respondents were denied their right to a speedy trial.
I — (
In view of the nature of respondents’ claim, we state the factual and procedural history of this case in some detail. On November 14, 1975, pursuant to a tip from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Oregon state troopers stopped two vehicles in search of several federal fugitives. After an exchange of gunfire and a motor chase, state troopers captured all but one of the respondents, Dennis Banks. Both vehicles were locked and impounded while federal and state authorities obtained search warrants.
Searches of the vehicles over the next two days disclosed 350 pounds of dynamite, 6 partially assembled time bombs, 2,600 rounds of ammunition, 150 blasting caps, 9 empty hand grenades, and miscellaneous firearms. Oregon law enforcement officers, apparently unaware of the evidentiary consequences, adhered to their usual policy and destroyed the dynamite. A federal agent present at the destruction photographed the explosions. United States v. Loud Hawk, 628 F. 2d 1139, 1142 (CA9 1979). State officials also preserved wrappers from the dynamite casings.
A federal grand jury indicted respondents on November 25, 1975, on charges of possessing firearms and explosives. Trial in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon was set for the week of February 9, 1976. On December 22, 1975, a grand jury returned a five-count superseding indictment. This indictment charged all respondents with three counts relating to possession and transportation in commerce of an unregistered destructive device (the dynamite counts) and two counts relating to unlawful possession of firearms (the firearms counts).
Two days later, respondents filed a motion to suppress all evidence concerning the dynamite, arguing that federal and state officials had intentionally and negligently destroyed the dynamite before the defense had the opportunity to examine it. After initially denying respondents’ motion, and after two continuances at respondents’ behest, the District Court granted respondents’ motion to suppress on March 31, 1976. App. to Pet. for Cert. 157a. Three weeks later, the Government appealed the suppression order, and moved that trial on all counts be continued pending the outcome of the appeal. The District Court denied the Government’s request for a continuance, and when the case was called for trial, the Government answered “not ready.” Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b), the District Judge dismissed the indictment with prejudice. Six months had passed since the original indictment.
The Government immediately appealed the dismissal, and the two appeals were consolidated. The Court of Appeals heard argument on October 15, 1976, and a divided panel affirmed in an unreported opinion on July 26, 1977. App. to Pet. for Cert. 88a-118a. On the Government’s motion, the court voted on October 17, 1977, to hear the case en banc. On March 6, 1978, the Court of Appeals en banc remanded for findings of fact on whether federal officials participated in the destruction of the dynamite and whether respondents were prejudiced by its destruction. The court retained jurisdiction over the appeal pending the District Court’s findings. The District Court issued its findings on August 23, 1978, and the case returned to the Court of Appeals.
On August 7, 1979, the Court of Appeals reversed the suppression order and directed that the dynamite counts be reinstated. United States v. Loud Hawk, 628 F. 2d, at 1150. The court also held that although the Government could have gone to trial on the firearms counts pending the appeal, the District Court erred in dismissing those counts with prejudice. Id., at 1151. The Court of Appeals denied respondents’ petition for rehearing on October 1, 1979. Respondents petitioned for certiorari; we denied the petition on March 3, 1980. 445 U. S. 917. The mandate of the Court of Appeals issued on March 12, 1980, 46 months after the Government filed its notice of appeal from the dismissal of the indictment. Respondents were unconditionally released during that time.
Following remand, the District Court ordered the Government to reindict on the firearms charges. Respondents filed a number of motions during June and July of 1980 in response to the superseding indictment, including a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. On August 8, 1980, the District Court granted the vindictive prosecution motion as to KaMook Banks and denied it as to respondents Dennis Banks, Render, and Loud Hawk. Both sides appealed. Respondents remained free on their own recognizance during this appeal.
The appeals were consolidated, and the Court of Appeals ordered expedited consideration. The court heard argument on January 7,1981, but did not issue its decision until July 29, 1982. The court sustained the Government’s position on all issues. United States v. Banks, 682 F. 2d 841. Respondents’ petitions for rehearing were denied on October 5, 1982. Respondents again petitioned for certiorari, and we denied the petition on January 10, 1983. 459 U. S. 1117. The Court of Appeals’ mandate issued on January 31, 1983, almost 29 months after the appeals were filed.
The District Court scheduled trial to begin on April 11, 1983. The Government sought and received a continuance until May 3, 1983, because of alleged difficulties in locating witnesses more than seven years after the arrests. Subsequently, the court on its own motion continued the trial date until May 23, 1983, and then again rescheduled the trial for June 13. The record in this Court does not reveal the reasons for these latter two continuances. Defendants objected to each continuance.
On May 20, 1983, the District Court again dismissed the indictment, this time on the ground that respondents’ Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. 564 F. Supp. 691. The Government appealed, and unsuccessfully urged the District Court to request that the Court of Appeals expedite the appeal. On its own motion the court treated the appeal as expedited, and heard argument on January 4, 1984. A divided panel affirmed on August 30, 1984. 741 F. 2d 1184. We granted certiorari, 471 U. S. 1014 (1985), and now reverse.
II
The Government argues that under United States v. MacDonald, 456 U. S. 1 (1982), the time during which defendants are neither under indictment nor subject to any restraint on their liberty should be excluded — weighed not at all — when considering a speedy trial claim. Respondents contend that even during the time the charges against them were dismissed, the Government was actively pursuing its case and they continued to be subjected to the possibility that bail might be imposed. This possibility, according to respondents, is sufficient to warrant counting the time towards a speedy trial claim.
The Court has found that when no indictment is outstanding, only the “actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge . . . engage the particular protections of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.” United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307, 320 (1971) (emphasis added); see MacDonald, supra, at 9. As we stated in MacDonald: “The speedy trial guarantee is designed to minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, to reduce the lesser, but nevertheless substantial, impairment of liberty imposed on an accused while released on bail, and to shorten the disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.” 456 U. S., at 8.
During much of the litigation, respondents were neither under indictment nor subject to bail. Further judicial proceedings would have been necessary to subject respondents to any actual restraints. Cf. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213 (1967). As we stated in MacDonald: “[W]ith no charges outstanding, personal liberty is certainly not impaired to the same degree as it is after arrest while charges are pending. After the charges against him have been dismissed, ‘a citizen suffers no restraints on his liberty and is [no longer] the subject of public accusation: his situation does not compare with that of a defendant who has been arrested and held to answer.’” 456 U. S., at 9.
Respondents argue that the speedy trial guarantee should apply to this period because the Government’s desire to prosecute them was a matter of public record. Public suspicion, however, is not sufficient to justify the delay in favor of a defendant’s speedy trial claim. We find that after the District Court dismissed the indictment against respondents and after respondents were freed without restraint, they were “in the same position as any other subject of a criminal investigation.” MacDonald, supra, at 8-9. See Marion, supra, at 309. The Speedy Trial Clause does not purport to protect a defendant from all effects flowing from a delay before trial. The Clause does not, for example, limit the length of a pre-indictment criminal investigation even though “the [suspect’s] knowledge of an ongoing criminal investigation will cause stress, discomfort, and perhaps a certain disruption in normal life.” 456 U. S., at 9.
Nor does the fact that respondents were ordered to appear at the evidentiary hearing held on remand in the District Court during the first appeal — an appearance they waived— constitute the sort of “actual restraint” required under our precedents as a basis for application of the Speedy Trial Clause. Finally, we are not persuaded that respondents’ need for counsel while their case was technically dismissed supports their speedy trial claim. Although the retention of counsel is frequently an inconvenience and an expense, the Speedy Trial Clause’s core concern is impairment of liberty; it does not shield a suspect or a defendant from every expense or inconvenience associated with criminal defense.
We therefore find that under the rule of MacDonald, when defendants are not incarcerated or subjected to other substantial restrictions on their liberty, a court should not weigh that time towards a claim under the Speedy Trial Clause.
I — I h-H h — i
The remaining issue is how to weigh the delay occasioned by an interlocutory appeal when the defendant is subject to indictment or restraint. As we have recognized, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial “is an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116, 120 (1966). These safeguards may be as important to the accused when the delay is occasioned by an unduly long appellate process as when the delay is caused by a lapse between the initial arrest and the drawing of a proper indictment, Ewell, supra, at 118-119, or by continuances in the date of trial, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 517-518 (1972).
At the same time, there are important public interests in the process of appellate review. The assurance that motions to suppress evidence or to dismiss an indictment are correctly decided through orderly appellate review safeguards both the rights of defendants and the “rights of public justice.” Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 87 (1905). The legislative history of 18 U. S. C. § 3731 “makes it clear that Congress intended to remove all statutory barriers to Government appeals and to allow appeals whenever the Constitution would permit.” United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 337 (1975).
It is, of course, true that the interests served by appellate review may sometimes stand in opposition to the right to a speedy trial. But, as the Court observed in United States v. Ewell, supra, at 121:
“It has long been the rule that when a defendant obtains a reversal of a prior, unsatisfied conviction, he may be retried in the normal course of events. . . . [This rule] has been thought wise because it protects the societal interest in trying people accused of crime, rather than granting them immunization because of legal error at a previous trial, and because it enhances the probability that appellate courts will be vigilant to strike down previous convictions that are tainted with reversible error. . . . These policies, so carefully preserved in this Court’s interpretation given the Double Jeopardy Clause, would be seriously undercut by [an] interpretation given the Speedy Trial Clause [that raised a Sixth Amendment obstacle to retrial following successful attack on conviction].”
In Barker, we adopted a four-part balancing test to determine whether a series of continuances infringed upon the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. 407 U. S., at 530. That test assessed the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Ibid (footnote omitted). The Barker test furnishes the flexibility to take account of the competing concerns of orderly appellate review on the one hand, and a speedy trial on the other. We therefore adopt this functional test to determine the extent to which appellate time consumed in the review of pretrial motions should weigh towards a defendant’s speedy trial claim. Under this test, we conclude that in this case the delays do not justify the “unsatisfactorily severe remedy of dismissal.” Id., at 522.
A
Barker’s first, third, and fourth factors present no great difficulty in application. The first factor, the length of delay, defines a threshold in the inquiry: there must be a delay long enough to be “presumptively prejudicial.” Id., at 530. Here, a 90-month delay in the trial of these serious charges is presumptively prejudicial and serves to trigger application of Barkers other factors. Ibid.
The third factor — the extent to which respondents have asserted their speedy trial rights — does not support their position. Although the Court of Appeals found that respondents have repeatedly moved for dismissal on speedy trial grounds, 741 F. 2d, at 1192, that finding alone does not establish that respondents have appropriately asserted their rights. We held in Barker that such assertions from defendants are “entitled to strong evidentiary weight” in determining whether their rights to a speedy trial have been denied. 407 U. S., at 531-532. These assertions, however, must be viewed in the light of respondents’ other conduct.
Here, respondents’ speedy trial claims are reminiscent of Penelope’s tapestry. At the same time respondents were making a record of claims in the District Court for speedy trial, they consumed six months by filing indisputably frivolous petitions for rehearing and for certiorari after this Court’s decision in United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U. S. 263 (1982) (federal courts without jurisdiction to hear defendant’s interlocutory appeal from denial of motion to dismiss indictment). They also filled the District Court’s docket with repetitive and unsuccessful motions. See, e. g., n. 10, supra.
The Court of Appeals gave “little weight” to the fourth factor, prejudice to respondents. At most, the court recognized the possibility of “impairment of a fair trial that may well result from the absence or loss of memory of witnesses in this case.” 741 F. 2d, at 1193. See Barker, 407 U. S., at 532. That possibility of prejudice is not sufficient to support respondents’ position that their speedy trial rights were violated. In this case, moreover, delay is a two-edged sword. It is the Government that bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The passage of time may make it difficult or impossible for the Government to carry this burden.
B
The flag all litigants seek to capture is the second factor, the reason for delay. In Barker, we held that “different weights should be assigned to different reasons.” Id., at 531. While a “deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense,” would be weighed heavily against the Government, a delay from “overcrowded courts” — as was the situation here — would be weighed “less heavily.” Ibid. Given the important public interests in appellate review, supra, at 313, it hardly need be said that an interlocutory appeal by the Government ordinarily is a valid reason that justifies delay. In assessing the purpose and reasonableness of such an appeal, courts may consider several factors. These include the strength of the Government’s position on the appealed issue, the importance of the issue in the posture of the case, and — in some cases — the seriousness of the crime. United States v. Herman, 576 F. 2d 1139, 1146 (CA5 1978) (Wisdom, J.). For example, a delay resulting from an appeal would weigh heavily against the Government if the issue were clearly tangential or frivolous. Ibid. Moreover, the charged offense usually must be sufficiently serious to justify restraints that may be imposed on the defendant pending the outcome of the appeal. Ibid.
Under Barker, delays in bringing the case to trial caused by the Government’s interlocutory appeal may be weighed in determining whether a defendant has suffered a violation of his rights to a speedy trial. It is clear in this case, however, that respondents have failed to show a reason for according these delays any effective weight towards their speedy trial claims. There is no showing of bad faith or dilatory purpose on the Government’s part. The Government’s position in each of the appeals was strong, and the reversals by the Court of Appeals are prima facie evidence of the reasonableness of the Government’s action. Moreover, despite the seriousness of the charged offenses, the District Court chose not to subject respondents to any actual restraints pending the outcome of the appeals.
The only remaining question is the weight to be attributed to delays caused by respondents’ interlocutory appeals. In that limited class of cases where a pretrial appeal by the defendant is appropriate, see, e. g., Hollywood Motor Car Co., supra, at 265-266, delays from such an appeal ordinarily will not weigh in favor of a defendant’s speedy trial claims. A defendant with a meritorious appeal would bear the heavy burden of showing an unreasonable delay caused by the prosecution in that appeal, or a wholly unjustifiable delay by the appellate court. A defendant who resorts to an interlocutory appeal normally should not be able upon return to the district court to reap the reward of dismissal for failure to receive a speedy trial. As one Court of Appeals has noted in the context of a District Court’s consideration of pretrial motions:
“Having sought the aid of the judicial process and realizing the deliberateness that a court employs in reaching a decision, the defendants are not now able to criticize the very process which they so frequently called upon.” United States v. Auerbach, 420 F. 2d 921, 924 (CA5 1969), rehearing denied, 423 F. 2d 676, cert. denied, 399 U. S. 905 (1970).
In the present case, respondents’ appeal was allowable under the law of the Ninth Circuit before our decision in Hollywood Motor Car, supra. But we find that their position was so lacking in merit that the time consumed by this appeal should not weigh in support of respondents’ speedy trial claim. Nor do we weigh the additional delay of six months resulting from respondents’ frivolous action in seeking rehearing and certiorari toward respondents’ speedy trial claim. See ibid., decided prior to these latter actions.
> i — j
We cannot hold, on the facts before us, that the delays asserted by respondents weigh sufficiently in support of their speedy trial claim to violate the Speedy Trial Clause. They do not justify the severe remedy of dismissing the indictment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. . . .”
The more stringent provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U. S. C. §3161 et seq., have mooted much litigation about the requirements of the Speedy Trial Clause as applied to federal prosecutions. The time devoted to pretrial appeals, however, is automatically excluded under the Act, §§ 3161(d)(2) and (h)(1)(E). These respondents must therefore seek any relief under the Speedy Trial Clause.
Dennis James Banks, one of the respondents in this action, was active in the American Indian Movement, and was a fugitive when these events occurred. The siege and occupation of Wounded Knee had taken place 60 months before, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was tracking Banks and his party as fugitives from that affair. United States v. Loud Hawk, 628 F. 2d 1139, 1141 (CA9 1979). For a description of the battle of Wounded Knee and the resultant violence and death, see United States v. Banks, 383 F. Supp. 389 (SD 1974), appeal dism’d, 513 F. 2d 1329 (CA8 1975); United States v. Banks, 374 F. Supp. 321 (SD 1974); United States v. Banks, 368 F. Supp. 1245 (SD 1973).
The Government represents that it would introduce evidence at trial showing that respondent Dennis Banks was the driver of one of the vehicles. Banks was not apprehended until January 26, 1976.
Respondents still dispute any characterization of the destroyed evidence as dynamite. Brief in Opposition 4, and n. 4; Brief for Respondents 4, n. 5. The Court of Appeals wrote:
“Each of the seven boxes was marked ‘High Explosives Dangerous’ and on the side had the following markings:
“‘50 lbs
Gelex 2 1x8
70% Strength
D73MAO 7B’
“together with the logo of the DuPont company prominently displayed. Inside were red cylindrical sticks with heavy wrapping paper covering the contents and marked:
“ ‘Explosives Dangerous
Gelex 2
70% Strength
E I Dupont De Nemours & Co. (Inc.).’”
United States v. Loud Hawk, supra, at 1144-1146.
We follow the practice of the opinions discussing the issue and refer to the destroyed evidence as dynamite. 741 F. 2d 1184, 1187 (CA9 1984); United States v. Loud Hawk, supra, at 1143. Cf. United States v. Banks, 682 F. 2d 841, 843 (CA9 1982) (“explosive material”).
App. 40a-42a, and n. 4, 90a.
The District Court denied the motion on January 21, 1976.
On January 21, 1976, the District Court postponed trial until March 8, 1976, on respondents’ motion. On respondents’ motion and over the objection of the Government, on February 18, 1976, the District Court again continued trial until May 12, 1976. Record, Doc. Nos. 62, 64.
The Government is permitted to pursue some interlocutory appeals under 18 U. S. C. § 3731. That section as then in effect read:
“In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.
“An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order of a district courts [sic] suppressing or excluding evidence or requiring the return of seized property in a criminal proceeding, not made after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or information, if the United States attorney certifies to the district court that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.
“The appeal in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the decision, judgment or order has been rendered and shall be diligently prosecuted.
“Pending the prosecution and determination of the appeal in the foregoing instances, the defendant shall be released in accordance with chapter 207 of this title.
“The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.”
App. 57. The Government obtained a new indictment from the grand jury that recharged with the original firearms count (although it substituted “receiving” for “transporting”) and two of the original three dynamite device counts. The new indictment also charged the defendants with two new destructive device counts relating to a slightly different type of destructive device. It also charged respondent KaMook Banks with a new count of receiving firearms while under indictment for a felony.
A listing of the relevant docket entries, id., at 38-145, shows that the motions filed during this 4-week period included: motion for a transcript of a recently held hearing (June 24,1980), id., at 61; motion to dismiss counts three and four for insufficient allegations (July 7, 1980), id., at 63; motion to suppress evidence of pretrial photographic identification and “Tainted Potential Courtroom Identification,” ibid.; motion for change injury selection procedure, ibid.; motion to dismiss because of the grand jury composition, ibid.; motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, ibid.; motion to dismiss for preindictment delay, ibid.; motion for disclosure and production (July 21, 1980), id., at 64; motion for appointment of investigator at Government expense, ibid.; and third motion to dismiss for gross governmental misconduct, ibid. All motions except for KaMook Banks’ vindictive prosecution motion were denied (Aug. 5, 1980). Id., at 65-66.
The Ninth Circuit’s holding conflicts with three other Circuits. See United States v. Herman, 576 F. 2d 1139, 1146 (CA5 1978); United States v. Jackson, 508 F. 2d 1001, 1004 (CA7 1975); United States v. Bishton, 150 U. S. App. D. C. 51, 54, 463 F. 2d 887, 890 (1972).
In MacDonald, we held that where the Government has dismissed an indictment and the defendant is not subject to actual restraints on his liberty, the Speedy Trial Clause does not apply.
In those instances where the defendant is subject to incarceration or bail, the courts would have to engage in a balancing of the restrictions imposed and their effect on the defendant, the necessity for delay, and the length of delay, using the approach we have outlined below. Infra, at 315-316.
Homer, The Odyssey, Book II, lines 91-105 (R. Lattimore trans. 1965).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The basic question here is whether the Commonwealth of Virginia, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, may enjoin peaceful picketing when it is carried on for purposes in conflict with the Virginia Right to Work Statute. A question also before us is whether the record in this case justifies the finding, made below, that the picketing was for such purposes. We answer each in the affirmative.
A bill of complaint was filed September 25, 1950, in the Law and Equity Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, by respondents, doing a general contracting business there. They named as defendants Local Union No. 10, United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters of the United States and Canada of the American Federation of Labor, here called the Plumbers Union, three other local unions, the business agents of each of the unions and the Richmond Building & Construction Trades Council. The complaint alleged in substance that respondents had begun work under their contract with the City of Richmond to build the George Washington Carver School, that early completion of the school was urgent, that respondents had made contracts with all necessary subcontractors, that some of the subcontractors employed only union labor while others employed nonunion as well as union labor, that in July certain of the defendants had requested that all nonunion labor on the project be laid off and had said that, unless that were done, “every effort would be made to prevent any union labor employed ... on that project from continuing work thereon,” that on September 25 certain of the defendants had picketed the project, carrying a sign reading “This Is Not a Union Job. Richmond Trades Council,” that, as a result of such picketing, union members on the job had refused to continue to work there and that, therefore, the project had “slowed to a standstill.” The complaint further alleged that the foregoing demands sought to induce respondents to take action which would subject them to criminal and civil liabilities under the Virginia Right to Work Statute and to break respondents’ contracts with such of their subcontractors as did not employ all union labor. Finally, it alleged that the objectives of defendants in making such demands and conducting such picketing were to prevent nonunion employees from working on the project. On the strength of such allegations, the trial court granted respondents the temporary injunction they sought and the picketing ceased. A motion to dissolve the injunction was denied, an answer was filed, depositions were taken and the temporary injunction was continued in effect until July 17, 1951. On that date, the trial court made the injunction permanent. The court rendered no opinion but included the following statement in its decree:
“ [I]t appearing to the Court that the picketing complained of was conducted and carried on by the defendants, except for those defendants hereinafter noted, and for aims, purposes and objectives in conflict with the provisions of the Right To Work laws of the State of Virginia and, therefore, illegal, that a permanent injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm and damage to the complainants, and that complainants have already been damaged to the extent of One Hundred and Ninety ($190.00) Dollars, the Court doth so find; . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
January 23, 1952, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, also without opinion, refused to hear an appeal but said in its order “the court being of opinion that the said decrees [of the trial court] are plainly right, doth reject said petition and refuse said appeal and super-sedeas, the effect of which is to affirm the decree of the said law and equity court.” Because of the importance of the issue in the practical administration of labor law, we granted certiorari. 344 U. S. 811. Respondents filed no brief here other than that in opposition to the petition for certiorari and submitted their case without oral argument.
A- few days before our grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in another case, reached a result which petitioners claim is in conflict with its judgment in the instant case. Painters & Paperhangers Local Union No. 1018 v. Rountree Corp., 194 Va. 148, 72 S. E. 2d 402. We find that decision helpful as upholding the constitutionality of the Right to Work Statute and interpreting its meaning, but we do not find it inconsistent with the result below. See also, Edwards v. Virginia, 191 Va. 272, 60 S. E. 2d 916; Finney v. Hawkins, 189 Va. 878, 54 S. E. 2d 872; American Federation of Labor v. American Sash Co., 335 U. S. 538; Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U. S. 525.
In the Rountree case, 194 Va., at 154, 72 S. E. 2d, at 405, the highest court of Virginia holds that the Statute does not prohibit peaceful picketing “unless ... for an unlawful purpose.” It adds that “a purpose to compel the complainants to discharge the non-union painters or to compel the painters to join the union as a condition of their continued employment” would be an unlawful purpose, but it fails to find the existence of such a purpose. On the other hand, in the instant case, the same court states that the injunctive decrees of the trial court “are plainly right.” It thereby sustains the trial court’s finding that “the picketing complained of was . . . carried on by the defendants ... for aims, purposes and objectives in conflict with the provisions of the Right To Work laws of the State of Virginia . . . .” The Rountree case thus reflects an instance of picketing so conducted as not to be in violation of the Right to Work Statute, whereas the facts in the instant case reflect conduct that is in conflict with the provisions of that Statute. However innocent the picketing appeared while in progress, the Virginia courts found that it was combined with conduct and circumstances occurring before and during the picketing that demonstrated a purpose on the part of petitioners that was in conflict with the Right to Work Statute.
In a case of this kind, we are justified in searching the record to determine whether the crucial finding by the state courts had a reasonable basis in the evidence. The record consists of the depositions of nine witnesses taken six to nine months after the events described. There is some conflict in the testimony as to what took place July 27, 28, and September 25, 26. The record contains, however, ample grounds for sustaining the crucial findings of the trial court. Those- grounds appear particularly in the testimony of respondent O. J. Graham and his general manager, J. Q. Aeree, as to what was said during their conversation, on July 28, 1950, with J. F. Joinville, business agent of the Plumbers Union and president of the Richmond Building & Construction Trades Council, together with Henry Cochran, business agent of the Engineers Union and Secretary and Treasurer of the same Trades Council.
It is undisputed that the picketing lasted from 8 a. m., September 25, until stopped by injunction the following noon. The picketing was peaceful in appearance. There usually was but one picket and there never were more than two pickets on duty at a time. There was no violence and no use of abusive language. Each picket walked up and down the sidewalk adjoining the project carrying a sign bearing substantially the language quoted in the complaint. September 25, the picketing was done consecutively by the respective business agents of the Painters, Plumbers, Plasterers and Ironworkers unions. The premises picketed were frequented by few except the construction workers. The project was in its earliest stages. Before the picketing began, there were not more than fourteen men at work. Of these, three union carpenters worked about one hour on September 25. They left the project when the picketing began and returned a few days after the picketing stopped. Two union iron-workers or rodmen gave notice on the preceding Saturday that picketing was to begin Monday, September 25, and that, therefore, they would not come to work. They never returned and the contractor was delayed several days while seeking to replace them. A nonunion plumber was assisted by a helper, who, oddly enough, belonged to a printers union. The plumber did not stop work but his helper left when the picketing began.
The others present were six or seven laborers whose status as union men was not clear. They did not quit but the work on the project as a whole came to a substantial standstill during the week of September 25, because the principal activity then called for was that of pouring concrete which required the services of rodmen as well as those of laborers.
The effect of the picketing was confirmatory of its purpose as found by the trial court. Petitioners here engaged in more than the mere publication of the fact that the job was not 100% union. Their picketing was done at such a place and in such a manner that, coupled with established union policies and traditions, it caused the union men to stop work and thus slow the project to a general standstill. Such conduct, furthermore, was conditioned upon the fact that some of the work on this job, particularly the plumbing, was being done by a subcontractor who employed nonunion labor, whereas Joinville had demanded of the general contractor that the job be “one hundred per cent union.”
The policy of Virginia which is expressed in its Right to Work Statute is summarized as follows by its highest court:
“It provides in substance that neither membership nor non-membership in a labor union shall be made a condition of employment; that a contract limiting employment to union members is against public policy; and that a person denied employment because he is either a member of a union or not a member of a union shall have a right of action for damages.” Finney v. Hawkins, 189 Va. 878, 880, 54 S. E. 2d 872, 874.
Based upon the findings of the trial court, we have a case in which picketing was undertaken and carried on with at least one of its substantial purposes in conflict with the declared policy of Virginia. The immediate results of the picketing demonstrated its potential effectiveness, unless enjoined, as a practical means of putting pressure on the general contractor to eliminate from further participation all nonunion men or all subcontractors employing nonunion men on the project.
Assuming the above conclusions to have been established, petitioners still contend that the injunction in this case was inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On the reasoning and authority of our recent decisions, we reaffirm our position to the contrary. Building Service Union v. Gazzam, 339 U. S. 532; Teamsters Union v. Hanke, 339 U. S. 470; Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U. S. 460; Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U. S. 490; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 537-538, and 543-544 (concurring opinion); Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769, 776-777 (concurring opinion); Carpenters Union v. Ritter’s Cafe, 315 U. S. 722; Carlson v. California, 310 U. S. 106; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 103-104; Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U. S. 468, 479-481. See also, Electrical Workers v. Labor Board, 341 U. S. 694, 705.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia accordingly is
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Black dissents.
“1. Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Virginia that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union or labor organization.
“Section 2. Any agreement or combination between any employer and any labor union or labor organization whereby persons not members of such union or organization shall be denied the right to work for said employer, or whereby such membership is made a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer, or whereby any such union or organization acquires an employment monopoly in any enterprise, is hereby declared to be against public policy and an illegal combination or conspiracy.
“Section 3. No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer.
“Section 4. No person shall be required by an employer to abstain or refrain from membership in any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.
“Section 5. No employer shall require any person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to pay any dues, fees or other charges of any kind to any labor union or labor organization.
“Section 6. Any person who may be denied employment or be deprived of continuation of his employment in violation of sections three, four or five or of one or more of such sections, shall be entitled to recover from such employer and from any other person, firm, corporation or association acting in concert with him by appropriate action in the courts of this Commonwealth such damages as he may have sustained by reason of such denial or deprivation of employmerffc.
“Section 7. The provisions of this act shall not apply to any lawful contract in force on the effective date hereof but they shall apply in all respects to contracts entered into thereafter and to any renewal or extension of an existing contract.” Va. Acts, Extra Session 1947, c. 2, Va. Code, 1950, §§ 40-68 to 40-74, inclusive.
See also, recognition of such state legislation in the Taft-Hartley Act:
“Sec. 14. . . .
“(b) Nothing in this Act [National Labor Relations Act, as amended] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.” 61 Stat. 151, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 164 (b).
The unions named were Local Union No. 1018, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America; Local Union No. 64, Cement Finishers and Operative Plasterers International Association; and Local Union No. 147, International Union of Operating Engineers, each affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
The decree dismissed the complaint against Local Union No. 147 and its business agent, but enjoined the remaining defendants “from interfering with, molesting or otherwise carrying on their picketing or other activities in front of or around the site of construction of George Washington Carver School in the City of Richmond, Virginia.”
Petitioners now object to the breadth of the terms of the injunction. That objection was not presented in their petition for cer-tiorari and is not considered here.
“. . . it is of prime importance that no constitutional freedom, least of all the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, be defeated by insubstantial findings of fact screening reality. That is why this Court has the ultimate power to search the records in the state courts where a claim of constitutionality is effectively made. . . .
“. . . We have not only his [the master’s] findings but his findings authenticated by the State of Illinois speaking through her supreme court. We can reject such a determination only if we can say that it is so without warrant as to be a palpable evasion of the constitutional guarantee here invoked.” Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U. S. 287, 293, 294.
For example, O. J. Graham testified:
“A. ... he [Joinville] finally got into the question of this particular job at the George Washington Carver School and Mr. Joinville said he wanted us to make it one hundred per cent union job and I told him we couldn’t do that, that we had already let sub-contracts that were union and non-union and we weren’t making any distinction between the two, generally speaking, unless something was wrong or unless we didn’t think the sub-contractor could perform like we wanted him to; that we let the contract to the lowest bidder, whether he was union or non-union, and Mr. Joinville then said about this plumbing and heating contract he wanted me to cancel the contract with Talley and I told him we couldn’t do that, that a contract with a non-union man was just as valid as one with a union man, and that led on into a discussion of the general policy of the Richmond Trades Council.
“The way that came up was I asked Mr. Joinville why pick out this job, that a number of other contractors were operating the same as we were now and we had been very friendly with the unions, hadn’t had any trouble with them and sometime past we had worked probably ninety per cent union on some jobs and our relations up to this time had been very good. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘from now on, we are not going to permit the things we have been permitting in the past and if a job isn’t one hundred per cent union, the union labor is not going to work on it; it has got to be one hundred per cent union.’ If it wasn’t — talking about this particular job together with any other jobs in the future, not only of ours, but other people’s as well, that they would just have to take what came from the union as a result of not being one hundred per cent union, and we did discuss to some degree the right-to-work law and the effect that it had had or should have on labor and I told him I didn’t see how we could comply with the law and make any job one hundred per cent union. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘nobody else is paying any attention to the right-to-work law; I don’t see any reason why Graham Brothers should be so concerned about it.’ ”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the following Chicago ordinance:
“A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
“(i) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any primary or secondary school building while the school is in session and one-half hour before the school is in session and one-half hour after the school session has been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute . . . Municipal Code, c. 193-1 (i).
The suit was brought by Earl Mosley, a federal postal employee, who for seven months prior to the enactment of the ordinance had frequently picketed Jones Commercial High School in Chicago. During school hours and usually by himself, Mosley would walk the public sidewalk adjoining the school, carrying a sign that read: “Jones High School practices black discrimination. Jones High School has a black quota.” His lonely crusade was always peaceful, orderly, and quiet, and was conceded to be so by the city of Chicago.
On March 26, 1968, Chapter 193-1 (i) was passed, to become effective on April 5. Seeing a newspaper announcement of the new ordinance, Mosley contacted the Chicago Police Department to find out how the ordinance would affect him; he was told that, if his picketing continued, he would be arrested. On April 4, the day before the ordinance became effective, Mosley ended his picketing next to the school. Thereafter, he brought this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2201 and 42 U. S. C. § 1983. He alleged a violation of constitutional rights in that (1) the statute punished activity protected by the First Amendment; and (2) by exempting only peaceful labor picketing from its general prohibition against picketing, the statute denied him “equal protection of the law in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments . . .
After a hearing, the District Court granted a directed verdict dismissing the complaint. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that because the ordinance prohibited even peaceful picketing next to a school, it was overbroad and therefore “patently unconstitutional on its face.” 432 F. 2d 1256, 1259 (1970). We granted certiorari, 404 U. S. 821 (1971), to consider this case along with Grayned v. City of Rockford, post, p. 104, in which an almost identical ordinance was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court, 46 Ill. 2d 492, 496, 263 N. E. 2d 866, 868 (1970). We affirm the judgment of the Seventh Circuit, although we decide this case on the ground not reached by that court. We hold that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it makes an impermissible distinction between labor picketing and other peaceful picketing.
I
The city of Chicago exempts peaceful labor picketing from its general prohibition on picketing next to a school. The question we consider here is whether this selective exclusion from a public place is permitted. Our answer is “No.”
Because Chicago treats some picketing differently from others, we analyze this ordinance in terms of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course, the equal protection claim in this case is closely intertwined with First Amendment interests; the Chicago ordinance affects picketing, which is expressive conduct; moreover, it does so by classifications formulated in terms of the subject of the picketing. As in all equal protection cases, however, the crucial question is whether there is an appropriate governmental interest suitably furthered by the differential treatment. See Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71, 75-77 (1971); Weber v. Aetna Casualty Co., 406 U. S. 164 (1972); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 335 (1972).
The central problem with Chicago’s ordinance is that it describes permissible picketing in terms of its subject matter. Peaceful picketing on the subject of a school’s labor-management dispute is permitted, but all other peaceful picketing is prohibited. The operative distinction is the message on a picket sign. But, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 24 (1971); Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 (1969); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 269-270 (1964), and cases cited; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 445 (1963); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 388-389 (1962); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365 (1937). To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 270.
Necessarily, then, under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, 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. And it may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in public facilities. There is an “equality of status in the field of ideas,” and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone.
Guided by these principles, we have frequently condemned such discrimination among different users of the same medium for expression. In Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268 (1951), a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses were denied a permit to use a city park for Bible talks, although other political and religious groups had been allowed to put the park to analogous uses. Concluding that the permit was denied because of the city’s “dislike for or disagreement with the Witnesses or their views,” this Court held that the permit refusal violated “[t]he right to equal protection of the laws, in the exercise of those freedoms of speech and religion protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id., at 272. The Court followed Niemotko in Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67 (1953), where again the Jehovah’s Witnesses were refused permission to conduct religious services in a park, although other religious groups had been permitted to do so. Similarly, because of their potential use as instruments for selectively suppressing some points of view, this Court has condemned licensing schemes that lodge broad discretion in a public official to permit speech-related activity, see, e. g., Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147 (1969); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 555-558 (1965); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 321-325 (1958), and cases cited; Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558, 560-562 (1948).
The late Mr. Justice Black, who thought that picketing was not only a method of expressing an idea but also conduct subject to broad state regulation, nevertheless recognized the deficiencies of laws like Chicago’s ordinance. This was the thrust of his opinion concurring in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965):
“[B]y specifically permitting picketing for the publication of labor union views [but prohibiting other sorts of picketing], Louisiana is attempting to pick and choose among the views it is willing to have discussed on its streets. It thus is trying to prescribe by law what matters of public interest people whom it allows to assemble on its streets may and may not discuss. This seems to me to be censorship in a most odious form, unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And to deny this appellant and his group use of the streets because of their views against racial discrimination, while allowing other groups to use the streets to voice opinions on other subjects, also amounts, I think, to an invidious discrimination forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 581.
We accept Mr. Justice Black’s quoted views. Cf. NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 76 (1964) (Black, J., concurring).
II
This is not to say that all picketing must always be allowed. We have continually recognized that reasonable “time, place and manner” regulations of picketing may be necessary to further significant governmental interests. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 575-576 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, 398 (1953); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S., at 554-555; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 46-48 (1966). Similarly, under an equal protection analysis, there may be sufficient regulatory interests justifying selective exclusions or distinctions among pickets. Conflicting demands on the same place may compel the State to make choices among potential users and uses. And the State may have a legitimate interest in prohibiting some picketing to protect public order. But these justifications for selective exclusions from a public forum must be carefully scrutinized. Because picketing plainly involves expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, see, e. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); Teamsters Union v. Newell, 356 U. S. 341 (1958); Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, 185 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, supra, at 546; Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U. S. 308, 314-315 (1968); id., at 337 (White, J., dissenting); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111, 112 (1969); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S., at 155, discriminations among pickets must be tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest. Cf. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23 (1968).
Ill
In this case, the ordinance itself describes impermissible picketing not in terms of time, place, and manner, but in terms of subject matter. The regulation “thus slip [s] from the neutrality of time, place, and circumstance into a concern about content.” This is never permitted. In spite of this, Chicago urges that the ordinance is not improper content censorship, but rather a device for preventing disruption of the school. Cities certainly have a substantial interest in stopping picketing which disrupts a school. “The crucial question, however, is whether [Chicago’s ordinance] advances that objective in a manner consistent with the command of the Equal Protection Clause.” Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S., at 76. It does not.
Although preventing school disruption is a city’s legitimate concern, Chicago itself has determined that peaceful labor picketing during school hours is not an undue interference with school. Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, Chicago may not maintain that other picketing disrupts the school unless that picketing is clearly more disruptive than the picketing Chicago already permits. Cf. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 511 (1969); Wirta v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 68 Cal. 2d 51, 434 P. 2d 982 (1967). If peaceful labor picketing is permitted, there is no justification for prohibiting all nonlabor picketing, both peaceful and nonpeaceful. “Peaceful” nonlabor picketing, however the term “peaceful” is defined, is obviously no more disruptive than “peaceful” labor picketing. But Chicago’s ordinance permits the latter and prohibits the former. Such unequal treatment is exactly what was condemned in Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S., at 272-273.
Similarly, we reject the city’s argument that, although it permits peaceful labor picketing, it may prohibit all nonlabor picketing because, as a class, nonlabor picketing is more prone to produce violence than labor picketing. Predictions about imminent disruption from picketing involve judgments appropriately made on an individualized basis, not by means of broad classifications, especially those based on subject matter. Freedom of expression, and its intersection with the guarantee of equal protection, would rest on a soft foundation indeed if government could distinguish among picketers on such a wholesale and categorical basis. “ [I] n our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S., at 508. Some labor picketing is peaceful, some disorderly; the same is true of picketing on other themes. No labor picketing could be more peaceful or less prone to violence than Mosley’s solitary vigil. In seeking to restrict nonlabor picketing that is clearly more disruptive than peaceful labor picketing, Chicago may not prohibit all nonlabor picketing at the school forum.
The Equal Protection Clause requires that statutes affecting First Amendment interests be narrowly tailored to their legitimate objectives. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23 (1968); see generally Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S., at 342-343. Chicago may not vindicate its interest in preventing disruption by the wholesale exclusion of picketing on all but one preferred subject. Given what Chicago tolerates from labor picketing, the excesses of some nonlabor picketing may not be controlled by a broad ordinance prohibiting both peaceful and violent picketing. Such excesses “can be controlled by narrowly drawn statutes,” Saia v. New York, 334 U. S., at 562, focusing on the abuses and dealing evenhandedly with picketing regardless of subject matter. Chicago’s ordinance imposes a selective restriction on expressive conduct far “greater than is essential to the furtherance of [a substantial governmental] interest.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377 (1968). Far from being tailored to a substantial governmental interest, the discrimination among pickets is based on the content of their expression. Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, it may not stand.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist concur in the result.
Occasionally, thereafter, Mosley would picket across the street, outside the 150-foot zone. At the hearing below, Mosley testified that “when I was across the street from the school, 150 feet away, you cannot hardly see me. The question that all of the people asked me was, ‘Where is the school located?’ They don’t even see the school across the street, you know. So, what it does, it takes away a certain amount of the effectiveness .... [W]hen I am across the street, I am sort of out of the picture . . . .” App. 24-25.
By its terms, the statute exempts “the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute.” It is undisputed that this exemption applies only to labor picketing of a school involved in a labor dispute.
For discussions of the First Amendment-Equal Protection intersection, see Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 29-30; T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 303-304, 305-307 (1970). Blasi, Prior Restraints on Demonstrations, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 1482, 1492-1497 (1970); Van Alstyne, Political Speakers at State Universities: Some Constitutional Considerations, 111 U. Pa. L. Rev. 328, 337-339 (1963); see also Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 272 (1951).
A. Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of The People 27 (1948).
See also Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 510-511 (1969); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 47 (1966); Carlson v. California, 310 U. S. 106, 112 (1940); Wirta v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 68 Cal. 2d 51, 434 P. 2d 982 (1967); Bynum v. Schiro, 219 F. Supp. 204 (ED La. 1963), aff’d, 375 U. S. 395 (1964); East Meadow Assn. v. Board of Education, 18 N. Y. 2d 129, 219 N. E. 2d 172 (1966); Matter of Madole v. Barnes, 20 N. Y. 2d 169, 229 N. E. 2d 20 (1967); United States v. Crowthers, 456 F. 2d 1074 (CA4 1972); and the litigation in Ellis v. Dixon, 349 U. S. 458 (1955). Cf. Flower v. United States, 407 U. S. 197 (1972).
Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 29. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 556 n. 14, where the Court noted that the exemption for labor picketing in a statute otherwise barring on its face all street assemblies and parades, “points up the fact that the statute reaches beyond mere traffic regulation to restrictions on expression.”
The city notes in its brief, pp. 28-30:
“Although the civil rights movement has understandably endeavored to press into its service the constitutional precedents developed in labor relations litigation, there are important differences between labor picketing and picketing by civil rights groups. . . . Labor picketing is now usually token picketing. ... It seldom leads to disruption of the public peace, hardly ever to window smashing, arson. Labor picketing can be carried on without interrupting classes or even distracting the students. ... As we all know, student demonstrations at schools — and even such demonstrations by parents and 'concerned citizens’ — are utterly different. Mass picketing, sit-ins, smashed windows have been the order of the day. The very purpose of such demonstrations often is to bring the educational process to a halt.”
In a variety of contexts we have said that “even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960). This standard, of course, has been carefully applied when First Amendment interests are involved. E. g., Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 164 (1939); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364-365 (1937); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 307 (1940); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 562-564 (1965); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968).
Chicago argued below that the labor exemption in the ordinance was necessitated by federal pre-emption of the regulation of labor relations. The city now recognizes that the National Labor Relations Act specifically exempts States and subdivisions (and therefore cities and their public school boards) from the definition of “employer” within the Act. 29 U. S. C. § 152. Nevertheless, Chicago urges that the pre-emption argument still has “some merit.” It argues that “since observance by employees of private employers of picket lines of public employees can have repercussions in the federal sphere, the City was well advised to avoid this quagmire of labor law and labor relations by exempting labor picketing from the ordinance.” Reply Brief 12. This attenuated interest, at best a claim of small administrative convenience and perhaps merely a confession of legislative laziness, cannot justify the blanket permission given to labor picketing and the blanket prohibition applicable to others.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C. §§2281, 2284, dismissing a complaint to have the Michigan Watercraft Pollution Control Act of 1970, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 323.331 et seg. (Supp. 1971), declared invalid and its enforcement enjoined. 336 F. Supp. 248 (1971). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 U. S. 982 (1971), and affirm the District Court’s determination to abstain from decision pending state court proceedings.
The Michigan statute, effective January 1, 1971, provides in pertinent part:
“Sec. 3. (1) A person [defined in § 2 (i) to mean “an individual, partnership, firm, corporation, association or other entity”] shall not place, throw, deposit, discharge or cause to be discharged into or onto the waters of this state, any ... sewage [defined in § 2 (d) to mean “all human body wastes, treated or untreated”] ... or other liquid or solid materials which render the water unsightly, noxious or otherwise unwholesome so as to be detrimental to the public health or welfare or to the enjoyment of the water for recreational purposes.
“(2) It is unlawful to discharge, dump, throw or deposit . . . sewage . . . from a recreational, domestic or foreign watercraft used for pleasure or for the purpose of carrying passengers, cargo or otherwise engaged in commerce on the waters of this state.
“Sec. 4. (1) Any pleasure or recreational watercraft operated on the waters of this state which is moored or registered in another state or jurisdiction, if equipped with a pollution control device approved by that jurisdiction, may be approved by the [State Water Resources Commission of the Department of Natural Resources] to operate on the waters of this state.
“(2) A person owning, operating or otherwise concerned in the operation, navigation or management -of a watercraft [defined in § 2 (g) to include “foreign and domestic vessels engaged in commerce upon the waters of this state” as well as “privately owned recreational watercraft”] having a marine toilet shall not own, use or permit the use of such toilet on the waters of this state unless the toilet is equipped with 1 of the following pollution control devices:
“(a) A holding tank or self-contained marine toilet which will retain all sewage produced on the watercraft for subsequent disposal at approved dockside or onshore collection and treatment facilities.
“(b) An incinerating device which will reduce to ash all sewage produced on the watercraft. The ash shall be disposed of onshore in a manner which will preclude pollution.
“Sec. 8. . . . Commercial docks and wharfs designed for receiving and loading cargo and/or freight from commercial watercraft must furnish facilities, if determined necessary, as prescribed by the commission, to accommodate discharge of sewage from heads and galleys ; . . [of] the watercraft which utilize the docks or wharfs.
“Sec. 10. The commission may promulgate all rules necessary or convenient for the carrying out of duties and powers conferred by this act.
“Sec. 11. Any person who violates any provision of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $500.00. To be enforceable, the provision or the rule shall be of such flexibility that a watercraft owner, in carrying out the provision or rule, is able to maintain maritime safety requirements and comply with the federal marine and navigation laws and regulations.”
Appellees — the State Attorney General, the Department of Natural Resources and its Director, and the Water Resources Commission and its Executive Secretary — read these provisions as prohibiting the discharge of sewage, whether treated or untreated, in Michigan waters and as requiring vessels with marine toilets to have sewage storage devices.
Appellants — the Lake Carriers’ Association and individual members who own or operate federally enrolled and licensed Great Lakes bulk cargo vessels — challenge the Michigan law on a variety of grounds. They urge that the Michigan law is beyond the State’s police power and places an undue burden on interstate and foreign commerce, impermissibly interferes with uniform maritime law, denies them due process and equal protection of the laws, and is unconstitutionally vague. They also contend that the Michigan statute conflicts with or is pre-empted by federal law, primarily the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Under the Water Quality Improvement Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is directed “[a]s soon as possible, after April 3, 1970, . . . [to] promulgate Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation devices . . . which shall be designed to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the United States from new vessels and existing vessels, except vessels not equipped with installed toilet facilities.” 84 Stat. 100, 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (b)(1). These standards, which as of now are not issued, are to become effective for new vessels two years after promulgation and for existing vessels five years after promulgation. 84 Stat. 101, 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (c)(1). Thereafter, “no State . . . shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation . . . with respect to the design, manufacture, or installation or use of any marine sanitation device on any vessel subject to the provisions of this section.” Id., § 1163 (f). However, “[u]pon application by a State, and where the Administrator determines that any applicable water quality standards require such a prohibition, he shall by regulation completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of any sewage (whether treated or not) into those waters of such State which are the subject of the application and to which such standards apply.” Ibid. Thus, the federal law appears to contemplate sewage control through on-board treatment before disposal in navigable waters, unless the Administrator provides on special application for a complete prohibition on discharge in designated areas.
The District Court below did not reach the merits of appellants’ complaint on the ground that “the lack of a justiciable controversy precludes entry of this Court into the matter.” 336 F. Supp., at 253¡ “An overview of the factual situation presented by the evidence in this case,” said the District Court, “compels but one conclusion:''that the plaintiffs here are seeking an advisory opinion . . . Ibid. The District Court also found “compelling reasons to abstain from consideration of the matter in its present posture,” ibid. — namely, “the attitude of Michigan authorities who seek the cooperation of the industry in the implementation of its program and have not instigated, nor does it appear, threatened criminal prosecutions,” id., at 252; the availability of declaratory relief in Michigan courts; the possibility of a complete prohibition on the discharge of sewage in Michigan’s navigable waters under federal law; the absence of existing conflict between the Michigan requirements and other state laws; and the publication of proposed federal standards that might be considered by Michigan in the interpretation and enforcement of its statute.
Appellants now urge that their complaint does present an “actual controversy” within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, that is ripe for decision. We agree. The test to be applied, of course, is the familiar one stated in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941): “Basically, the question in each case is whether . . . there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Compare, e. g., ibid., with, e. g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969). Since, as appellees concede, the Michigan requirements on the discharge of sewage will be preempted when the federal standards become effective, the gist of appellants’ grievance is that, according to Michigan authorities, they are required under Michigan law to install sewage storage devices that (1) may become unnecessary once federal standards, authorizing discharge of treated sewage, become applicable or (2) may, in any event, conflict with other state regulations pending the promulgation and effective date of the federal standards. The immediacy and reality of appellants’ concerns do not depend, contrary to what the District Court may have considered, on the probability that federal standards will authorize discharge of treated sewage in Michigan waters or that other States will implement sewage control requirements inconsistent with those of Michigan. They depend instead only on the present effectiveness in fact of the obligation under the Michigan statute to install sewage storage devices. For if appellants are now under such an obligation, that in and of itself makes their attack on the validity of the law a live controversy, and not an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion. See, e. g., Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761 (1945) (existing burden on interstate commerce justiciable controversy in absence of federal pre-emption or other conflicting state laws).
Regarding the present effectiveness in fact of a statutory obligation, the plurality opinion in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 508 (1961), stated that a justiciable controversy does not exist where “compliance with [challenged] statutes is uncoerced by the risk of their enforcement.” That, however, is not this case. Although appellees have indicated that they will not prosecute under the Michigan act until adequate land-based pump-out facilities are available to service vessels equipped with sewage storage devices, they have sought on the basis of the act and the threat of future enforcement to obtain compliance as soon as possible. The following colloquy that occurred on oral argument here is instructive, Tr. of Oral Arg. 34-35:
“[Appellees]: . . . We urge that the leadtime for the construction or erection of pump-out facilities is necessary, and there would be no enforcement until pump-out facilities were available.
“Q. But you’re insisting that the carriers get ready to comply and-
“[Appellees]: Yes, sir.
“Q. —because if you wait until pump-out stations are ready to begin [servicing] tanks, then there will be another great delay?
“[Appellees]: Oh, yes, sir.
“Q. So you have a rather concrete confrontation with these carriers now, don’t you?
“[Appellees]: Yes, sir, we do. . . .”
Thus, if appellants are to avoid prosecution, they must be prepared, according to Michigan authorities, to retain all sewage on board as soon as pump-out facilities are available, which, in turn, means that they must promptly install sewage storage devices. In this circumstance, compliance is coerced by the threat of enforcement, and the controversy is both immediate and real. See, e. g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); City of Altus, Oklahoma v. Carr, 255 F. Supp. 828, aff’d per curiam, 385 U. S. 35 (1966). See generally, e. g., Comment, 62 Col. L. Rev. 106 (1962).
Appellants next argue that the District Court erred in abstaining from deciding the merits of their complaint. We agree that abstention was hot proper on the majority of grounds given by the District Court, but hold that abstention was, nevertheless, appropriate for another reason suggested but not fully articulated in its opinion. Abstention is a "judge-made doctrine . .. , first fashioned in 1941 in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, [that] sanctions . . . escape [from immediate decision] only in narrowly limited ‘special circumstances,’ Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, 492,” Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 248 (1967), justifying “the delay and expense to which application of the abstention doctrine inevitably gives rise.” England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 418 (1964). The majority of circumstances relied on by the District Court in this case do not fall within that category. First, the absence of an immediate threat of prosecution does not argue against reaching the merits of appellants’ complaint. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), this Court held that, apart from “extraordinary circumstances,” a federal court may not enjoin a pending state prosecution or declare invalid the statute under which the prosecution was brought. The decisions there were premised on considerations of equity practice and comity in our federal system that have little force in the absence of a pending state proceeding. In that circumstance, exercise of federal court jurisdiction ordinarily is appropriate if the conditions for declaratory or injunctive relief are met. See generally Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 93 (1971) (separate opinion).
Similarly, the availability of declaratory relief in Michigan courts on appellants’ federal claims is wholly beside the point. In Zwickler v. Koota, supra, at 248, we said:
“In thus [establishing jurisdiction for the exercise of] federal judicial power, Congress imposed the duty upon all levels of the federal judiciary to give due respect to a suitor’s choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal constitutional claims. Plainly, escape from that duty is not permissible merely because state courts also have the solemn responsibility, equally with the federal courts, '. . . to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States . . . ,’ Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637.”
Compare, e. g., Askew v. Hargrave, 401 U. S. 476 (1971). The possibility that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may upon Michigan’s application forbid the discharge of even treated sewage in state waters and the asserted absence of present conflict between the Michigan requirements and other state laws are equally immaterial. Just as they do not diminish the immediacy and reality of appellants’ grievance, they do not call for abstention.
The last factor relied on by the District Court — the publication of proposed federal standards that might be considered by Michigan in the interpretation and enforcement of its statute — does, however, point toward considerations that fall within the “special circumstances” permitting abstention. The paradigm case for abstention arises when the challenged state statute is susceptible of “a construction by the state courts that would avoid or modify the [federal] constitutional question. Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167. Compare Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360.” Zwickler v. Koota, supra, at 249. More fully, we have explained:
“Where resolution of'the federal constitutional question is dependent upon, or may be materially altered by, the determination of an uncertain issue of state law, abstention may be proper in order to avoid unnecessary friction in federal-state relations, interference with important state functions, tentative decisions on questions of state law, and premature constitutional adjudication. . . . The doctrine . . . contemplates that deference to state court adjudication only be made where the issue of state law is uncertain.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 534 (1965).
That is precisely the circumstance presented here. The Michigan Watercraft Pollution Control Act of 1970 has not been construed in any Michigan court, and, as appellants themselves suggest in attacking it for vagueness, its terms are far from clear in particulars that go to the foundation of their grievance. It is indeed only an assertion by appellees that the Michigan law proscribes the discharge of even treated sewage in state waters. Section 3 (2) of the Act does state that “[i]t is unlawful to discharge . . . sewage . . . from a recreational, domestic or foreign watercraft used for pleasure or for [commerce] . . . ,” and § 4 (2) does require vessels equipped with toilet facilities to have sewage storage devices. Yet §3(1) seemingly contemplates the discharge of treated sewage by merely prohibiting any person from emitting sewage '‘which [renders] the water unsightly, noxious or otherwise unwholesome so as to be detrimental to the public health or welfare or to the enjoyment of the water for recreational purposes.” Moreover, § 11 provides that “[t]o be enforceable, the provision [of the Act] or the rule [presumably promulgated thereunder] shall be of such flexibility that a watercraft owner, in carrying out the provision or rule, is able to maintain maritime safety requirements and comply with the federal marine and navigation laws and regulations.” Michigan has thus demonstrated concern that its pollution control requirements be sufficiently flexible to accord with federal law. We do not know, of course, how far Michigan courts will go in interpreting the requirements of the state Watercraft Pollution Control Act in light of the federal Water Quality Improvement Act and the constraints of the United States Constitution. But we are satisfied that authoritative resolution of the ambiguities in the Michigan law is sufficiently likely to avoid or significantly modify the federal questions appellants raise to warrant abstention, particularly in view of the absence of countervailing considerations that we have found compelling in prior decisions. See, e. g., Harman v. Forssenius, supra, at 537; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 378-379 (1964).
In affirming the decision of the District Court to abstain, we, of course, intimate no view on the merits of appellants’ claims. We do, however, vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court with directions to retain jurisdiction pending institution by appellants of appropriate proceedings in Michigan courts. See Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S., at 244 n. 4.
It is so ordered.
Appellants also contend that the Michigan law is pre-empted by the Steamboat Inspection Acts of Feb. 28, 1871, 16 Stat. 440, and of May 27, 1936, 49 Stat. 1380, as amended, 46 TJ. S. C. § 361 et seq. An amicus curiae, moreover, presses the contention, suggested in appellants’ complaint, that the Michigan law conflicts with the United States-Canadian Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, 36 Stat. 2448, as well as enters into the domain of foreign affairs constitutionally reserved to the National Government. See Brief of Dominion Marine Association amicus curiae.
The authority to administer the Water Quality Improvement Act, originally lodged in the Secretary of the Interior, was transferred to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, set out in the Appendix to Title 5 of the United States Code.
“Sewage” is defined under the Act to mean “human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes.” 84 Stat. 100, 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (a)(6).
A notice of proposed standards was, however, published on May 12, 1971. See 36 Fed. Reg. 8739.
The District Court also noted that “[w]ith regard to pre-emption, the Supreme Court in Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 TJ. S. Ill [1965], held that Supremacy Clause cases are not within the purview of a three judge court.” 336 F. Supp., at 253. Appellants correctly point out that in reinstating that rule, Wickham made clear that a three-judge court is the proper forum for all claims against the challenged statute so long as there is a nonfrivolous constitutional claim that constitutes a justiciable controversy and warrants, on allegations of irreparable harm, consideration for injunctive relief. See 382 U. S., at 122 n. 17, 125. Indeed, that was the explicit holding in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, 80-81 (1960), re-affirming prior cases. It is clear that appellants’ complaint satisfies this test if the constitutional issues raised are justiciable controversies. Since we hold, infra, that they are, three-judge court jurisdiction exists over all of appellants’ claims, including the Supremacy Clause issues.
The Michigan authorities have so far generally refrained from prosecution because adequate land-based pump-out facilities are not yet available to service vessels equipped with sewage storage devices. See infra, at 507-508. After oral argument here, the Solicitor General of Michigan informed us “that local officials in Cheboygan County, Michigan, have ‘ticketed’ a Coast Guard Captain for discharging sewage into the waters of the Great Lakes.” However, “to assure the Court that Michigan will not depart from the representations it has made to the Court,” the Solicitor General stated that he is “taking immediate steps to quash the charge or have the local court stay its hand until” the decision here.
Michigan has filed an application with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for a prohibition under 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (f) on the discharge of any sewage, treated or untreated, into all of the State’s waters subject to the Water Quality Improvement Act. The Administrator has indicated that any no-discharge regulation issued will not become effective before the effective date of the initial standards promulgated under § 1163 (b) (1). See 36 Fed. Reg. 8739-8740. Appellants argue that the Administrator’s authority to issue no-discharge regulations is narrow and could not encompass a complete prohibition on discharge throughout Michigan’s navigable waters. Since we find, infra, that the possibility of such a prohibition is immaterial to the issues answered here, we need not now decide this question.
Appellants contend in this regard that the laws of other States dealing with the discharge of sewage are critically different from the Michigan statute in various respects. This question, too, we need not address, since we find, infra, that the presence or absence of conflicting state requirements is irrelevant.
See n. 4, supra.
Although appellees took an equivocal position on this question in oral argument here, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 36-39, the District Court below expressly found such a concession, see 336 F. Supp., at 255, and appellees repeated the concession in opposing appellants’ jurisdictional statement. See Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 11. In any event, the terms of the Water Quality Improvement Act are clear that pre-emption occurs at least when the initial federal standards promulgated under the Act become effective. See 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (f), quoted in part, supra, at 503-504. See also 36 Fed. Reg. 8739-8740.
Appellees stressed in oral argument here that “[t]he provision for pump-out facilities is no great mechanical accomplishment.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 35. This only reinforces the conclusion that appellants must, according to Michigan authorities, quickly get into a position to comply with the Michigan statute.
In coming to a contrary conclusion, the District Court relied heavily on Public Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237 (1952), where we held that declaratory relief was inappropriate in behalf of a carrier seeking a determination that its intrastate transportation constituted interstate commerce. The District Court’s reliance on that decision was misplaced. As the Court said in California Comm’n v. United States, 355 U. S. 534, 538-539 (1958), Wycoff Co. was a case “where a carrier sought relief in a federal court against a state commission in order 'to guard against the possibility,’ [344 U. S.], at 244, that the Commission would assume jurisdiction.” Here, as in California Comm’n, the confrontation between the parties has already arisen, and “[t]he controversy is present and concrete .” 355 U. S., at 539.
The question of abstention, of course, is entirely separate from the question of granting declaratory or injunctive relief. See generally Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241 (1967).
We assume that these provisions apply to commercial watercraft, though even this is not textually clear. Section 3 (2) in terms applies only to “recreational” vessels, while § 4 (2) — despite the expansive definition of “watercraft” in § 2 (g) — could be similarly limited in light of §4 (1), which governs only “pleasure or recreational watercraft.”
The .Michigan courts may also see fit to interpret the Michigan statute in light of the other Supremacy Clause arguments that have have been made in this case. See n. 1, supra.
In the latter regard, see, e. g., Government Employees v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364 (1957).
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was indicted in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Ga., for possessing cocaine. At a hearing before trial, he moved to suppress the introduction of the cocaine as evidence against him on the ground that it had been seized from him by an agent of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The relevant facts were determined at the pretrial hearing and may be recounted briefly. The petitioner arrived at the Atlanta Airport on a commercial airline flight from Fort Lau-derdale, Fla., in the early morning hours of August 14, 1978. The passengers left the plane in a single file and proceeded through the concourse. The petitioner was observed by an agent of the DEA, who was in the airport for the purpose of uncovering illicit commerce in narcotics. Separated from the petitioner by several persons was another man, who carried a shoulder bag like the one the petitioner carried. As they proceeded through the concourse past the baggage claim area, the petitioner occasionally looked backward in the direction of the second man. When they reached the main lobby of the terminal, the second man caught up with the petitioner and spoke briefly with him. They then left the terminal building together.
The DEA agent approached them outside of the building, identified himself as a federal narcotics agent, and asked them to show him their airline ticket stubs and identification, which they did. The airline tickets had been purchased with the petitioner’s credit card and indicated that the men had stayed in Fort Lauderdale only one day. According to the agent’s testimony, the men appeared nervous during the encounter. The agent then asked them if they would agree to return to the terminal and to consent to a search of their persons and their shoulder bags. The agent testified that the petitioner nodded his head affirmatively, and that the other responded, “Yeah, okay.” As the three of them entered the terminal, however, the petitioner began to run and before he was apprehended, abandoned his shoulder bag. The bag, when recovered, was found to contain cocaine.
The Superior Court granted the petitioner’s motion to suppress the cocaine, concluding that it had been obtained as a result of a seizure of him by the DEA agent without an articu-lable suspicion that he was unlawfully carrying narcotics. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. 149 Ga. App. 685, 255 S. E. 2d 71. It held that the stop of the petitioner was permissible, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), since the petitioner, “in a number df respects, fit a 'profile’ of drug couriers compiled by the [DEA].” 149 Ga. App., at 686, 255 S. E. 2d, at 72. The appellate court also concluded that the petitioner had consented to return to the terminal for a search of his person, and that after he had attempted to flee and had discarded his shoulder bag, there existed probable cause for the search of the bag.
The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition of searches and seizures that are not supported by some objective justification governs all seizures of the person, “including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 16-19 (1968) ” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975)1. While the Court has recognized that in some circumstances a person may be detained briefly, without probable cause to arrest him, any curtailment of a person’s liberty by the police must be' supported at least by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that, the person seized is engaged in criminal activity. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 51 (1979); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 661 (1979); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra; Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146-149 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, supra.
The appellate court’s, conclusion in this case that the DEA agent reasonably suspected the petitioner of wrongdoing rested on the fact that the petitioner appeared to the agent to - fit the so-called “drug courier profile,” a somewhat informál compilation of characteristics believed tó be typical of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics. Specifically, the court thought it relevant that (1) the petitioner had arrived from Fort Lauderdale, which the agent testified is a principal place of origin of cocaine sold elsewhere in the country, (2) the petitioner arrived in the early morning, when law enforcement activity is diminished, (3) he and his companion appeared to the agent to be trying to conceal the fact that they were traveling together, and (4) they apparently had no luggage other than their shoulder bags.
We conclude that the agent could not, as a matter of law, have reasonably suspected the petitioner of criminal activity on the basis of these observed circumstances. Of the evidence relied on, only the fact that the petitioner preceded another person and occasionally looked backward at him as they proceeded through the concourse relates to their particular conduct. The other circumstances describe a very large category of presumably innocent travelers, who would be subject to virtually random seizures were the Court to conclude that as little foundation as there was in this case could justify a seizure. Nor can we agree, on this record, that the manner in which the petitioner and his companion walked through the airport reasonably could have led the agent to suspect them of wrongdoing. Although there could, of course, be circumstances in which wholly lawful conduct might justify the suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, see Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 27-28, this is not such a case. The agent’s belief that the petitioner and his companion were attempting to conceal the fact that they were traveling together, a belief that was more an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch/ ” 392 U. S., at 27, than a fair inference in the light of his experience, is simply too slender a reed to support the seizure in this case.
For these reasons, the judgment of the appellate court cannot be sustained insofar as it rests on the determination that the DEA agent lawfully seized the petitioner when he approached him outside the airline terminal. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citi- • zens involves ‘seizures’ of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a seizure has occurred.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1,19, n. 16 (1968). See also id., at 34 (White, J., concurring) ; id., at 31, 32-33 (Harlan, J.,-concurring).
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511 (1985), we held that a district court’s rejection of a defendant’s qualified-immunity defense is a “final decision” subject to immediate appeal under the general appellate jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. §1291. The question presented in this case is whether a defendant’s immediate appeal of an unfavorable qualified-immunity ruling on his motion to dismiss deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction over a second appeal, also based on qualified immunity, immediately following denial of summary judgment.
I
In 1983, South Coast Savings and Loan Association, a new institution, applied to the Federal Home .Loan Bank Board (FHLBB or Board) for the approval necessary to obtain account insurance from the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC).- Under FHLBB regulations, approval of new institutions was to be withheld if their “financial policies or management” were found to be “unsafe” for any of various reasons, including “character of the management.” 12 CFR § 571.6(b) (1986). Accordingly, when FHLBB approved South Coast for FSLIC insurance in March 1984, it imposed a number of requirements, including the condition that South Coast “provide for employment of a qualified full-time executive managing officer, subject to approval by the Principal Supervisory Agent” — FHLBB’s term for the president of the regional Home Loan Bank when operating in his oversight capacity on behalf of FHLBB. Record, Exh. B, Resolution No. 84-164, ¶ 10(p) (Mar. 29, 1984). The Board’s resolution also required that, for a period of three years, any change in South Coast’s chief management position be approved by FHLBB. Ibid.
Shortly after obtaining FHLBB’s conditional approval, South Coast was succeeded in interest by Pioneer Savings and Loan Association, another new institution. Pioneer named respondent Pelletier as its managing officer, subject to FHLBB consent, which Pioneer sought in mid-May 1985. Only a few weeks earlier, however, on April 23, 1985, FHLBB had declared insolvent Beverly Hills Savings and Loan Association, where respondent had at one time held a senior executive position. An inquiry by FSLIC pointed to potential misconduct by high-level management of the failed institution, which ultimately became the subject of an FSLIC lawsuit against several Beverly Hills officers, including respondent.
The FSLIC suit had not yet been filed at the time Pioneer sought the Board’s consent to hire respondent; but FSLIC’s pending investigation into Beverly Hills’ collapse caused petitioner Behrens, the FHLBB “Supervisory Agent” then responsible for monitoring Pioneer’s operations, to write Pioneer on May 8,1986, withholding approval and advising that respondent be replaced. On receipt of the letter Pioneer asked respondent to resign and, when he refused, fired him.
Three years later, in 1989, respondent brought suit in federal court, naming petitioner as defendant in a complaint that included Bivens damages claims for two alleged constitutional wrongs. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). Respondent charged, first, that petitioner’s action in writing a letter that had effectively discharged him from his post at Pioneer, in summary fashion and without notice or opportunity to be heard, violated his right to procedural due process. Second, he claimed that he had been deprived of substantive due process by petitioner’s alleged interference with his “clearly established and Constitutionally protected property and liberty rights ... to specific employment and to pursue his profession free from undue governmental interference.” First Amended Complaint ¶ 38, reprinted in App. 7, 16. The complaint alleged that petitioner’s letter, along with other, continuing efforts to harm respondent’s reputation, had cost respondent not only his position at Pioneer, but also his livelihood within the savings and loan industry. The complaint also contained other claims — against petitioner and against the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (petitioner’s immediate employer), FHLBB, and the United States; none of these is relevant to the present appeal.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. With regard to the Bivens claims, he asserted a statute-of-limitations defense and claimed qualified immunity from suit on the ground that his actions, taken in a governmental capacity, “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). The District Court ruled in favor of petitioner on the statute-of-limitations ground and therefore dismissed the procedural due process Bivens claim, and the substantive due process Bivens claim to the extent it related to petitioner’s letter and respondent’s loss of employment at Pioneer. It refused, however, to dismiss respondent’s suit “to the extent [it was] based on other alleged subsequent acts of defendant] preventing and continuing to prevent [respondent] from securing employment.” Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, No. CV 89-969 (CD Cal., Oct. 5, 1989), reprinted in App. 27-28. The court also denied petitioner’s summary judgment motion, without prejudice, on the ground that it was premature given the lack of discovery.
Petitioner immediately appealed the District Court’s implicit denial of his qualified-immunity defense regarding the remaining Bivens claim. The Court of Appeals entertained the appeal, notwithstanding its interlocutory nature, holding that “a denial of qualified immunity is an appealable ‘final’ order under the test set forth in Cohen v. Beneficial Indust. Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949) . . . , regardless of whether that denial takes the form of a refusal to grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss or a denial of summary judgment.” Pelle-tier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, 968 F. 2d 865, 870 (CA9 1992). It said in dictum, however, that a defendant claiming qualified immunity could not “take advantage of the several opportunities for immediate appeal afforded him by bringing repeated pretrial appeals,” and that “[o]ne such interlocutory appeal is all that a government official is entitled to and all that we will entertain.” Id., at 870-871. On the merits of the appeal, the court rejected the argument that petitioner enjoyed qualified immunity because he had not violated any “clearly established right.” It said that the question whether respondent had a constitutionally protected property interest in his Pioneer employment (subject, as it was, to regulatory approval) was not properly before the court, since the claims relating specifically to his discharge had been dismissed as time barred. Id., at 871-872. (The Court of Appeals noted in dictum, however, id., at 869, n. 6, that the District Court had applied an unduly short limitations period.) With respect to the claimed deprivation of post-Pioneer employment, the court held that the “nebulous theories of conspiracy” set out in respondent’s complaint — although “insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment” — made out a proper Bivens claim. 968 F. 2d, at 872-873.
Upon remand, the District Court reversed its earlier statute-of-limitations ruling in light of the Court of Appeals’ dictum, and reinstated the claims relating to employment at Pioneer. After discovery, petitioner moved for .summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, contending that his actions had not violated any “clearly established” right of respondent regarding his employment at Pioneer or elsewhere. The District Court denied the motion with the unadorned statement that “[m]aterial issues of fact remain as to defendant Behrens on the Bivens claim.” Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, No. CV 89-0969 (CD Cal., Sept. 6, 1994), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which, on respondent’s motion, the District Court certified as frivolous. In an unpublished order, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal “for lack of jurisdiction.” Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, No. 94-56507 (CA9, Nov. 17, 1994), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. la. We granted certio-rari, 514 U. S. 1035 (1995).
II
Section 1291 of Title 28, U. S. C., gives courts of appeals jurisdiction over “all final decisions” of district courts, except those for which appeal is to be had to this Court. The requirement of finality precludes consideration of decisions that are subject to revision, and even of “fully consummated decisions [that] are but steps towards final judgment in which they will merge.” Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949). It does not, however, bar review of all prejudgment orders. In Cohen, we described a “small class” of district court decisions that, though short of final judgment, are immediately appealable because they “finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Ibid. See also Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 142-145 (1993) (citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978)). The issue in the present case is the extent to which orders denying governmental officers’ assertions of qualified immunity come within the Cohen category of appealable decisions.
As set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), the qualified-immunity defense “shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” id., at 818 (citing Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 565 (1978)). Harlow adopted this criterion of “objective legal reasonableness,” rather than good faith, precisely in order to “permit the defeat of insubstantial claims without resort to trial.” 457 U. S., at 819, 813. Unsurprisingly, then, we later found the immunity to be “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation, conditioned on the resolution of the essentially legal [immunity] question.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S., at 526. And, as with district-court rejection of claims to other such entitlements distinct from the merits, see, e. g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct, supra, at 145-146 (Eleventh Amendment immunity); Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651, 662 (1977) (right not to be subjected to double jeopardy), we held that “a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell, supra, at 530. See also Johnson v. Jones, 515 U. S. 304, 311-312 (1995).
While Mitchell did not say that a defendant could appeal from denial of a qualified-immunity defense more than once, it clearly contemplated that he could raise the defense at successive stages:
“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Even if the plaintiff’s complaint adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant in fact committed those acts.” 472 U. S., at 526 (citation omitted).
Thus, Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a “final” judgment subject to immediate appeal. Since an unsuccessful appeal from a denial of dismissal cannot possibly render the later denial of a motion for summary judgment any less “final,” it follows that petitioner’s appeal falls within §1291 and dismissal was improper.
Indeed, it is easier to argue that the denial of summary judgment — the order sought to be appealed here — is the more “final” of the two orders. That is the reasoning the First Circuit adopted in holding that denial of a motion to dismiss on absolute-immunity grounds was not “final” where the defendant had stated that, if unsuccessful, he would later seek summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds: “Since the district court has not yet determined whether [the defendant] has qualified immunity, and that he will have to stand trial, its decision is not an appealable collateral order.” Kaiter v. Boxford, 836 F. 2d 704, 707 (1988). The problem with this approach, however, is that it would logically bar any appeal at the motion-to-dismiss stage where there is a possibility of presenting an immunity defense on summary judgment; that possibility would cause the motion-to-dismiss decision to be not “final” as to the defendant’s right not to stand trial. The First Circuit sought to avoid this difficulty by saying that the defendant could render the motion-to-dismiss denial final by waiving his right to appeal the summary judgment denial. See id., at 708. But quite obviously, eliminating the ability to appeal the second order does not eliminate the possibility that the second order will vindicate the defendant’s right not to stand trial, and therefore does not eliminate the supposed reason for declaring the first order nonfinal.
The source of the First Circuit’s confusion was its mistaken conception of the scope of protection afforded by qualified immunity. Harlow and Mitchell make clear that the defense is meant to give government officials a right, not merely to avoid “standing trial,” but also to avoid the burdens of “such pretrial matters as discovery ..., as ‘[inquiries of this kind can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.’” Mitchell, supra, at 526 (emphasis added) (quoting from Harlow, supra, at 817). Whether or not a later summary judgment motion is granted, denial of a motion to dismiss is conclusive as to this right. We would have thought that these and other statements from Mitchell and Harlow had settled the point, questioned by Justice Breyer, see post, at 317, that this right is important enough to support an immediate appeal. If it were not, however, the consequence would be, not that only one pretrial appeal could be had in a given case, as Justice Breyer proposes, but rather, that there could be no immediate appeal from denial of a motion to dismiss but only from denial of summary judgment. That conclusion is foreclosed by Mitchell, which unmistakably envisioned immediate appeal of “[t]he denial of a defendant’s motion for dismissal or summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.” 472 U. S., at 527.
The Court of Appeals in the present case, in the first of its two decisions, rested its “one-appeal” pronouncement upon the proposition that resolving the question of entitlement to qualified immunity “should not require more than one judiciously timed appeal.” Pelletier, 968 F. 2d, at 871. It did not explain how this proposition pertains to the question of finality, but we suppose it could be argued that a category of appeals thought to be needless or superfluous does not raise a claim of right “too important to be denied review,” as our Cohen finality jurisprudence requires, see 337 U. S., at 546. In any event, the proposition is not sound. That one appeal on the immunity issue may not be enough is illustrated by the history of respondent’s claims for loss of employment at Pioneer in the present ease. Because these claims had initially been dismissed as time barred, the Court of Appeals refused to decide (and thus evidently regarded as an open question) whether one who holds his job subject to regulatory approval can assert a constitutionally cognizable expectation of continued employment. See Pelletier, supra, at 871-872. Thus, the question whether petitioner was entitled to immunity on these claims was not presented to any court until petitioner’s summary judgment motion — and, by operation of the Ninth Circuit’s one-appeal rule, has never been addressed by an appellate court.
That is assuredly an unusual set of circumstances, but even in a case proceeding in a more normal fashion resolution of the immunity question may “require more than one judiciously timed appeal,” because the legally relevant factors bearing upon the Harlow question will be different on summary judgment than on an earlier motion to dismiss. At that earlier stage, it is the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint that is scrutinized for “objective legal reasonableness.” On summary judgment, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on the pleadings, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56, and the court looks to the evidence before it (in the light most favorable to the plaintiff) when conducting the Harlow inquiry. It is no more true that the defendant who has unsuccessfully appealed denial of a motion to dismiss has no need to appeal denial of a motion for summary judgment, than it is that the defendant who has unsuccessfully made a motion to dismiss has no need to make a motion for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals expressed concern that a second appeal would tend to have the illegitimate purpose of delaying the proceedings. See 968 F. 2d, at 870-871. Undeniably, the availability of a second appeal affords an opportunity for abuse, but we have no reason to believe that abuse has often occurred. To the contrary, successive pretrial assertions of immunity seem to be a rare occurrence. Moreover, if and when abuse does occur, as we observed in the analogous context of interlocutory appeals on the issue of double jeopardy, “[i]t is well within the supervisory powers of the courts of appeals to establish summary procedures and calendars to weed out frivolous claims.” Abney, 431 U. S., at 662, n. 8. In the present case, for example, the District Court appropriately certified petitioner’s immunity appeal as “frivolous” in light of the Court of Appeals’ (unfortunately erroneous) one-appeal precedent. This practice, which has been embraced by several Circuits, enables the district court to retain jurisdiction pending summary disposition of the appeal, and thereby minimizes disruption of the ongoing proceedings. See, e. g., Chuman v. Wright, 960 F. 2d 104, 105 (CA9 1992); Yates v. Cleveland, 941 F. 2d 444, 448-449 (CA6 1991); Stewart v. Donges, 915 F. 2d 572,576-577 (CA10 1990); Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F. 2d 1335, 1339 (CA7 1989). In any event, the question before us here — whether there is jurisdiction over the appeal, as opposed to whether the appeal is frivolous — must be determined by focusing upon the category of order appealed from, rather than upon the strength of the grounds for reversing the order. “Appeal rights cannot depend on the facts of a particular case.” Carroll v. United States, 354 U. S. 394, 405 (1957). See also Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 868 (1994). As we have said, an order denying qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an “issue of law,” Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 530, is immediately appealable.
Ill
Our rejection of the one-interlocutory-appeal rule does not dispose of this ease. Respondent proposes two other reasons why appeal of denial of the summary judgment motion is not available. First, he argues that no appeal is available where, even if the District Court’s qualified-immunity ruling is reversed, the defendant will be required to endure discovery and trial on matters separate from the claims against which immunity was asserted. Respondent reasons that a ruling which does not reach all the claims does not “conclusively determin[e] the defendant’s claim of right not to stand trial,” id., at 527, and thus the order denying immunity cannot be said to be “final” within the meaning of Cohen.
It is far from clear that, given the procedural posture of the present case, respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the proposition for which he argues; but we will address the proposition on its merits. The Courts of Appeals have almost unanimously rejected it, and so do we. The Harlow right to immunity is a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation in general; when immunity with respect to those claims has been finally denied, appeal must be available, and cannot be foreclosed by the mere addition of other claims to the suit. Making appealability depend upon such a factor, particular to the case at hand, would violate the principle discussed above, that appealability determinations are made for classes of decisions, not individual orders in specific cases. Apart from these objections in principle, the practical effect of respondent’s proposal would be intolerable. If the district court rules erroneously, the qualified-immunity right not to be subjected to pretrial proceedings will be eliminated, so long as the plaintiff has alleged (with or without evidence to back it up) violation of one “clearly established” right; and both that and the further right not to be subjected to trial itself will be eliminated, so long as the complaint seeks injunctive relief (for which no “clearly established” right need be alleged).
Second, respondent asserts that appeal of denial of the summary judgment motion is not available because the denial rested on the ground that “[mjaterial issues of fact remain.” This, he contends, renders the denial unappealable under last Term’s decision in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U. S., at 313-318. That is a misreading of the case. Denial of summary judgment often includes a determination that there are controverted issues of material fact, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56, and Johnson surely does not mean that every such denial of summary judgment is nonappealable. Johnson held, simply, that determinations of evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment are not immediately appealable merely because they happen to arise in a qualified-immunity case; if what is at issue in the sufficiency determination is nothing more than whether the evidence could support a finding that particular conduct occurred, the question decided is not truly “separable” from the plaintiff’s claim, and hence there is no “final decision” under Cohen and Mitchell. See 515 U. S., at 313-318. Johnson reaffirmed that summary judgment determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an “abstract issu[e] of law” relating to qualified immunity, id., at 317 — typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was “clearly established,” see, e. g., Mitchell, supra, at 530-535; Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183, 190-193 (1984).
Here the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s summary judgment motion necessarily determined that certain conduct attributed to petitioner (which was controverted) constituted a violation of clearly established law. Johnson permits petitioner to claim on appeal that all of the conduct which the District Court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment met the Harlow standard of “objective legal reasonableness.” This argument was presented by petitioner in the trial court, and there is no apparent impediment to its being raised on appeal. And while the District Court, in denying petitioner’s summary judgment motion, did not identify the particular charged conduct that it deemed adequately supported, Johnson recognizes that under such circumstances “a court of appeals may have to undertake a cumbersome review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed.” Johnson, supra, at 319. That is the task now facing the Court of Appeals in this case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
FHLBB, FSLIC, and the regulatory scheme described in this opinion no longer exist, having been eliminated by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989,103 Stat. 183.
Interestingly, however, Mitchell itself dealt with the second of two interlocutory appeals on immunity claims. See 472 U. S., at 515-519. Neither the Court of Appeals nor this Court assigned any significance to the successive aspect of the second appeal.
Justice Breyer suggests that the second of two pretrial qualified-immunity appeals does not come within Cohen’s class of immediately ap-pealable final orders because it is insufficiently “separable” from the claim raised on the first appeal, see post, at 316. But the Cohen “separability” component asks whether the question to be resolved on appeal is “conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.” Mitchell v. For-syth, 472 U. S. 511, 527 (1985). The appropriate comparison, then, is between the decision sought to be reviewed and the claim underlying the action itself — not between the decision and any previous appeal, as Justice Breyer suggests. And again, Mitchell clearly states that a denial of qualified immunity, whether on a motion for dismissal or summary judgment, is an “appealable ‘final decision.’” Id., at 530.
We are aware of only five reported cases — Mitchell itself, Nelson v. Silverman, 999 F. 2d 417 (CA9 1993), Abel v. Miller, 904 F. 2d 394 (CA7 1990), Francis v. Coughlin, 891 F. 2d 43 (CA2 1989), and the present case — in which Courts of Appeals have been twice asked to review successive pretrial assertions of immunity. See Abel, supra, at 396 (“Paucity of precedent [on successive interlocutory appeals] must reflect the forbearance of public officials rather than lack of opportunity”); Kaiter v. Boxford, 836 F. 2d 704, 706 (CA1 1988) (“[I]n every case we have found which permitted interlocutory review of an immunity ruling, the defendant’s entire claim to immunity was raised in a single proceeding”).
See, e. g., McLaurin v. Morton, 48 F. 3d 944, 949 (CA6 1995); Green v. Brantley, 941 F. 2d 1146, 1148-1151 (CA11 1991) (en banc); Di Martini v. Ferrin, 889 F. 2d 922, 924-925 (CA9 1989), cert. denied, 501 U. S. 1204 (1991); Young v. Lynch, 846 F. 2d 960, 961-963 (CA4 1988); DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger Silas Mason Co., 844 F. 2d 714, 717-718 (CA10 1988); Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F. 2d 736, 742, n. 1 (CA2 1988); Scott v. Lacy, 811 F. 2d 1153,1153-1154 (CA7 1987); De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora, 792 F. 2d 1187, 1188-1190 (CA1 1986); Tubbesing v. Arnold, 742 F. 2d 401, 403-404 (CA8 1984). Only the Third Circuit holds otherwise. See Prisco v. United States Dept. of Justice, 851 F. 2d 93, 95-96, cert. denied, 490 U. S. 1089 (1989).
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the District Court for the District of Columbia should release to respondents certain tapes admitted into evidence at the trial of petitioner’s former advisers. Respondents wish to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court’s refusal to permit immediate copying of the tapes was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Mitchell, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 551 P. 2d 1252 (1976). We granted certiorari, 430 U. S. 944 (1977), and for the reasons that follow, we reverse.
I
On July 16, 1973, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities revealed that petitioner, then President of the United States, had maintained a system for tape recording conversations in the White House Oval Office and in his private office in the Executive Office Building. Hearings on Watergate and Related Activities Before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 2074-2076 (1973). A week later, the Watergate Special Prosecutor issued a subpoena duces tecum directing petitioner to produce before a federal grand jury tape recordings of eight meetings and one telephone conversation recorded in petitioner’s offices. When petitioner refused to comply with the subpoena, the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered production of the recordings. In re Subpoena to Nixon, 360 P. Supp. 1, aff’d sub nom. Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U. S. App. D. C. 58, 487 P. 2d 700 (1973). In November 1973, petitioner submitted seven of the nine subpoenaed recordings and informed the Office of the Special Prosecutor that the other two were missing.
On March 1,1974, the grand jury indicted seven individuals for, among other things, conspiring to obstruct justice in connection with the investigation of the 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters. In preparation for this trial, styled United States v. Mitchell, the Special Prosecutor, on April 18, 1974, issued a second subpoena duces tecum, directing petitioner to produce tape recordings and documents relating to some 64 additional Presidential meetings and conversations. The District Court denied petitioner’s motions to quash. United States v. Mitchell, 377 F. Supp. 1326 (1974). This Court granted certiorari before judgment in the Court of Appeals and affirmed. United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974). In accordance with our decision, the subpoenaed tapes were turned over to the District Court for in camera inspection. The court arranged to have copies made of the relevant and admissible portions. It retained one copy and gave the other to the Special Prosecutor.
The trial began on October 1, 1974, before Judge Sirica. During its course, some 22 hours of taped conversations were played for the jury and the public in the courtroom. The reels of tape containing conversations played for the jury were entered into evidence. The District Court furnished the jurors, reporters, and members of the public in attendance with earphones and with transcripts prepared by the Special Prosecutor. The transcripts were not admitted as evidence, but were widely reprinted in the press.
Six weeks after the trial had begun, respondent broadcasters filed a motion before Judge Sirica, seeking permission to copy, broadcast, and sell to the public the portions of the tapes played at trial. Petitioner opposed the application. Because United States v. Mitchell was consuming all of Judge Sirica’s time, this matter was transferred to Judge Gesell.
On December 5, 1974, Judge Gesell held that a common-law privilege of public access to judicial records permitted respondents to obtain copies of exhibits in the custody of the clerk, including the tapes in question. United States v. Mitchell, 386 F. Supp. 639, 641. Judge Gesell minimized petitioner’s opposition to respondents’ motion, declaring that neither his alleged property interest in the tapes nor his asserted executive privilege sufficed to prevent release of recordings already publicly aired and available, in transcription, to the world at large. Id., at 642. Judge Gesell cautioned, however, against “overcommercialization of the evidence.” Id., at 643. And because of potential administrative and mechanical difficulties, he prohibited copying until the trial was over. Ibid. He requested that the parties submit proposals for access and copying procedures that would minimize overcommercialization and administrative inconvenience at that time. Ibid. In an order of January 8, 1975, Judge Gesell rejected respondents’ joint proposals as insufficient. Id., at 643-644. Noting the close of the Mitchell trial, he transferred the matter back to Judge Sirica.
On April 4, 1975, Judge Sirica denied without prejudice respondents’ petitions for immediate access to the tapes. United States v. Mitchell, 397 F. Supp. 186. Observing that all four men convicted in the Mitchell trial had filed notices of appeal, he declared that their rights could be prejudiced if the petitions were granted. Immediate access to the tapes might “result in the' manufacture of permanent phonograph records and tape recordings, perhaps with commentary by journalists or entertainers; marketing of the tapes would probably involve mass merchandising techniques designed to generate excitement in an air of ridicule to stimulate sales.” Id., at 188. Since release of the transcripts had apprised the public of the tapes’ contents, the public’s “right to know” did not, in Judge Sirica’s view, overcome the need to safeguard the defendants’ rights on appeal. Id., at 188-189. Judge Sirica also noted the passage of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act
(Presidential Recordings Act), 88 Stat. 1695, note following 44 U. S. C. § 2107 (1970 ed., Supp. V), and the duty thereunder of the Administrator of General Services (Administrator) to submit to Congress regulations governing access to Presidential tapes in general. Under the proposed regulations then before Congress, public distribution of copies would be delayed for 4% years. Although Judge Sirica doubted that the Act covered the copies at issue here, he viewed the proposed regulations as suggesting that immediate release was not of overriding importance. 397 F. Supp., at 189.
The Court of Appeals reversed. United States v. Mitchell, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 551 F. 2d 1252 (1976). It stressed the importance of the common-law privilege to inspect and copy judicial records and assigned to petitioner the burden of proving that justice required limitations on the privilege. In the court’s view, the mere possibility of prejudice to defendants’ rights in the event of a retrial did not outweigh the public’s right of access. Id., at 302-304, 551 F. 2d, at 1261— 1263. The court concluded that the District Court had “abused its discretion in allowing those diminished interests in confidentiality to interfere with the public’s right to inspect and copy the tapes.” Id., at 302, 551 F. 2d, at 1261. It remanded for the development of a plan of release, but noted— in apparent contrast to the admonitions of Judge Gessell — that the “court’s power to control the uses to which the tapes are put once released... is sharply limited by the First Amendment.” Id., at 304 n. 52, 551 F. 2d, at 1263 n. 52 (emphasis in original). We granted certiorari to review this holding that the common-law right of access to judicial records requires the District Court to release the tapes in its custody.
II
Both petitioner and respondents acknowledge the existence of a common-law right of access to judicial records, but they differ sharply over its scope and the circumstances warranting restrictions of it. An infrequent subject of litigation, its contours have not been delineated with any precision. Indeed, no case directly in point — that is, addressing the applicability of the common-law right to exhibits subpoenaed from third parties — has been cited or discovered.
A
It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. In contrast to the English practice, see, e. g., Browne v. Cumming, 10 B. & C. 70, 109 Eng. Rep. 377 (K. B. 1829), American decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a proprietary interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in a lawsuit. The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e. g., State ex rel. Colscott v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N. E. 535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N. J. L. 332, 336-339 (1879), and in a newspaper publisher’s intention to publish information concerning the operation of government, see, e. g., State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis. 2d 672, 677, 137 N. W. 2d 470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis. 2d 685a, 139 N. W. 2d 241 (1966). But see Burton v. Reynolds, 110 Mich. 354, 68 N.W. 217 (1896).
It is uncontested, however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. For example, the common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records are not “used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal” through the publication of “the painful and sometimes disgusting details of a divorce case.” In re Caswell, 18 R. I. 835, 836, 29 A. 259 (1893). Accord, e. g., C. v. C., 320 A. 2d 717, 723, 727 (Del. 1974). See also King v. King, 25 Wyo. 275, 168 P. 730 (1917). Similarly, courts have refused to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption, Park v. Detroit Free Press Co., 72 Mich. 560, 568, 40 N. W. 731, 734-735 (1888); see Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392, 395 (1884) (per Holmes, J.) ; Munzer v. Blaisdell, 268 App. Div. 9,11, 48 N. Y. S. 2d 355, 356 (1944); see also Sanford v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 318 Mass. 156, 158, 61 N. E. 2d 5, 6 (1945), or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing, see, e. g., Schmedding v. May, 85 Mich. 1, 5-6, 48 N. W. 201, 202 (1891); Flexmir, Inc. v. Herman, 40 A. 2d 799, 800 (N. J. Ch. 1945).
It is difficult to distill from the relatively few judicial decisions a comprehensive definition of what is referred to as the common-law right of access or to identify all the factors to be weighed in determining whether access is appropriate. The few cases that have recognized such a right do agree that the decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. In any event, we need not undertake to delineate precisely the contours of the common-law right, as we assume, arguendo, that it applies to the tapes at issue here.
B
Petitioner advances several reasons supporting the exercise of discretion against release of the tapes.
First, petitioner argues that he has a property interest in the sound of his own voice, an interest that respondents intend to appropriate unfairly. In respondents’ view, our decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425 (1977), upholding the constitutionality of the Presidential Recordings Aót, divested petitioner of any property rights in the tapes that could be asserted against the general public. Petitioner insists, however, that respondents’ point is not fully responsive to his argument. Petitioner is not asserting a proprietary right to the tapes themselves. He likens his interest to that of a third party whose voice is recorded in the course of a lawful wiretap by police officers and introduced into evidence on tape. In petitioner’s view, use of one’s voice as evidence in a criminal trial does not give rise to a license for commercial exploitation.
Petitioner also maintains that his privacy would be infringed if aural copies of the tapes were distributed to the public. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention. It reasoned that with the playing of the tapes in the courtroom, the publication of their contents in the form of written, transcripts, and the passage of the Presidential Recordings Act — in which Congress contemplated ultimate public distribution of aural copies — any realistic expectation of privacy disappeared. 179 U. S. App. D. C., at 304-305, 551 F. 2d, at 1263-1264. Furthermore, the court ruled that as Presidential documents the tapes were “impressed with the 'public trust’ ” and not subject to ordinary privacy claims. Id., at 305, 551 F. 2d, at 1264. Respondents add that aural reproduction of actual conversations, reflecting nuances and inflections, is a more accurate means of informing the public about this important historical event than a verbatim written transcript. Petitioner disputes this claim of “accuracy,” emphasizing that the tapes required 22 hours to be played. If made available for commercial recordings or broadcast by the electronic media, only fractions of the tapes, necessarily taken out of context, could or would be presented. Nor would there be any safeguard, other than the taste of the marketing medium, against distortion through cutting, erasing, and splicing of tapes. There would be strong motivation to titillate as well as to educate listeners. Petitioner insists that this use would infringe his privacy, resulting in embarrassment and anguish to himself and the other persons who participated in private conversations that they had every reason to believe would remain confidential.
Third, petitioner argues that our decision in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974), authorized only the most limited use of subpoenaed Presidential conversations consistent with the constitutional duty of the judiciary to ensure justice in criminal prosecutions. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that the thrust of our decision in that case was to protect the confidentiality of Presidential conversations that were neither relevant nor admissible in the criminal proceeding; it did not relate to uses of conversations actually introduced into evidence. Since these conversations were no longer confidential, 179 U. S. App. D. C., at 305-306, 551 F. 2d, at 1264-1265, Presidential privilege no longer afforded any protection.
Finally, petitioner argues that it would be improper for the courts to facilitate the commercialization of these White House tapes. The court below rejected this argument, holding it a “question of taste” that could not take precedence over the public’s right of access. Id., at 306, 551 F. 2d, at 1265. Petitioner rejoins that such matters of taste induce courts to. deny public access to court files in divorce and libel litigation. See, e. g., In re Caswell, 18 R. I. 835, 29 A. 259 (1893); Munzer v. Blaisdell, 268 App. Div., at 11, 48 N. Y. S. 2d, at 356. Moreover, argues petitioner, widespread publication of the transcripts has satisfied the public’s legitimate interests; the marginal gain in information from the broadcast and sale of aural copies is outweighed by the unseemliness of enlisting the court, which obtained these recordings by subpoena for a limited purpose, to serve as the vehicle of their commercial exploitation “at cocktail parties,... in comedy acts or dramatic productions,... and in every manner that may occur to the enterprising, the imaginative, or the antagonistic recipients of copies.” Brief for Petitioner 30.
C
At this point, we normally would be faced with the task of weighing the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts. On respondents’ side of the scales is the incremental gain in public understanding of an immensely important historical occurrence that arguably would flow from the release of aural copies of these tapes, a gain said to be not inconsequential despite the already widespread dissemination of printed transcripts. Also on respondents’ side is the presumption — however gauged — in favor of public access to judicial records. On petitioner’s side are the arguments identified above, which must be assessed in the context of court custody of the tapes. Underlying each of petitioner’s arguments is the crucial fact that respondents require a court’s cooperation in furthering their commercial plans. The court — as custodian of tapes obtained by subpoena over the opposition of a sitting President, solely to satisfy “fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice,” United States v. Nixon, supra, at 713 — has a responsibility to exercise an informed discretion as to release of the tapes, with a sensitive appreciation of the circumstances that led to their production. This responsibility does not permit copying upon demand. Otherwise, there would exist a danger that the court could become a partner in the use of the subpoenaed material “to gratify private spite or promote public scandal,” In re Caswell, supra, at 836, 29 A. 259, with no corresponding assurance of public benefit.
We need not decide how the balance would be struck if the case were resolved only on the basis of the facts and arguments reviewed above. There is in this case an additional, unique element that was neither advanced by the parties nor given appropriate consideration by the courts below. In the Presidential Recordings Act, Congress directed the Administrator of General Services to take custody of petitioner’s Presidential tapes and documents. The materials are to be screened by Government archivists so that those private in nature may be returned to petitioner, while those of historical value may be preserved and made available for use in judicial proceedings and, eventually, made accessible to the public. Thus, Congress has created an administrative procedure for processing and releasing to the public, on terms meeting with congressional approval, all of petitioner’s Presidential materials of historical interest, including recordings of the conversations at issue here.
In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425 (1977), we noted two major objects of the Act. First, it created a centralized custodian for the preservation and “orderly processing” of petitioner’s historical materials. Second, it mandated protection of the “rights of [petitioner] and other individuals against infringement by the processing itself or, ultimately, by public access to the materials retained.” Id., at 436. To these ends, the Act directed the Administrator to formulate regulations that would permit consideration of a number of different factors. Thus, the Act provides for legislative and executive appraisal of the most appropriate means of assuring public access to the material, subject to prescribed safeguards. Because of this congressionally pre-
scribed avenue of public access we need not weigh, the parties’ competing arguments as though the District Court were the only potential source of information regarding these historical materials. The presence of an alternative means of public access tips the scales in favor of denying release.
Respondents argue that immediate release would serve the policies of the Act. The Executive and Legislative Branches, however, possess superior resources for assessing the proper implementation of public access and the competing rights, if any, of the persons whose voices are recorded on the tapes. These resources are to be brought to bear under the Act, and court release of copies of materials subject to the Act might frustrate the achievement of the legislative goals of orderly processing and protection of the rights of all affected persons. Simply stated, the policies of the Act can best be carried out under the Act itself. Indeed, Judge Sirica — as we have noted supra, at 595-596 — referred to the scheme established under the Act in assessing the need for immediate release. 397 F. Supp., at 189; cf. United States v. Monjar, 154 F. 2d 954 (CA3 1946). But because defendants’ appeals were pending, he merely denied respondents’ petition without prejudice, contemplating reconsideration after exhaustion of all appeals. Thus, he did not have to confront the question whether the existence of the Act is, as we hold, a decisive element in the proper exercise of discretion with respect to release of the tapes.
We emphasize that we are addressing only the application in this case of the common-law right of access to judicial records. We do not presume to decide any issues as to the proper exercise of the Administrator’s independent duty under the statutory standards. He remains free, subject to congressional disapproval, to design such procedures for public access as he believes will advance the policies of the Act. Questions concerning the constitutionality and statutory validity of any access scheme finally implemented are for future consideration in appropriate proceedings. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S., at 438-439, 444-446, 450, 455, 462, 464-465, 467; id., at 503-504 (Powell, J., concurring).
Considering all the circumstances of this concededly singular case, we hold that the common-law right of access to judicial records does not authorize release of the tapes in question from the custody of the District Court. We next consider whether, as respondents claim, the Constitution impels us to reach a different result.
Ill
Respondents argue that release of the tapes is required by both the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial. Neither supports respondents’ conclusion.
A
In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), this Court held that the First Amendment prevented a State from prohibiting the press from publishing the name of a rape victim where that information had been placed “in the public domain on official court records.” Id., at 495. Respondents claim that Cox Broadcasting guarantees the press “access” to — meaning the right to copy and publish — exhibits and materials displayed in open court.
This argument misconceives the holding in Cox Broadcasting. Our decision in that case merely affirmed the right of the press to publish accurately information contained in court records open to the public. Since the press serves as the information-gathering agent of the public, it could not be prevented from reporting what it had learned and what the public was entitled to know. Id., at 491-492. In the instant case, however, there is no claim that the press was precluded from publishing or utilizing as it saw fit the testimony and exhibits filed in evidence. There simply were no restrictions upon press access to, or publication of, any information in the public domain. Indeed, the press — including reporters of the electronic media — was permitted to listen to the tapes and report on what was heard. Reporters also were furnished transcripts of the tapes, which they were free to comment upon and publish. The contents of the tapes were given wide publicity by all elements of the media. There is no question of a truncated flow of information to the public. Thus, the issue presented in this case is not whether the press must be permitted access to public information to which the public generally is guaranteed access, but whether these copies of the White House tapes — to which the public has never had physical access — must be made available for copying. Our decision in Cox Broadcasting simply is not applicable.
The First Amendment generally grants the press no right to information about a trial superior to that of the general public. “Once beyond the confines of the courthouse, a news-gathering agency may publicize, within wide limits, what its representatives have heard and seen in the courtroom. But the line is drawn at the courthouse door; and within, a reporter’s constitutional rights are no greater than those of any other member of the public.” Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 589 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring). Cf. Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843 (1974); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817 (1974). See also Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1,16-17 (1965).
B
Respondents contend that release of the tapes is required by the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial. They acknowledge that the trial at which these tapes were played was one of the most publicized in history, but argue that public understanding of it remains incomplete in the absence of the ability to listen to the tapes and form judgments as to their meaning based on inflection and emphasis.
In the first place, this argument proves too much. The same could be said of the testimony of a live witness, yet there is no constitutional right to have such testimony recorded and broadcast. Estes v. Texas, supra, at 539-542. Second, while the guarantee of a public trial, in the words of Mr. Justice Black, is “a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution,” In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 270 (1948), it confers no special benefit on the press. Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S., at 583 (Warren, C. J., concurring) ; id., at 588-589 (Harlan, J., concurring). Nor does the Sixth Amendment require that the trial — or any part of it — be broadcast live or on tape to the public. The requirement of a public trial is satisfied by the opportunity of members of the public and the press to attend the trial and to report what they have observed. Ibid. That opportunity abundantly existed here.
IV
We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the District Court’s decision not to release the tapes in its custody. We remand the case with directions that an order be entered denying respondents’ application with prejudice.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice White, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, dissenting in part.
Although I agree with the Court that the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act is dispositive of this case and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, my reasons are somewhat different, for I do not agree that the Act does not itself reach the tapes at issue here. It is true that § 101 (a) of the Act requires delivery to the Administrator and his retention of only original tape recordings and hence does not reach the tapes involved here. But § 101 (b) is differently cast:
“(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other law or any agreement or understanding made pursuant to section 2107 of title 44, United States Code, the Administrator shall receive, retain, or make reasonable efforts to obtain, complete possession and control of all papers, documents, memorandums, transcripts, and other objects and materials which constitute the Presidential historical materials of Richard M. Nixon, covering the period beginning January 20,1969, and ending August 9,1974.
“(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘historical materials’ has the meaning given it by section 2101 of title 44, United States Code.”
“Historical materials” is defined in 44 U. S. C. § 2101 as “including books, correspondence, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, motion pictures, sound recordings, and other objects or materials having historical or commemorative value.”
Obviously, § 101 (b) has a far broader sweep than § 101 (a). It is not limited to originals but would reach copies as well. Nor is there any question that the tapes sought to be released here contain conversations that occurred during the critical period covered by § 101 (b)- — January 20, 1969, to August 9, 1974. That the tapes at issue are copies made at a later time does not remove the critical fact that the conversations on these copies, like the conversations on the originals, occurred during the relevant period. Furthermore, if the originals are of historical value, the copies are of equal significance. Otherwise, it is unlikely that there would be such an effort to obtain them.
Of course, the Administrator under the Presidential Recordings Act is not compelled to seek out every copy of every document or recording that was itself produced during the specified period of time. But surely he is authorized to receive the tapes at issue in this case and to deal with them under the terms' of the statute.
It is my view, therefore, that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, but that the case should be remanded to the District Court with instructions to deliver the tapes in question to the Administrator forthwith.
The seven defendants were as follows: John N. Mitchell, former Attorney General and head of the Committee for the Re-election of the President; H. R. Haldeman, former Assistant to the President, serving as White House Chief of Staff; John D. Ehrlichman, former Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs; Charles W. Colson, former Special Counsel to the President; Robert C. Mardian, former Assistant Attorney General and official of the Committee for the Re-election of the President; Kenneth W. Parkinson, hired as the Committee’s counsel in June 1972; and Gordon Strachan, staff assistant to Haldeman.
Crim. No. 74-110 (DC 1974). Defendant Colson pleaded guilty to other charges before trial, and the case against him was dismissed. Strachan’s case was severed and ultimately dismissed. The jury acquitted Parkinson and found Mardian guilty of conspiracy. Mitchell, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman were convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
The convictions of Mitchell, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman were affirmed. United States v. Haldeman, 181 U. S. App. D. C. 254, 559 F. 2d 31 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U. S. 933 (1977). Mardian’s conviction was reversed, United States v. Mardian, 178 U. S. App. D. C. 207, 546 F. 2d 973 (1976), and no further proceedings were instituted against him.
The Clerk of the District Court described the copying procedure:
“White House tape recordings were submitted to the Court pursuant to two separate subpoenas. The first group of tapes were delivered in November 1973 and the second in July and August 1974. In each instance, the Court received what purported to be the entire reel of original recording on which was found any portion of a subpoenaed conversation.
“As the time for trial in U. S. v. Mitchell, et al., CR 74-110, approached, the Court reproduced subpoenaed conversations from the original recordings, using technical assistance supplied by the Watergate Special Prosecutor. Portions of conversations and, in some cases, entire conversations which the Court had previously declared to be subject to privilege were not reproduced. Two copies of each conversation were produced simultaneously and were designated Copy A and Copy B. The Copy B series was delivered to the Special Prosecutor pursuant to the subpoenas aforementioned for use in the preparation of transcripts. Copy A series tapes were retained by the Court and later marked for identification as Government Exhibits in CR 74^110. These tapes are contained on about 50 separate reels.
“In the Government’s case at trial, some, but not all, of the Copy A series tapes were admitted into evidence. Some, but again not all, of the tape exhibits were published to the jury. Those published were played to the jury either in whole or in part. Where exhibits were not published in their entirety, the deletions had been made either by the Government on its own motion or pursuant to an order of Judge Sirica. Deletions were effected not by modifying the exhibit itself, but by skipping deleted portions on the tape or by interrupting the sound transmission to the jurors’ headphones. The exhibits remain as originally constituted, i “The jurors were provided with transcripts of the tape recorded conversations for use as aids in listening to the exhibits. These written transcripts were marked for identification as Government -Exhibits, and copies provided to the individual jurors, counsel, and news media representatives at the time the tapes were played. Deletions in the copies of transcripts used by the jurors and others matched precisely the deletions in tapes as they were published at trial.
“In many instances the Copy A series tapes introduced as Government Exhibits contain material that has not been published to the jury and others present in the courtroom.” Affidavit of James F. Davey, Nov. 26, 1974, pp. 2-3; App. 2é-25.
The District Court retains custody of the Copy A tapes, which are at issue here, and of the original recordings, which are not. The Copy B series is in the files of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, stored at the National Archives.
We note that under § 101 of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, 88 Stat. 1695, note following 44 U. S. C. § 2107 (1970 ed., Supp. V), the original tape recordings are subject to the control of the Administrator of General Services.
On September 17, 1974, representatives of the three commercial television networks had written informally to Judge Sirica, asking permission to copy for broadcasting purposes portions of the tapes played during the course of the trial. Judge Sirica referred this request to Chief Judge Hart, who consulted with other judges of the District Court and advised against permitting such copying. On October 2, 1974, Judge Sirica informed the network representatives that copying would not be allowed.
The three commercial networks and the Radio-Television News Directors Association filed with the District Court this formal application to copy the tapes on November 12, 1974. The Public Broadcasting System joined the application the next day. Warner Communications, Inc., filed a separate application on December 2,1974.
For a detailed discussion of the terms and validity of the Act, see Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425 (1977).
40 Fed. Reg. 2670 (1975). Those regulations ultimately were disapproved. S. Res. 244, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), 121 Cong. Rec. 28609-28614 (1975). See also n. 16,
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, a Negro convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a white man, attacks his conviction as violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He claims that, as a result of a long-established practice in the county of his conviction, Negroes were arbitrarily and systematically excluded from sitting on the grand jury which indicted him and the petit jury which convicted him. The State answers that the claim comes too late, having been asserted for the first time by a motion for a new trial. Code of Ala. (1958 Recomp.), Tit. 15, §§ 278, 279; Ball v. State, 252 Ala. 686, 689, 42 So. 2d 626, 629. Admittedly, the point was not raised until the filing of the motion for a new trial, but the trial judge permitted the petitioner to proceed on his motion. However, the judge sustained objections to all questions concerning the alleged jury discrimination and denied the motion. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the conviction, finding that petitioner’s claim of jury discrimination was not supported by any evidence. We granted certiorari, 375 U. S. 893.
Petitioner was convicted of the first degree murder of a white mechanic, the apparent motive being robbery. There were no witnesses to the killing and the evidence of guilt was circumstantial, based largely upon expert testimony given by the State’s toxicologist. Petitioner was represented by court-appointed counsel at trial but he obtained new counsel after conviction. In his motion for a new trial petitioner alleged that “Negroes qualified for jury service in Greene County, Alabama are arbitrarily, systematically and intentionally excluded from jury duty in violation of rights and privileges guaranteed defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The petitioner does not attack the reasonableness of Alabama’s procedural requirement that objections to the composition of juries must be made before trial. Nor does he question the validity of such procedures as a state ground upon which refusal to consider the question might be based. However, in this case the judge granted petitioner a hearing on his motion for a new trial and permitted him to call two Circuit Solicitors as witnesses to prove his allegations of discrimination. Nonetheless, the judge sustained objections to all questions concerning systematic discrimination on the ground that the point was not raised prior to trial. On automatic appeal the Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial judge had afforded petitioner “an opportunity on the hearing of the motion for a new trial to adduce evidence of any systematic exclusion . . . .” However, it found further that “none was introduced other than an affidavit of appellant’s mother that her son was indicted by a grand jury composed of white men, and tried and convicted by a petit jury composed of twelve white men.”
It appears clear that the motion for a new trial alleged a practice of systematic exclusion which, if proved, would entitle petitioner to a new trial. Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773 (1964); Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584 (1958); Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85 (1955) ; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1879). Here petitioner’s counsel failed to raise the issue before trial; but the Alabama Supreme Court, apparently acting under the enlightened procedure of its automatic appeals statute, did not base its affirmance on this ground but considered the claim on the merits and held that the petitioner had not met his burden of establishing racial discrimination. The court concluded:
“No sufficient proof having been produced at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, or at any other state of the proceedings, it is clear appellant may not now complain. Therefore, we are left under no doubt that appellant’s point on systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury rolls in Greene County is not well taken.”
Exercising its discretion to permit petitioner to attack the exclusion by motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court of Alabama decided petitioner’s constitutional claim on the merits. The judgment, therefore, “rested upon the State Supreme Court’s considered conclusion that the conviction resulting in the death sentence was not obtained in disregard of the protections secured to the petitioner by the Constitution of the United States.” Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U. S. 394, 404 (1959). Since the case comes here in that posture and the record shows that petitioner was not permitted to offer evidence to support his claim, the judgment of affirmance must fall. As in Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442 (1900), where the state court found that “the motion was but a mere tender of the issue, unaccompanied by any supporting testimony . . .'this Court must reverse on the ground that the defendant “offered to introduce witnesses to prove the allegations . . . and the court . . . declined to hear any evidence upon the subject . . . .” At 448-449.
In light of these considerations, the petitioner is now entitled to have his day in court on his allegations of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries sitting in his case. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Alabama for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
“ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: I can ask whether or not the law was complied with?
“COURT: Yes. The fact that the law was complied with, that is a general question, but the Court will sustain an objection to that because the courts have held repeatedly, the Supreme Court of Alabama and the Supreme Court of the United States, that you can not go into those matters unless they have been raised properly during the trial or in some proceedings prior thereto. That is the reason I asked you the question before. The case was tried by Mr. Boggs and the Court is familiar with it.
“ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: But I would like to get one or two of these questions in the record for the purpose of taking an exception to it.
“COURT: You may ask the questions, but the Court will have to sustain an objection to them.
“Q. Mr. Boggs, you were present when the Grand Jury, which indicted Johnny Coleman, was convened, were you not?
“A. I was.
“Q. How many persons were on that grand jury?
“A. Eighteen.
“Q. Were any negroes on that grand jury?
“SOLICITOR: I object to that, may it please the Court. It is an illegal mode of raising that which should have been raised by motion to quash the indictment.
“COURT: Sustain the objection.
“ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: I want to ask one more question, and then I won’t have any further question to ask — two more, your Honor.
“Q. Were there any negroes on the petit jury that tried this defendant?
“SOLICITOR: I object to that, may it please the Court, on the ground that it should have been properly raised by motion to quash the venire if the Fourteenth Amendment was to be taken advantage of in this matter.
“COURT: Sustain the objection.”
Code of Alabama (1958 Recomp.), Tit. 15, §382 (10):
“Hearing and determination in appellate court. — In all cases of automatic appeals the appellate court may consider, at its discretion, any testimony that was seriously prejudicial to the rights of the appellant, and may reverse thereon even though no lawful objection or exception was made thereto. The appellate court shall consider all of the testimony and if upon such consideration is of opinion the verdict is so decidedly contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be wrong and unjust and that upon that ground a new trial should be had, the court shall enter an order of reversal of the judgment and grant a new trial, though no motion to that effect was presented in the court below.”
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was convicted in the state trial court of violating a Wisconsin statute prohibiting the dissemination of “lewd, obscene or indecent written matter, picture, sound recording, or film.” Wis. Stat. § 944.21 (1) (a) (1969). He was sentenced to consecutive one-year terms in the Green Bay Reformatory and fined $1,000 on each of two counts. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld his conviction against the contention that he had been deprived of freedom of the press in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 51 Wis. 2d 668, 188 N. W. 2d 467.
Petitioner was the publisher of an underground newspaper called Kaleidoscope. In an issue published in May 1968, that newspaper carried a story entitled “The One Hundred Thousand Dollar Photos” on an interior page. The story itself was an account of the arrest of one of Kaleidoscope’s photographers on a charge of possession of obscene material. Two relatively small pictures, showing a nude man and nude woman embracing in a sitting position, accompanied the article and were described in the article as “similar” to those seized from the photographer. The article said that the photographer, while waiting in the district attorney’s office, had heard that bail might be set at $100,000. The article went on to say that bail had in fact been set originally at $100, then raised to $250, and that later the photographer had been released on his own recognizance. The article purported to detail police tactics that were described as an effort to “harass” Kaleidoscope and its staff.
Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), held that obscenity was not protected under the First or Fourteenth Amendments. Material may be considered obscene when “to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.” 354 U. S., at 489. In enunciating this test, the Court in Roth quoted from Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 101-102:
“The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment. The exigencies of the colonial period and the efforts to secure freedom from oppressive administration developed a broadened conception of these liberties as adequate to supply the public need for information and education with respect to the significant issues of the times. . . (Emphasis supplied.)
We do not think it can fairly be said, either considering the article as it appears or the record before the state court, that the article was a mere vehicle for the publication of the pictures. A quotation from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book will not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication, but if these pictures were indeed similar to the one seized — and we do not understand the State to contend differently — they are relevant to the theme of the article. We find it unnecessary to consider whether the State could constitutionally prohibit the dissemination of the pictures by themselves, because in the context in which they appeared in the newspaper they were rationally related to an article that itself was clearly entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thornhill v. Alabama, supra. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The conviction on count one must therefore be reversed.
In its August 1968 issue, Kaleidoscope published a two-page spread consisting of 11 poems, one of which was entitled “Sex Poem.” The second count of petitioner’s conviction was for the dissemination of the newspaper containing this poem. The poem is an undisguisedly frank, play-by-play account of the author’s recollection of sexual intercourse. But, as the Both Court emphasized, “sex and obscenity are not synonymous. . . . The portrayal of sex, e. g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press.” 354 U. S., at 487. A reviewing court must, of necessity, look at the context of the material, as well as its content.
In this case, considering the poem’s content and its placement amid a selection of poems in the interior of a newspaper, we believe that it bears some of the earmarks of an attempt at serious art. While such earmarks are not inevitably a guarantee against a finding of obscenity, and while in this case many would conclude that the author's reach exceeded his grasp, this element must be considered in assessing whether or not the “dominant” theme of the material appeals to prurient interest. While “contemporary community standards,” Roth v. United States, 354 U. S., at 489, must leave room for some latitude of judgment, and while there is an undeniably subjective element in the test as a whole, the “dominance” of the theme is a question of constitutional fact. Giving due weight and respect to the conclusions of the trial court and to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, we do not believe that it can be said that the dominant theme of this poem appeals to prurient interest. The judgment on the second count, therefore, must also be reversed.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stewart concurs in the judgment.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue here is whether respondent Lyons satisfied the prerequisites for seeking injunctive relief in the Federal District Court.
I
This case began on February 7, 1977, when respondent, Adolph Lyons, filed a complaint for damages, injunction, and declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants were the City of Los Angeles and four of its police officers. The complaint alleged that on October 6, 1976, at 2 a. m., Lyons was stopped by the defendant officers for a traffic or vehicle code violation and that although Lyons offered no resistance or threat whatsoever, the Officers, without provocation or justification, seized Lyons and applied a “chokehold” — either the “bar arm control” hold or the “carotid-artery control” hold or both — rendering him unconscious and causing damage to his larynx. Counts I through IV of the complaint sought damages against the officers and the City. Count V, with which we are principally concerned here, sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against the City barring the use of the control holds. That count alleged that the City’s police officers, “pursuant to the authorization, instruction and encouragement of Defendant City of Los Angeles, regularly and routinely apply these choke holds in innumerable situations where they are not threatened by the use of any deadly force whatsoever,” that numerous persons have been injured as the result of the application of the chokeholds, that Lyons and others similarly situated are threatened with irreparable injury in the form of bodily injury and loss of life, and that Lyons “justifiably fears that any contact he has with Los Angeles Police officers may result in his being choked and strangled to death without provocation, justification or other legal excuse.” Lyons alleged the threatened impairment of rights protected by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Injunctive relief was sought against the use of the control holds “except in situations where the proposed victim of said control reasonably appears to be threatening the immediate use of deadly force.” Count VI sought declaratory relief against the City, i. e., a judgment that use of the chokeholds absent the threat of immediate use of deadly force is a per se violation of various constitutional rights.
The District Court, by order, granted the City’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment for the City on Counts V and VI. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the City on Counts V and VI, holding over the City’s objection that despite our decisions in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), and Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976), Lyons had standing to seek relief against the application of the chokeholds. Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 615 F. 2d 1243 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that there was a sufficient likelihood that Lyons would again be stopped and subjected to the unlawful use of force to constitute a case or controversy and to warrant the issuance of an injunction, if the injunction was otherwise authorized. We denied certiorari. 449 U. S. 934 (1980).
On remand, Lyons applied for a preliminary injunction. Lyons pressed only the Count V claim at this point. See n. 6, infra. The motion was heard on affidavits, depositions, and government records. The District Court found that Lyons had been stopped for a traffic infringement and that without provocation or legal justification the officers involved had applied a “Department-authorized chokehold which resulted in injuries to the plaintiff.” The court further found that the department authorizes the use of the holds in situations where no one is threatened by death or grievous bodily harm, that officers are insufficiently trained, that the use of the holds involves a high risk of injury or death as then employed, and that their continued use in situations where neither death nor serious bodily injury is threatened “is unconscionable in a civilized society.” The court concluded that such use violated Lyons’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. A preliminary injunction was entered enjoining “the use of both the carotid artery and bar arm holds under circumstances which do not threaten death or serious bodily injury.” An improved training program and regular reporting and recordkeeping were also ordered. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a brief per curiam opinion stating that the District Court had not abused its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction. 656 F. 2d 417 (1981). We granted certiorari, 455 U. S. 937 (1982), and now reverse.
II
Since our grant of certiorari, circumstances pertinent to the case have changed. Originally, Lyons’ complaint alleged that at least two deaths had occurred as a result of the application of chokeholds by the police. His first amended complaint alleged that 10 chokehold-related deaths had occurred. By May 1982, there had been five more such deaths. On May 6,1982, the Chief of Police in Los Angeles prohibited the use of the bar-arm chokehold in any circumstances. A few days later, on May 12,1982, the Board of Police Commissioners imposed a 6-month moratorium on the use of the carotid-artery chokehold except under circumstances where deadly force is authorized.
Based on these events, on June 3, 1982, the City filed in this Court a memorandum suggesting a question of mootness, reciting the facts but arguing that the case was not moot. Lyons in turn filed a motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. We denied that motion but reserved the question of mootness for later consideration. 457 U. S. 1115 (1982).
In his brief and at oral argument, Lyons has reasserted his position that in light of changed conditions, an injunctive decree is now unnecessary because he is no longer subject to a threat of injury. He urges that the preliminary injunction should be vacated. The City, on the other hand, while acknowledging that subsequent events have significantly changed the posture of this case, again asserts that the case is not moot because the moratorium is not permanent and may be lifted at any time.
We agree with the City that the case is not moot, since the moratorium by its terms is not permanent. Intervening events have not “irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979). We nevertheless hold, for another reason, that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain Lyons’ claim for injunctive relief.
HH I — I l-H
It goes without saying that those who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Art. Ill of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 94-101 (1968); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 421-425 (1969) (opinion of Marshall, J.). Plaintiffs must demonstrate a “personal stake in the outcome” in order to “assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues” necessary for the proper resolution of constitutional questions. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). Abstract injury is not enough. The plaintiff must show that he “has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury” as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both “real and immediate,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” See, e. g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1969); Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 89-91 (1947); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941); Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923).
In O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), we dealt with a case brought by a class of plaintiffs claiming that they had been subjected to discriminatory enforcement of the criminal law. Among other things, a county magistrate and judge were accused of discriminatory conduct in various respects, such as sentencing members of plaintiff’s class more harshly than other defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the suit- by the District Court, ruling that if the allegations were proved, an appropriate injunction could be entered.
We reversed for failure of the complaint to allege a case or controversy. Id., at 493. Although it was claimed in that case that particular members of the plaintiff class had actually suffered from the alleged unconstitutional practices, we observed that “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Id., at 495-496. Past wrongs were evidence bearing on “whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Id., at 496. But the prospect of future injury rested “on the likelihood that [plaintiffs] will again be arrested for and charged with violations of the criminal law and will again be subjected to bond proceedings, trial, or sentencing before petitioners.” Ibid. The most that could be said for plaintiffs’ standing was “that if [plaintiffs] proceed to violate an unchallenged law and if they are charged, held to answer, and tried in any proceedings before petitioners, they will be subjected to the discriminatory practices that petitioners are alleged to have followed.” Id., at 497. We could not find a case or controversy in those circumstances: the threat to the plaintiffs was not “sufficiently real and immediate to show an existing controversy simply because they anticipate violating lawful criminal statutes and being tried for their offenses. ...” Id., at 496. It was to be assumed that “[plaintiffs] will conduct their activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction as well as exposure to the challenged course of conduct said to be followed by petitioners.” Id., at 497.
We further observed that case-or-controversy considerations “obviously shade into those determining whether the complaint states a sound basis for equitable relief,” id., at 499, and went on to hold that even if the complaint presented an existing case or controversy, an adequate basis for equitable relief against petitioners had not been demonstrated:
“[Plaintiffs] have failed, moreover, to establish the basic requisites of the issuance of equitable relief in these circumstances — the likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury, and the inadequacy of remedies at law. We have already canvassed the necessarily conjectural nature of the threatened injury to which [plaintiffs] are allegedly subjected. And if any of the [plaintiffs] are ever prosecuted and face trial, or if they are illegally sentenced, there are available state and federal procedures which could provide relief from the wrongful conduct alleged.” Id., at 502.
Another relevant decision for present purposes is Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976), a case in which plaintiffs alleged widespread illegal and unconstitutional police conduct aimed at minority citizens and against city residents in general. The Court reiterated the holding in O’Shea that past wrongs do not in themselves amount to that real and immediate threat of injury necessary to make out a case or controversy. The claim of injury rested upon “what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future because of that unknown policeman’s perception” of departmental procedures. 423 U. S., at 372. This hypothesis was “even more attenuated than those allegations of future injury found insufficient in O’Shea to warrant [the] invocation of federal jurisdiction.” Ibid. The Court also held that plaintiffs’ showing at trial of a relatively few instances of violations by individual police officers, without any showing of a deliberate policy on behalf of the named defendants, did not provide a basis for equitable relief.
Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969), a case arising in an analogous situation, is directly apposite. Zwickler sought a declaratory judgment that a New York statute prohibiting anonymous handbills directly pertaining to election campaigns was unconstitutional. Although Zwickler had once been convicted under the statute, his sole concern related to a Congressman who had left the House of Representatives for a place on the Supreme Court of New York and who would not likely be a candidate again. A unanimous Court held that because it was “most unlikely” that Zwickler would again be subject to the statute, no case or controversy of “‘sufficient immediacy and reality’” was present to allow a declaratory judgment. Id., at 109. Just as Zwickler’s assertion that the former Congressman could be a candidate for Congress again was “hardly a substitute for evidence that this is a prospect of ‘immediacy and reality,’” ibid., Lyons’ assertion that he may again be subject to an illegal chokehold does not create the actual controversy that must exist for a declaratory judgment to be entered.
We note also our per curiam opinion in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171 (1977). There, the father of a boy who had been killed by the police sought damages and a declaration that the Missouri statute which authorized police officers to use deadly force in apprehending a person who committed a felony was unconstitutional. Plaintiff alleged that he had another son, who “‘if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers ....’” Id., at 172, n. 2. We ruled that “[s]uch speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.” Id., at 173, n. 2.
IV
No extension of O Shea and Rizzo is necessary to hold that respondent Lyons has failed to demonstrate a case or controversy with the City that would justify the equitable relief sought. Lyons’ standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers. Count V of the complaint alleged the traffic stop and choking incident five months before. That Lyons may have been illegally choked by the police on October 6, 1976, while presumably affording Lyons standing to claim damages against the individual officers and perhaps against the City, does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped for a traffic violation, or for any other offense, by an officer or officers who would illegally choke him into unconsciousness without any provocation or resistance on his part. The additional allegation in the complaint that the police in Los Angeles routinely apply chokeholds in situations where they are not threatened by the use of deadly force falls far short of the allegations that would be necessary to establish a case or controversy between these parties.
In order to establish an actual controversy in this case, Lyons would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police but also to make the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los An-geles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation, or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner. Although Count V alleged that the City authorized the use of the control holds in situations where deadly force was not threatened, it did not indicate why Lyons might be realistically threatened by police officers who acted within the strictures of the City’s policy. If, for example, chokeholds were authorized to be used only to counter resistance to an arrest by a suspect, or to thwart an effort to escape, any future threat to Lyons from the City’s policy or from the conduct of police officers would be no more real than the possibility that he would again have an encounter with the police and that either he would illegally resist arrest or detention or the officers would disobey their instructions and again render him unconscious without any provocation.
Under O’Shea and Rizzo, these allegations were an insufficient basis to provide a federal court with jurisdiction to entertain Count V of the complaint. This was apparently the conclusion of the District Court in dismissing Lyons’ claim for injunctive relief. Although the District Court acted without opinion or findings, the Court of Appeals interpreted its action as based on lack of standing, i. e., that under O’Shea and Rizzo, Lyons must be held to have made an “insufficient showing that the police were likely to do this to the plaintiff again.” 615 F. 2d, at 1246. For several reasons — each of. them infirm, in our view — the Court of Appeals thought reliance on O’Shea and Rizzo was misplaced and reversed the District Court.
First, the Court of Appeals thought that Lyons was more immediately threatened than the plaintiffs in those cases since, according to the Court of Appeals, Lyons need only be stopped for a minor traffic violation to be subject to the strangleholds. But even assuming that Lyons would again be stopped for a traffic or other violation in the reasonably near future, it is untenable to assert, and the complaint made no such allegation, that strangleholds are applied by the Los Angeles police to every citizen who is stopped or arrested regardless of the conduct of the person stopped. We cannot agree that the “odds,” 615 F. 2d, at 1247, that Lyons would not only again be stopped for a traffic violation but would also be subjected to a chokehold without any provocation whatsoever are sufficient to make out a federal case for equitable relief. We note that five months elapsed between October 6, 1976, and the filing of the complaint, yet there was no allegation of further unfortunate encounters between Lyons and the police.
Of course, it may be that among the countless encounters between the police and the citizens of a great city such as Los Angeles, there will be certain instances in which strangleholds will be illegally applied and injury and death unconstitutionally inflicted on the victim. As we have said, however, it is no more than conjecture to suggest that in every instance of a traffic stop, arrest, or other encounter between the police and a citizen, the police will act unconstitutionally and inflict injury without provocation or legal excuse. And it is surely no more than speculation to assert either that Lyons himself will again be involved in one of those unfortunate instances, or that he will be arrested in the future and provoke the use of a chokehold by resisting arrest, attempting to escape, or threatening deadly force or serious bodily injury.
Second, the Court of Appeals viewed O’Shea and Rizzo as cases in which the plaintiffs sought “massive structural” relief against the local law enforcement systems and therefore that the holdings in those cases were inapposite to cases such as this where the plaintiff, according to the Court of Appeals, seeks to enjoin only an “established,” “sanctioned” police practice assertedly violative of constitutional rights. O’Shea and Rizzo, however, cannot be so easily confined to their facts. If Lyons has made no showing that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of his experience of October 1976, then he has not met the requirements for seeking an injunction in a federal court, whether the injunction contemplates intrusive structural relief or the cessation of a discrete practice.
The Court of Appeals also asserted that Lyons “had a live and active claim” against the City “if only for a period of a few seconds” while the stranglehold was being applied to him and that for two reasons the claim had not become moot so as to disentitle Lyons to injunctive relief: First, because under normal rules of equity, a case does not become moot merely because the complained of conduct has ceased; and second, because Lyons’ claim is “capable of repetition but evading review” and therefore should be heard. We agree that Lyons had a live controversy with the City. Indeed, he still has a claim for damages against the City that appears to meet all Art. Ill requirements. Nevertheless, the issue here is not whether that claim has become moot but whether Lyons meets the preconditions for asserting an injunctive claim in a federal forum. The equitable doctrine that cessation of the challenged conduct does not bar an injunction is of little help in this respect, for Lyons’ lack of standing does not rest on the termination of the police practice but on the speculative nature of his claim that he will again experience injury as the result of that practice even if continued.
The rule that a claim does not become moot where it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, is likewise inapposite. Lyons’ claim that he was illegally strangled remains to be litigated in his suit for damages; in no sense does that claim “evade” review. Furthermore, the capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 319 (1974). As we have indicated, Lyons has not made this demonstration.
The record and findings made on remand do not improve Lyons’ position with respect to standing. The District Court, having been reversed, did not expressly address Lyons’ standing to seek injunctive relief, although the City was careful to preserve its position on this question. There was no finding that Lyons faced a real and immediate threat of again being illegally choked. The City’s policy was described as authorizing the use of the strangleholds “under circumstances where no one is threatened with death or grievous bodily harm.” That policy was not further described, but the record before the court contained the department’s existing policy with respect to the employment of chokeholds. Nothing in that policy, contained in a Police Department manual, suggests that the chokeholds, or other kinds of force for that matter, are authorized absent some resistance or other provocation by the arrestee or other suspect. On the contrary, police officers were instructed to use chokeholds only when lesser degrees of force do not suffice and then only “to gain control of a suspect who is violently resisting the officer or trying to escape.” App. 230.
Our conclusion is that the Court of Appeals failed to heed O’Shea, Rizzo, and other relevant authority, and that the District Court was quite right in dismissing Count V.
V
Lyons fares no better if it be assumed that his pending damages suit affords him Art. Ill standing to seek an injunction as a remedy for the claim arising out of the October 1976 events. The equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again — a “likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S., at 502. The speculative nature of Lyons’ claim of future injury requires a finding that this prerequisite of equitable relief has not been fulfilled.
Nor will the injury that Lyons allegedly suffered in 1976 go unrecompensed; for that injury, he has an adequate remedy at law. Contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, it is not at all “difficult” under our holding “to see how anyone can ever challenge police or similar administrative practices.” 615 F. 2d, at 1250. The legality of the violence to which Lyons claims he was once subjected is at issue in his suit for damages and can be determined there. -
Absent a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way, Lyons is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen of Los Angeles; and a federal court may not entertain a claim by .any or all citizens who no more than assert that certain practices of law enforcement officers are unconstitutional. Cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975); Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974). This is not to suggest that such undifferentiated claims should not be taken seriously by local authorities. Indeed, the interest of an alert and interested citizen is an essential element of an effective and fair government, whether on the local, state, or national level. A federal court, however, is not the proper forum to press such claims unless the requirements for entry and the prerequisites for injunctive relief are satisfied.
We decline the invitation to slight the preconditions for equitable relief; for as we have held, recognition of the need for a proper balance between state and federal authority counsels restraint in the issuance of injunctions against state officers engaged in the administration of the States’ criminal laws in the absence of irreparable injury which is both great and immediate. O’Shea, supra, at 499; Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 46 (1971). Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972), held that suits brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 are exempt from the flat ban against the issuance of injunctions directed at state-court proceedings, 28 U. S. C. §2283. But this holding did not displace the normal principles of equity, comity, and federalism that should inform the judgment of federal courts when asked to oversee state law enforcement authorities. In exercising their equitable powers federal courts must recognize “[t]he special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, 120 (1951); O’Shea v. Littleton, supra, at 500. See also Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S., at 380; Cleary v. Bolger, 371 U. S. 392 (1963); Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U. S. 381 (1961); Pugach v. Dollinger, 365 U. S. 458 (1961). The Court of Appeals failed to apply these factors properly and therefore erred in finding that the District Court had not abused its discretion in entering an injunction in this case.
As we noted in O’Shea, 414 U. S., at 503, withholding in-junctive relief does not mean that the “federal law will exercise no deterrent effect in these circumstances.” If Lyons has suffered an injury barred by the Federal Constitution, he has a remedy for damages under § 1983. Furthermore, those who deliberately deprive a citizen of his constitutional rights risk conviction under the federal criminal laws. Ibid.
Beyond these considerations the state courts need not impose the same standing or remedial requirements that govern federal-court proceedings. The individual States may permit their courts to use injunctions to oversee the conduct of law enforcement authorities on a continuing basis. But this is not the role of a federal court, absent far more justification than Lyons has proffered in this case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
The police control procedures at issue in this case are referred to as “control holds,” “chokeholds,” “strangleholds,” and “neck restraints.” All these terms refer to two basic control procedures: the “carotid” hold and the “bar arm” hold. In the “carotid” hold, an officer positioned behind a subject places one arm around the subject’s neck and holds the wrist of that arm with his other hand. The officer, by using his lower forearm and bicep muscle, applies pressure concentrating on the carotid arteries located on the sides of the subject’s neck. The “carotid” hold is capable of rendering the subject unconscious by diminishing the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain. The “bar arm” hold, which is administered similarly, applies pressure at the front of the subject’s neck. “Bar arm” pressure causes pain, reduces the flow of oxygen to the lungs, and may render the subject unconscious.
The order also gave judgment for the City on Count II insofar as that Count rested on the First and Eighth Amendments, as well as on Count VII, which sought a declaratory judgment that the City Attorney was not authorized to prosecute misdemeanor charges. It appears from the record on file with this Court that Counts III and IV had previously been dismissed on motion, although they reappeared in an amended complaint filed after remand from the Court of Appeals.
By its terms, the injunction was to continue in force until the court approved the training program to be presented to it. It is fair to assume that such approval would not be given if the program did not confine the use of the strangleholds to those situations in which their use, in the view of the District Court, would be constitutional. Because of successive stays entered by the Court of Appeals and by this Court, the injunction has not gone into effect.
The Board of Police Commissioners directed the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) staff to use and assess the effectiveness of alternative control techniques and report its findings to the Board every two months. Prior to oral argument in this case, two such reports had been submitted, but the Board took no further action. On November 9, 1982, the Board extended the moratorium until it had the “opportunity to review and evaluate” a third report from the Police Department. Insofar as we are advised, the third report has yet to be submitted.
Zwickler’s conviction was reversed on state-law grounds. 394 U. S., at 105.
The City states in its brief that on remand from the Court of Appeals’ first judgment “[t]he parties agreed and advised the district court that the respondent’s damages claim could be severed from his effort to obtain equitable relief.” Brief for Petitioner 8, n. 7. Respondent does not suggest otherwise. This case, therefore, as it came to us, is on all fours with O’Shea and should be judged as such.
The centerpiece of Justice Marshall’s dissent is that Lyons had standing to challenge the City’s policy because to recover damages he would have to prove that what allegedly occurred on October 6, 1976, was pursuant to city authorization. We agree completely that for Lyons to succeed in his damages action, it would be necessary to prove that what happened to him — that is, as alleged, he was choked without any provocation or legal excuse whatsoever — was pursuant to a city policy. For several reasons, however, it does not follow that Lyons had standing to seek the injunction prayed for in Count V.
First, Lyons alleges in Count II of his first amended complaint that on October 6, 1976, the officers were carrying out official policies of the City. That allegation was incorporated by reference in Count V. That policy, however, is described in paragraphs 20 and 23 of Count V as authorizing the use of chokeholds “in situations where [the officers] are threatened by far less than deadly force.” This is not equivalent to the unbelievable assertion that the City either orders or authorizes application of the choke-holds where there is no resistance or other provocation.
Second, even if such an allegation is thought to be contained in the complaint, it is belied by the record made on the application for preliminary injunction.
Third, even if the complaint must be read as containing an allegation that officers are authorized to apply the chokeholds where there is no resistance or other provocation, it does not follow that Lyons has standing to seek an injunction against the application of the restraint holds in situations that he has not experienced, as for example, where the suspect resists arrest or tries to escape but does not threaten the use of deadly force. Yet that is precisely the scope of the injunction that Lyons prayed for in Count V.
Fourth, and in any event, to have a case or controversy with the City that could sustain Count V, Lyons would have to credibly allege that he faced a realistic threat from the future application of the City’s policy. Justice Marshall nowhere confronts this requirement — the necessity that Lyons demonstrate that he, himself, will not only again be stopped by the police but will also be choked without any provocation or legal excuse. Justice Marshall plainly does not agree with that requirement, and he was in dissent in O’Shea v. Littleton. We are at issue in that respect.
As previously indicated, supra, at 98, Lyons alleged that he feared he would be choked in any future encounter with the police. The reasonableness of Lyons’ fear is dependent upon the likelihood of a recurrence of the allegedly unlawful conduct. It is the reality of the threat of repeated injury that is relevant to the standing inquiry, not the plaintiff’s subjective apprehensions. The emotional consequences of a prior act simply are not a sufficient basis for an injunction absent a real and immediate threat of future injury by the defendant. Of course, emotional upset is a relevant consideration in a damages action.
The dissent notes that a LAPD training officer stated that the police are authorized to employ the control holds whenever an officer “feels” that there is about to be a bodily attack. Post, at 118. The dissent’s emphasis on the word “feels” apparently is intended to suggest that LAPD officers are authorized to apply the holds whenever they “feel” like it. If there is a distinction between permitting the use of the holds when there is a “threat” of serious bodily harm, and when the officer “feels” or believes there is about to be a bodily attack, the dissent has failed to make it clear. The dissent does not, because it cannot, point to any written or oral pronouncement by the LAPD or any evidence showing a pattern of police behavior that would indicate that the official policy would permit the application of the control holds on a suspect who was not offering, or threatening to offer, physical resistance.
The City’s memorandum suggesting a question of mootness informed the Court that the use of the control holds had become “a major civic controversy” and that in April and May 1982 “a spirited, vigorous, and at times emotional debate” on the issue took place. The result was the current moratorium on the use of the holds.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises two questions: the appealability of an order denying a demand for trial by jury in a federal court, and whether the constitutional right to a jury applies to the trial of an issue of mutual mistake.
The facts are these. Petitioner in August of 1947 was carrying insurance with respondent on a hangar at its Municipal Airport. The policy by its terms insured petitioner against loss by fire or lightning in the amount of $22,000. On August 20, the hangar was completely destroyed by fire. Petitioner filed proof of loss. Shortly thereafter respondent instituted an action in the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia for reformation and correction of the policy. It alleged in substance that during the preceding year petitioner had carried only windstorm insurance on the hangar, in the same amount; that the' policy currently in force was intended by the parties to be a renewal of the prior policy; that the premium paid was the same as had been paid for windstorm insurance, an amount much less than the premium for fire insurance; and the policy had been written as a fire policy through the inadvertence of both parties and did not express the intent of either. It prayed for reformation to correct the mutual mistake and for a declaration of no liability for the loss by fire. Petitioner answered, denying mistake, and filed a counterclaim to recover oh the policy as written. Respondent' answered the counterclaim, alleging the same facts as in its complaint. Petitioner' filed a demand for jury trial under Rule 38 (b); respondent moved to strike the demand; the court granted the motion and set the case for trial to the court without a jury. Petitioner appealed from this ruling. On motion of respondent, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, 169 F. 2d 713, and the case is here on a writ of certiorari. 335 U. S.' 890.
In this posture of the case, we are first confronted with the question of the appealability of the trial court’s, order denying jury trial. Not being a final decision, it is appealable, if at all, only as an interlocutory decree granting or refusing an injunction' under § 129 of the Judicial Code (28 U. S. C. § 227). Petitioner urges Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U. S. 379, and Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 317 U. S. 188, upon us as conclusive in favor of appealability. In each of those cases, the plaintiff had commenced an action to recover according to the terms of an insurance policy; in each of them the insurance company denied liability, alleging fraud in the' procurement of the policy, and moved that the issue of fraud be tried to the court without a jury. The trial court in each case granted the motion, and this Court held on review that the rulings thus made' were appealable under § 129.
The substance of § 129 has been a part of federal law since 1891, 26 Stat. 828, and its relation to other aspects of procedure has not been rigid. Since 1912 the history of the law govérning procedure in the federal courts has manifested a slow but consistent process of coalescing of the practice in the law and equity sides of the courts. In that year this Court adopted new equity rules, of. which Rule 22 and Rule 23 made a significant start in procedural unification. A major step occurred in 1915, with the enactment of the Law and Equity Act, 38 Stat. 956, which added §§ 274 (a) and 274 (b) to the Judicial Code. The net effect, of these additions was to allow transfer of action .begun on. either side of the court to the other side, without the necessity of commencing a new action, to permit determination of law questions arising in equity actions in those actions, and to allow equitable defenses to be offered and equitable relief to be granted in an action at law.
In this state of a partly blended law and equity procedure arose the Enelow case, supra. The Court there held, with regard to an order denying trial by jury, that by analogy to practice at common law the order was one granting"an injunction within the meaning of § 129.
The coalescing of law and equity procedure was completed, in 1938, with the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Their purpose, among others, was “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” and to that end they prescribed identical procedure for all actions, whether cognizable formerly at law or in equity. After their adoption, the identical problem presented by the Enelow case arose in Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra. It was argued that the adoption of the rules had so unified the federal procedure that the type of order in question could no longer be considered an injunction and appealable. We held the order appealable, since the rules had not changed its substantial effect, noting that the position of the parties was the same as it would have been if a state equity court had enjoined an action at law.
Whatever the present validity of the analogy to common-law practice which supported those cases, it is of no help here. This is not a situation where a “chancellor” in denying a demand for jury trial can be said to be enjoining a “judge” who has cognizance of a pending action at law. This is rather a case of a judge making a ruling as to the manner in which he will try one isshe -in a civil action pending before himself. The fiction of a court with two sides, one of. which can stay proceedings in the other, is not applicable where there is no other proceeding in existence to be stayed. The ruling from which the appeal in this case was prosecuted is an order interlocutory in form and substance. Nothing in the language of the rules or the Judicial Code brings it within the .class of appealable decisions, -and distinctions from common-law practice which supported our conclusions in the Enelow and Ettelson cases supply no analogy competent to make an injunction of what in any ordinary understanding of.the word is not one.
Trial by jury is a vital and cherished right, integral in our judicial system. It is argued that the importance of an interlocutory order denying or granting jury trial is such that it should be appealable. Many interlocutory orders are equally important, and may determine the outcome of the litigation, but they are not for that reason converted into injunctions. The Constitution guarantees to litigants in the federal courts the right to have their cases tried by juries, and Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly implements that guarantee. Denial of the right in a case where the demanding party is entitled to it is of course error. The rulings of the district courts gran ting, or denying jury trials are subject to the most exacting scrutiny on appeal.
But piecemeal appeals have never been encouraged. The growth of the law of procedure in the United States during the last half-century has been steadily in the direction of simplicity and directness in the administration of justice. To that end, and with carefuU regard for thé constitutional rights of the parties, this Court, pursuant to specific authorization by Congress, adopted the Rules of Civil Procedure, abolishing procedural distinctions' between law and equity and establishing a, single unified practice. We would ill serve the stated purposes of the Rules of Civil Procedure were we to perpetuate by analogy distinctions which the rules expressly disavow. The Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the appeal and its judgment is affirmed.
With the case disposed of in this manner, we do not reach the second question presented: whether petitioner is entitled to a jury on the issue of mutual mistake.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the judgment of the Court.
“Where ... an injunction is granted, continued, modified, refused, or dissolved by an interlocutory order or decree, or an application to dissolve or modify'an injunction is refused, ... an appeal may be taken from 'such interlocutory order or decree' . . . .” The substance of this provision has been retained in -Revised Title 28, U. S.' C. § 1292, 62 Stat. 869.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not.
I
While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas in 1984, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration dubbed the “Republican War Chest Tour.” As explained in literature distributed by the demonstrators and in speeches made by them, the purpose of this event was to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and of certain Dallas-based corporations. The demonstrators marched through the Dallas streets, chanting political slogans and stopping at several corporate locations to stage “die-ins” intended to dramatize the consequences of nuclear war. On several occasions they spray-painted the walls of buildings and overturned potted plants, but Johnson himself took no part in such activities. He did, however, accept an American flag handed to him by a fellow protestor who had taken it from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.
The demonstration ended in front of Dallas City Hall, where Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it with kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag burned, the' protestors chanted: “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” After the demonstrators dispersed, a witness to the flag burning collected the flag’s remains and buried them in his backyard. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, though several witnesses testified that they had been seriously offended by the flag burning.
Of the approximately 100 demonstrators, Johnson alone was charged with a crime. The only criminal offense with which he was charged was the desecration of a venerated object in violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09(a)(3) (1989). After a trial, he was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed Johnson’s conviction, 706 S. W. 2d 120 (1986), but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, 755 S. W. 2d 92 (1988), holding that the State could not, consistent with the First Amendment, punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances.
The Court of Criminal Appeals began by recognizing that Johnson’s conduct was symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment: “Given the context of an organized demonstration, speeches, slogans, and the distribution of literature, anyone who observed appellant’s act would have understood the message that appellant intended to convey. The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly ‘speech’ contemplated by the First Amendment.” Id., at 95. To justify Johnson’s conviction for engaging in symbolic speech, the State asserted two interests: preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and preventing breaches of the peace. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that neither interest supported his conviction.
Acknowledging that this Court had not yet decided whether the Government may criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag’s symbolic value, the Texas court nevertheless concluded that our decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), suggested that furthering this interest by curtailing speech was impermissible. “Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms,” the court explained, “a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore, that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol when it cannot mandate the status or feeling the symbol purports to represent.” 755 S. W. 2d, at 97. Noting that the State had not shown that the flag was in “grave and immediate danger,” Barnette, supra, at 639, of being stripped of its symbolic value, the Texas court also decided that the flag’s special status was not endangered by Johnson’s conduct. 755 S. W. 2d, at 97.
As to the State’s goal of preventing breaches of the peace, the court concluded that the flag-desecration statute was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that were likely to result in a serious disturbance of the peace. And in fact, the court emphasized, the flag burning in this particular case did not threaten such a reaction. “‘Serious offense’ occurred,” the court admitted, “but there was no breach of peace nor does the record reflect that the situation was potentially explosive. One cannot equate ‘serious' offense’ with incitement to breach the peace. ” Id., at 96. The court also stressed that another Texas statute, Tex. Penal Code Ann. §42.01 (1989), prohibited breaches of the peace. Citing Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312 (1988), the court decided that §42.01 demonstrated Texas’ ability to prevent disturbances of the peace without punishing this flag desecration. 755 S. W. 2d, at 96.
Because it reversed Johnson’s conviction on the ground that §42.09 was unconstitutional as applied to him, the state court did not address Johnson’s argument that the statute was, on its face, unconstitutionally vague and over-broad. We granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 907 (1988), and now affirm.
II
Johnson was convicted of flag desecration for burning the flag rather than for uttering insulting words. This fact somewhat complicates our consideration of his conviction under the First Amendment. We must first determine whether Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. See, e. g., Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405, 409-411 (1974). If his conduct was expressive, we next decide whether the State’s regulation is related to the suppression of free expression. See, e. g., United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377 (1968); Spence, supra, at 414, n. 8. If the State’s regulation is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard we announced in United States v. O’Brien for regulations of noncommuni-cative conduct controls. See O’Brien, supra, at 377. If it is, then we are outside of O’Brien’s test, and we must ask whether this interest justifies Johnson’s conviction under a more demanding standard. See Spence, supra, at 411. A third possibility is that the State’s asserted interest is simply not implicated on these facts, and in that event the interest drops out of the picture. See 418 U. S., at 414, n. 8.
The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of “speech,” but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected “the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,” United States v. O’Brien, supra, at 376, we have acknowledged that conduct may be “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” Spence, supra, at 409.
In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” 418 U. S., at 410-411. Hence, we have recognized the expressive nature of students’ wearing of black armbands to protest American military involvement in Vietnam, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 505 (1969); of a sit-in by blacks in a “whites only” area to protest segregation, Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U. S. 131, 141-142 (1966); of the wearing of American military uniforms in a dramatic presentation criticizing American involvement in Vietnam, Schacht v. United States, 398 U. S. 58 (1970); and of picketing about a wide variety of causes, see, e. g., Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U. S. 308, 313-314 (1968); United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 176 (1983).
Especially pertinent to this case are our decisions recognizing the communicative nature of conduct relating to flags. Attaching a peace sign to the flag, Spence, supra, at 409-410; refusing to salute the flag, Barnette, 319 U. S., at 632; and displaying a red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 368-369 (1931), we have held, all may find shelter under the First Amendment. See also Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 588 (1974) (White, J., concurring in judgment) (treating flag “contemptuously” by wearing pants with small flag sewn into their seat is expressive conduct). That we have had little difficulty identifying an expressive element in conduct relating to flags should not be surprising. The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country; it is, one might say, “the one visible manifestation of two hundred years of nationhood.” Id., at 603 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Thus, we have observed:
“[T]he flag salute is a form of utterance. Symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas. The use of an emblem or flag to symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a short cut from mind to mind. Causes and nations, political parties, lodges and ecclesiastical groups seek to knit the loyalty of their followings to a flag or banner, a color or design.” Barnette, supra, at 632.
Pregnant with expressive content, the flag as readily signifies this Nation as does the combination of letters found in “America.”
We have not automatically concluded, however, that any action taken with respect to our flag is expressive. Instead, in characterizing such action for First Amendment purposes, we have considered the context in which it occurred. In Spence, for example, we emphasized that Spence’s taping of a peace sign to his flag was “roughly simultaneous with and concededly triggered by the Cambodian incursion and the Kent State tragedy.” 418 U. S., at 410. The State of Washington had conceded, in fact, that Spence’s conduct was a form of communication, and we stated that “the State’s concession is inevitable on this record.” Id., at 409.
The State of Texas conceded for purposes of its oral argument in this case that Johnson’s conduct was expressive conduct, Tr. of Oral Arg. 4, and this concession seems to us as prudent as was Washington’s in Spence. Johnson burned an American flag as part — indeed, as the culmination — of a political demonstration that coincided with the convening of the Republican Party and its renomination of Ronald Reagan for President. The expressive, overtly political nature of this conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. At his trial, Johnson explained his reasons for burning the flag as follows: “The American Flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being renominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn’t have been made at that time. It’s quite a just position [juxtaposition]. We had new patriotism and no patriotism.” 5 Record 656. In these circumstances, Johnson’s burning of the flag was conduct “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication,” Spence, 418 U. S., at 409, to implicate the First Amendment.
1 — I I — I
The government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word. See O’Brien, 391 U. S. at 376-377; Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984); Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U. S. 19, 25 (1989). It may not, however, proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements. “[W]hat might be termed the more generalized guarantee of freedom of expression makes the communicative nature of conduct an inadequate basis for singling out that conduct for proscription. A law directed at the communicative nature of conduct must, like a law directed at speech itself, be justified by the substantial showing of need that the First Amendment requires.” Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 227 U.. S. App. D. C. 19, 55-56, 703 F. 2d 586, 622-623 (1983) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original), rev’d sub nom. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, supra. It is, in short, not simply the verbal or nonverbal nature of the expression, but the governmental interest at stake, that helps to determine whether a restriction on that expression is valid.
Thus, although we have recognized that where “‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms,” O’Brien, supra, at 376, we have limited the applicability of O’Brien’s relatively lenient standard to those cases in which “the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression.” Id., at 377; see also Spence, supra, at 414, n. 8. In stating, moreover, that O’Brien’s test “in the last analysis is little, if any, different from the standard applied to time, place, or manner restrictions,” Clark, supra, at 298, we have highlighted the requirement that the governmental interest in question be unconnected to expression in order to come under O’Brien’s less demanding rule.
In order to decide whether O’Brien’s test applies here, therefore, we must decide whether Texas has asserted an interest in support of Johnson’s conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression. If we find that an interest asserted by the State is simply not implicated on the facts before us, we need not ask whether O’Brien’s test applies. See Spence, supra, at 414, n. 8. The State offers two separate interests to justify this conviction: preventing breaches of the peace and preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity. We hold that the first interest is not implicated on this record and that the second is related to the suppression of expression.
A
Texas claims that its interest in preventing breaches of the peace justifies Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration. However, no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson’s burning of the flag. Although the State stresses the disruptive behavior of the protestors during their march toward City Hall, Brief for Petitioner 34-36, it admits that “no actual breach of the peace occurred at the time of the flagburning or in response to the flagburning.” Id., at 34. The State’s emphasis on the protestors’ disorderly actions prior to arriving at City Hall is not only somewhat surprising given that no charges were brought on the basis of this conduct, but it also fails to show that a disturbance of the peace was a likely reaction to Johnson’s conduct. The only evidence offered by the State at trial to show the reaction to Johnson’s actions was the testimony of several persons who had been seriously offended by the flag burning. Id., at 6-7.
The State’s position, therefore, amounts to a claim that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. Our precedents do not countenance such a presumption. On the contrary, they recognize that a principal “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). See also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 551 (1965); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U. S., at 508-509; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 615 (1971); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55-56 (1988). It would be odd indeed to conclude both that “if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection,” FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, 745 (1978) (opinion of Stevens, J.), and that the government may ban the expression of certain disagreeable ideas on the unsupported presumption that their very disagreeableness will provoke violence.
Thus, we have not permitted the government to assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but have instead required careful consideration of the actual circumstances surrounding such expression, asking whether the expression “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) (reviewing circumstances surrounding rally and speeches by Ku Klux Klan). To accept Texas’ arguments that it need only demonstrate “the potential for a breach of the peace,” Brief for Petitioner 37, and that every flag burning necessarily possesses that potential, would be to eviscerate our holding in Brandenburg. This we decline to do.
Nor does Johnson’s expressive conduct fall within that small class of “fighting words” that are “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 574 (1942). No reasonable onlooker would have regarded Johnson’s generalized expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of the Federal Government as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. See id., at 572-573; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 309 (1940); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra, at 745 (opinion of Stevens, J.).
We thus conclude that the State’s interest in maintaining order is not implicated on these facts. The State need not worry that our holding will disable it from preserving the peace. We do not suggest that the First Amendment forbids a State to prevent “imminent lawless action.” Brandenburg, supra, at 447. And, in fact, Texas already has a statute specifically prohibiting breaches of the peace, Tex. Penal Code Ann. §42.01 (1989), which tends to confirm that Texas need not punish this flag desecration in order to keep the peace. See Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S., at 327-329.
B
The State also asserts an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity. In Spence, we acknowledged that the government’s interest in preserving the flag’s special symbolic value “is directly related to expression in the context of activity” such as affixing a peace symbol to a flag. 418 U. S., at 414, n. 8. We are equally persuaded that this interest is related to expression in the case of Johnson’s burning of the flag. The State, apparently, is concerned that such conduct will lead people to believe either that the flag does not stand for nationhood and national unity, but instead reflects other, less positive concepts, or that the concepts reflected in the flag do not in fact exist., that is, that we do not enjoy unity as a Nation. These concerns blossom only when a person’s treatment of the flag communicates some message, and thus are related “to the suppression of free expression” within the meaning of O’Brien. We are thus outside of O’Brien’s test altogether.
H-i <
It remains to consider whether the State s interest m preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justifies Johnson’s conviction.
As in Spence, “[w]e are confronted with a case of prosecution for the expression of an idea through activity,” and “[a]c-cordingly, we must examine with particular care the interests advanced by [petitioner] to support its prosecution.” 418 U. S., at 411. Johnson was not, we add, prosecuted for the expression of just any idea; he was prosecuted for his expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of this country, expression situated at the core of our First Amendment values. See, e. g., Boos v. Barry, supra, at 318; Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 479 (1988).
Moreover, Johnson was prosecuted because he knew that his politically charged expression would cause “serious offense.” If he had burned the flag as a means of disposing of it because it was dirty or torn, he would not have been convicted of flag desecration under this Texas law: federal law designates burning as the preferred means of disposing of a flag “when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display,” 36 U. S. C. § 176(k), and Texas has no quarrel with this means of disposal. Brief for Petitioner 45. The Texas law is thus not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed instead to protect it only against impairments that would cause serious offense to others. Texas concedes as much: “Section 42.09(b) reaches only those severe acts of physical abuse of the flag carried out in a way likely to be offensive. The statute mandates intentional or knowing abuse, that is, the kind of mistreatment that is not innocent, but rather is intentionally designed to seriously offend other individuals.” Id., at 44.
Whether Johnson’s treatment of the flag violated Texas law thus depended on the likely communicative impact of his expressive conduct. Our decision in Boos v. Barry, supra, tells us that this restriction on Johnson’s expression is content based. In Boos, we considered the constitutionality of a law prohibiting “the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if that sign tends to bring that foreign government into ‘public odium’ or ‘public disrepute.’” Id., at 315. Rejecting the argument that the law was content neutral because it was justified by “our international law obligation to shield diplomats from speech that offends their dignity,” id., at 320, we held that “[t]he emotive impact of speech on its audience is not a ‘secondary effect’ ” unrelated to the content of the expression itself. Id., at 321 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 334 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
According to the principles announced in Boos, Johnson’s political expression was restricted because of the content of the message he conveyed. We must therefore subject the State’s asserted interest in preserving the special symbolic character of the flag to “the most exacting scrutiny.” Boos v. Barry, supra, at 321.
Texas argues that its interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity survives this close analysis. Quoting extensively from the writings of this Court chronicling the flag’s historic and symbolic role in our society, the State emphasizes the “'special place’” reserved for the flag in our Nation. Brief for Petitioner 22, quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S., at 601 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). The State’s argument is not that it has an interest simply in maintaining the flag as a symbol of something, no matter what it symbolizes; indeed, if that were the State’s position, it would be difficult to see how that interest is endangered by highly symbolic conduct such as Johnson’s. Rather, the State’s claim is that it has an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity, a symbol with a determinate range of meanings. Brief for Petitioner 20-24. According to Texas, if one physically treats the flag in a way that would tend to cast doubt on either the idea that nationhood and national unity are the flag’s referents or that national unity actually exists, the message conveyed thereby is a harmful one and therefore may be prohibited.
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. See, e. g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S., at 55-56; City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 804 (1984); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 65, 72 (1983); Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 462-463 (1980); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S., at 745-746; Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 63-65, 67-68 (1976) (plurality opinion); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1976); Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 115 (1972); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95 (1972); Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U. S. 564, 567 (1970); O’Brien, 391 U. S., at 382; Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U. S., at 142-143; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S., at 368-369.
We have not recognized an exception to this principle even where our flag has been involved. In Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 (1969), we held that a State may not criminally punish a person for uttering words critical of the flag. Rejecting the argument that the conviction could be sustained on the ground that Street had “failed to show the respect for our national symbol which may properly be demanded of every citizen,” we concluded that “the constitutionally guaranteed ‘freedom to be intellectually... diverse or even contrary,’ and the ‘right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order,’ encompass the freedom to express publicly one’s opinions about our flag, including those opinions which are defiant or contemptuous.” Id., at 593, quoting Barnette, 319 U. S., at 642. Nor may the government, we have held, compel conduct that would evince respect for the flag. “To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.” Id., at 634.
In holding in Barnette that the Constitution did not leave this course open to the government, Justice Jackson described one of our society’s defining principles in words deserving of their frequent repetition: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Id., at 642. In Spence, we held that the same interest asserted by Texas here was insufficient to support a criminal conviction under a flag-misuse statute for the taping of a peace sign to an American flag. “Given the protected character of [Spence’s] expression and in light of the fact that no interest the State may have in preserving the physical integrity of a privately owned flag was significantly impaired on these facts,” we held, “the conviction must be invalidated.” 418 U. S., at 415. See also Goguen, supra, at 588 (White, J., concurring in judgment) (to convict person who had sewn a flag onto the seat of his pants for “contemptuous” treatment of the flag would be “[t]o convict not to protect the physical integrity or to protect against acts interfering with the proper use of the flag, but to punish for communicating ideas unacceptable to the controlling majority in the legislature”).
In short, nothing in our precedents suggests that a State may foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it. To bring its argument outside our precedents, Texas attempts to convince us that even if its interest in preserving the flag’s symbolic role does not allow it to prohibit words or some expressive conduct critical of the flag, it does permit it to forbid the outright destruction of the flag. The State’s argument cannot depend here on the distinction between written or spoken words and nonverbal conduct. That distinction, we have shown, is of no moment where the nonverbal conduct is expressive, as it is here, and where the regulation of that conduct is related to expression, as it is here. See supra, at 402-403. In addition, both Bar-nette and Spence involved expressive conduct, not only verbal communication, and both found that conduct protected.
Texas’ focus on the precise nature of Johnson’s expression, moreover, misses the point of our prior decisions: their enduring lesson, that the government may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message, is not dependent on the particular mode in which one chooses to express an idea. If we were to hold that a State may forbid flag burning wherever it is likely to endanger the flag’s symbolic role, but allow it wherever burning a flag promotes that role — as where, for example, a person ceremoniously burns a dirty flag — we would be saying that when it comes to impairing the flag’s physical integrity, the flag itself may be used as a symbol — as a substitute for the written or spoken word or a “short cut from mind to mind” — only in one direction. We would be permitting a State to “prescribe what shall be orthodox” by saying that one may burn the flag to convey one’s attitude toward it and its referents only if one does not endanger the flag’s representation of nationhood and national unity.
We never before have held that the Government may ensure that a symbol be used to express only one view of that symbol or its referents. Indeed, in Schacht v. United States, we invalidated a federal statute permitting an actor portraying a member of one of our Armed Forces to “‘wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.’” 398 U. S., at 60, quoting 10 U. S. C. § 772(f). This proviso, we held, “which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment.” Id., at 63.
We perceive no basis on which to hold that the principle underlying our decision in Schacht does not apply to this case. To conclude that the government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries. Could the government, on this theory, prohibit the burning of state flags? Of copies of the Presidential seal? Of the Constitution? In evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status? To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do. See Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S., at 466-467.
There is, moreover, no indication — either in the text of the Constitution or in our cases interpreting it — that a separate juridical category exists for the American flag alone. Indeed, we would not be surprised to learn that the persons who framed our Constitution and wrote the Amendment that we now construe were not known for their reverence for the Union Jack. The First Amendment does not guarantee that other concepts virtually sacred to our Nation as a whole— such as the principle that discrimination on the basis of race is odious and destructive — will go unquestioned in the marketplace of ideas. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969). We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.
It is not the State’s ends, but its means, to which we object. It cannot be gainsaid that there is a special place reserved for the flag in this Nation, and thus we do not doubt that the government has a legitimate interest in making efforts to “presence] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country.” Spence, 418 U. S., at 412. We reject the suggestion, urged at oral argument by counsel for Johnson, that the government lacks “any state interest whatsoever” in regulating the manner in which the flag may be displayed. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. Congress has, for example, enacted precatory regulations describing the proper treatment of the flag, see 36 U. S. C. §§ 173-177, and we cast no doubt on the legitimacy of its interest in making such recommendations. To say that the government has an interest in encouraging proper treatment of the flag, however, is not to say that it may criminally punish a person for burning a flag as a means of political protest. “National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.” Barnette, 319 U. S., at 640.
We are fortified in today’s conclusion by our conviction that forbidding criminal punishment for conduct such as Johnson’s will not endanger the special role played by our flag or the feelings it inspires. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, we submit that nobody can suppose that this one gesture of an unknown man will change our Nation’s attitude towards its flag. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 628 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Indeed, Texas’ argument that the burning of an American flag “ ‘is an act having a high likelihood to cause a breach of the peace,’ ” Brief for Petitioner 31, quoting Sutherland v. DeWulf, 323 F. Supp. 740, 745 (SD Ill. 1971) (citation omitted), and its statute’s implicit assumption that physical mistreatment of the flag will lead to “serious offense,” tend to confirm that the flag’s special role is not in danger; if it were, no one would riot or take offense because a flag had been burned.
We are tempted to say, in fact, that the flag’s deservedly cherished place in our community will be
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
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 ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Rules on Containers are collectively bargained-for guidelines requiring marine shipping companies to allow some of the large cargo containers that they own or lease to be loaded or unloaded by longshoremen at the pier. In NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U. S. 490 (1980) (ILA I), we reviewed the National Labor Relations Board’s conclusion that the Rules and their enforcement constituted unlawful secondary activity under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158(b)(4) (B) and 158(e). Respondent union, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), defended the Rules as lawful under the “work preservation” doctrine of National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612 (1967). We ruled, however, that the Board’s preliminary definition of the work in dispute had been legally erroneous, because it focused on the off-pier work of nonlongshoremen rather than on the work of longshoremen sought to be preserved. 447 U. S., at 507-508. We therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals’ remand of the Rules to the Board, directing it to “focus on the work of the bargaining unit employees, not on the work of other employees who may be doing the same or similar work.” Id., at 507. The Board then sustained the Rules, but held that their enforcement against “short-stopping” truckers and “traditional” warehousers is unlawful. 266 N. L. R. B. 230 (1983). The question now presented is whether the Board’s partial invalidation of the Rules as applied in these two contexts is consistent with ILA I.
I
At issue is the response of unionized dockworkers to a technological innovation known as “containerization.” Traditionally, longshoremen employed by steamship or steve-doring companies loaded and unloaded cargo into and out of oceangoing vessels at the pier. Cargo arriving at the pier by truck was “transferred piece by piece from the truck’s tailgate to the ship by longshoremen.... The longshoremen checked the cargo, sorted it, placed it on pallets and moved it by forklift to the side of the ship, and lifted it by means of a sling or hook into the ship’s hold. The process was reversed for cargo taken off incoming ships.” 447 U. S., at 495. As we explained in some detail in ILA I, the advent of containerization some 25 years ago profoundly transformed this traditional pattern, by reducing the cost of ocean cargo transport and “largely eliminat[ing] the need for cargo handling at intermediate stages.” Id., at 509.
It is thus unsurprising that “the amount of on-pier work involved in cargo handling has been drastically reduced” and that containerization has been since its inception a “hotly disputed topic of collective bargaining” between the ILA and the marine shipping companies. Id., at 495-496. The Rules are the evolutionary product of the ILA’s bargaining efforts that began with the introduction of the first oceangoing container ship in the Port of New York in 1957.
The Rules do not require that all containers be loaded or unloaded by longshoremen at the pier. Instead, they apply only to containers that would otherwise be loaded or unloaded within the local port area, defined for convenience as anywhere within a 50-mile radius of the port. Rule 1(a). Containers directly coming from or going to points beyond the 50-mile radius are not affected by the Rules. Rule 2. Even within the 50-mile area, containers that go directly to the owner of the cargo or to “bona fide” warehouses are exempted from the Rules. Rules 1(a)(2) and (3), 2(B)(4). To ensure compliance, a fine of $1,000 is levied against a marine shipping company for each of its containers that it allows to be handled in violation of the Rules. Rule 7(c). As we noted in ILA I: “The practical effect of the Rules is that some 80% of containers pass over the piers intact. The remaining 20% are [loaded and unloaded] by longshoremen, regardless of whether that work duplicates work done by non-ILA employees off-pier.” 447 U. S., at 499.
Although the marine shipping companies and longshoremen have accepted the various compromises that the Rules represent, three groups of non-ILA employers are unhappy with the Rules. Freight consolidators, truckers, and ware-housers all also load and unload containers. Freight consolidators are in the business of arranging for small loads of cargo to be delivered to their off-pier facilities, where consolidator employees combine the cargo with cargo from other parties to pack full containers, which are then delivered to the pier. Consolidators also receive from incoming vessels containers packed with several parties’ cargo, which they unload and disperse to the respective owners.
Unlike consolidators, many of whose businesses have been founded on containerization, some truckers and warehousers have always performed some off-pier cargo handling work. For example, prior to containerization, some interstate truckers would pick up cargo at the pier, drive a short distance to a central facility, and then unload and reload the cargo to meet weight, safety, or delivery requirements. Such unloading and reloading near the pier still sometimes occurs, even if the cargo is picked up in containers. The trucking practice of stopping in the vicinity of the pier to unload and reload cargo for reasons related to trucking requirements is known as “shortstopping.” Similarly, some warehousers have always performed some loading and unloading of cargo stored at the warehouse for reasons unrelated to marine transportation; such cargo handling is still sometimes necessary even though cargo is shipped in containers.
All these facts were before the Court in ILA I. We did not find that any of them required invalidation of the Rules. Instead, because we found that the Board had erred as a matter of law in defining the “work” in controversy, we remanded to the Board for further proceedings. 447 U. S., at 512-513. Nine cases involving charges of unfair labor practices filed by consolidators, truckers, or warehousers against the ILA were then consolidated by the Board and sent to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for factfinding and disposition. The charging parties claimed generally that the Rules constitute an unlawful agreement in violation of § 8(e), and that enforcement of the Rules, which has resulted in marine transport companies not dealing with certain off-pier employers, constitutes secondary boycotting illegal under § 8(b)(4)(B).
In a detailed opinion, the ALJ sustained the Rules as a valid work preservation agreement. He found that the “historic jurisdiction” of longshoremen “includes all work in connection with the loading and unloading of cargo on ships,... including such related intermediate steps as receipt, storage, sorting, checking, palletizing, cargo repair, carpentry, maintenance and delivery.” 266 N. L. R. B., at 247. He rejected the argument that containerization has so changed the character of the cargo transportation industry that this work has simply disappeared. Noting that the Rules are “narrowly tailored” to preserve only the work of loading and unloading containers, and that “[n]o other work is sought,” id., at 251, the ALJ also found that “the Rules merely restore to the unit work traditionally performed by the ILA.” Id., at 252. With regard to the alleged secondary nature of the Rules, the ALJ found that the Rules have a clear work-preserving objective and that no secondary motivation was shown: “On this record, there can be little question that... the Rules represented a negotiated response to accommodate the... inroads on ILA work jurisdiction” caused by containerization, and “the evidence fails to disclose any significant ILA interest in the labor relations of the [off-pier] employers boycotted by the Rules.” Id., at 248-249.
The ALJ did not end his inquiry there, however. He concluded that despite the work preservation objective of the Rules, they might still be invalid if they had the effect of reserving for longshoremen cargo handling work that had been done by nonlongshore labor prior to containerization and thus was not “created” by containerization. Id., at 252. The ALJ reasoned that “to the extent that the Rules seek to compensate longshoremen for losses at the expense of inland employees whose jobs did not derive from containerization, a proscribed ‘work acquisition’ objective would attach.” Ibid. He then found that, although the “skills utilized... are indistinct from those of deep sea longshoremen,” cargo handling work done by shortstoppers and “traditional” warehousers is work “assumed for a different purpose” than longshore cargo handling and “preexisted” containerization. Id., at 256. He declared that the Rules therefore took on an impermissible secondary character when applied in those two contexts, and sustained unfair labor charges in three cases.
The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, stating that “the ILA had an overall work preservation objective in negotiating the Rules,” and that “the work of loading and unloading containers claimed by the Rules is functionally related to the traditional loading and unloading work of the longshoremen.” Id., at 236, 237. The Board therefore held the Rules lawful as a general matter. It also agreed with the ALJ’s partial invalidation “as applied,” however, after modifying the ALJ’s views in two respects.
First, the Board provided a definition of “the work in dispute,” because the ALJ had not done so explicitly. Id., at 236. Second, the Board rejected the ALJ’s “findings that an illegal work acquisition objective is revealed in the Rules,” because his analysis “appeared] to conflict” with the direction in ILA I to focus on the work of longshoremen, not off-pier laborers. 266 N. L. R. B., at 236-237.
“By focusing on the economic character of the trucking and warehousing industry and on the work historically performed by trucking and warehousing employees, the [ALJ’s]... findings give undue emphasis to the work historically performed by trucking and warehousing employees and to the fact that this work was not created by containerization.” Ibid.
Nevertheless, the Board held the Rules unlawful “as applied to ‘shortstopping’ and ‘traditional’ warehousing practices.” Id., at 236. The Board reasoned that some cargo loading and unloading work required to be performed by longshoremen under the Rules would unnecessarily duplicate the similar work done by “shortstopping” truckers and “traditional” warehousers. Because cargo in containers can now be moved directly to and from warehouses and trucking terminals without loading or unloading at the pier, the necessity for such longshore labor has been removed, while “traditional” warehousers and “shortstopping” truckers must still do some container loading and unloading at their facilities. Thus, the Board concluded, the loading and unloading work of the longshoremen “no longer exists as a step in the cargo handling process” and “essentially was eliminated” in these two contexts. Id., at 237. Because the Rules seek to preserve this “eliminated” work, the Board concluded that they have “an illegal work acquisition objective” as applied. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board’s general validation of the Rules, concluding that the Board’s crucial dual findings — that the shipping companies have the “right to control” container work, and that the Rules had a bona fide work preservation objective — were supported by substantial evidence. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. NLRB, 734 F. 2d 966, 977-978 (1984). For two reasons, however, the Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Board’s decision that the Rules constitute unlawful secondary activity when applied to containers destined for “shortstopping” truckers and “traditional” warehousers.
First, in concluding that a partial objective of the Rules is “work acquisition,” the Board had failed to make any factual finding that the Rules actually operate to deprive “short-stopping” truckers or “traditional” warehousers of any work. Id., at 979. Second, the Court of Appeals concluded that, as a matter of law, an agreement that preserves duplicative or technologically “eliminated” work simply does not constitute “work acquisition.” National Woodwork had approved as lawful primary activity a collective-bargaining agreement whose objective was “protection of union members from a diminution of work flowing from changes in technology.” 386 U. S., at 648 (Harlan, J., concurring). The ALJ and the Board both had found that the same work-preserving purpose underlies the Rules on Containers. The Rules do not “in any way prevent the identical off-pier work,” and although such work may be economically inefficient, “it is not our function as a court of review to weigh the economic cost of the Rules.” 734 F. 2d, at 979. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that “the Rules are lawful in their entirety and may be enforced.” Id., at 980.
Although a number of the charging parties sought review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision, we granted only the Board’s petition for certiorari, 469 U. S. 1188 (1985), thereby limiting our inquiry to the alleged unlawfulness of the Rules with regard to “shortstopping” truckers and “traditional” warehousers.
II
A
We have labored in the past to determine Congress’ will as expressed in §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) — this case requires no new development. In light of the Board’s factual findings, we believe the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Rules do not violate these provisions, flows as a matter of course from National Woodwork and ILA 7.
In National Woodwork, after reviewing in detail the relevant legislative and judicial history, we concluded that “Congress meant that both § 8(e) and § 8(b)(4)(B) reach only secondary pressures.” 386 U. S., at 638; accord, Houston Contractors Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 664, 668 (1967). In this regard, the prohibitory scope of § 8(e) was found to be no broader than that of § 8(b)(4)(B). 386 U. S., at 635, 638. The purpose of §8(e) had been to close a “loophole” in the labor laws that allowed unions to employ “hot cargo” agreements to pressure neutral employers not to handle nonunion goods. Id., at 634-637; see Carpenters v. NLRB, 357 U. S. 93 (1958) (Sand Door). However, we concluded, “Congress in enacting § 8(e) had no thought of prohibiting agreements directed to work preservation.” 386 U. S., at 640. Such agreements “are not used as a sword” to achieve secondary objectives, but as “a shield carried solely to preserve the members’ jobs.” Id., at 630. Because the labor laws do not prohibit bona fide primary activity, we stated that the central inquiry for evaluating claims of work preservation is
“whether, under all the surrounding circumstances, the Union’s objective was preservation of work for [the primary employer’s] employees, or whether the agreements and boycott were tactically calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere.... The touchstone is whether the agreement or its maintenance is addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employer vis a vis his own employees.” Id., at 644-645.
We expressly noted that a different case might be presented if a union engaged in activity “to reach out to monopolize jobs or acquire new job tasks when their own jobs are not threatened....” Id., at 630-631 (emphasis added).
We reaffirmed the National Woodwork analysis in ILA I, and noted that “a lawful work preservation agreement must pass two tests”: the objective of the agreement must be preservation of work for members of the union rather than some secondary goal, and the “right of control” test of NLRB v. Pipefitters, 429 U. S. 507 (1977), must be satisfied. 447 U. S., at 504. We ruled, however, that the Board had erred as an initial matter by defining the “work in dispute” as “off-pier” container loading and unloading. Id., at 506. Because technological innovation may significantly change the character of an industry, work preservation agreements negotiated to address such change “typically come into being when employees’ traditional work is displaced.” Id., at 505. Consequently, the place where work is to be done often lies at the heart of the controversy, and is seldom relevant to the definition of the work itself. See id., at 506-507. The Board’s focus on the container work performed off-pier by nonlongshoremen was erroneous because it ignored the question whether “the parties have tailored their agreement to the objective of preserving the essence of the traditional work patterns,” id., at 510, n. 24, and “foreclosed — by definition — any possibility that the longshoremen could negotiate an agreement to permit them to continue to play any part in the loading or unloading of containerized cargo.” Id., at 508.
ILA I concluded, however, that collective-bargaining agreements designed to “accommodate change” while still preserving some type of work for union members may nevertheless be lawful primary agreements; the work preservation doctrine does not require that unions block progress by refusing to permit any use at all of new technology in order to avoid the prohibitions of §§8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e). Id., at 506. The inquiry is whether “the objective of the agreement was work preservation rather than the satisfaction of union goals elsewhere,” id., at 510, and the analytical focus must be “on the work of the bargaining unit employees, not on the work of other employees... doing the same or similar work.” Id., at 507. “The effect of work preservation agreements on the employment opportunities of employees not represented by the union, no matter how severe, is of course irrelevant... so long as the union had no forbidden secondary purpose.” Id., at 507, n. 22.
Because the Board’s analysis had proceeded from an erroneous premise, we remanded. We directed the Board to examine “how the contracting parties sought to preserve... work, to the extent possible, in the face of” containerization, and “to evaluate the relationship between traditional long-shore work and the work which the Rules attempt to assign to ILA members.” Id., at 509. If, on remand, the Rules were found to be a bona fide attempt to preserve longshore work, rather than an effort “‘tactically calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere,’” then the Rules would be valid. Id., at 511, quoting National Woodwork, 386 U. S., at 644. “[T]he question is not whether the Rules represent the most rational or efficient response to innovation, but whether they are a legally permissible effort to preserve jobs.” 447 U. S., at 511.
B
We accept the Board’s factual findings as supported by substantial evidence, Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474 (1951), and are mindful of the rule that the Board’s construction of the Act is due our deference. See, e. g., Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U. S. 483, 500-501 (1978); NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 236 (1963). We are in agreement with the Board’s basic statutory conclusions: §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) prohibit secondary, but not primary, union activity, and bona fide work preservation agreements and their enforcement may constitute protected primary goals. Now that the Board has fully developed the factual record regarding the Rules, the only question presented is whether, as a matter of law, the Board applied the “work preservation” doctrine consistently with our prior eases.
In our view, the Board committed two fundamental errors. First, by focusing on the effect that the Rules may have on “shortstopping” truckers and “traditional” warehousers, the Board contravened our direction that such extra-unit effects, “no matter how severe,” are “irrelevant” to the analysis. 447 U. S., at 507, n. 22. “So long as the union had no forbidden secondary purpose” to disrupt the business relations of a neutral employer, ibid., such effects are “incidental to primary activity.” Pipefitters, 429 U. S., at 526. Here the ALJ, Board, and Court of Appeals all have agreed that the Rules were motivated entirely by the longshoremen’s understandable desire to preserve jobs against “the steadily dwindling volume” of cargo work at the pier. 734 F. 2d, at 978. Given this clear primary objective to preserve work in the face of a threat to jobs, extra-unit effects of a work preservation agreement alone provide an insufficient basis for concluding that the agreement has an unlawful secondary objective. Absent some additional showing of an attempt “to reach out to monopolize jobs,” National Woodwork, supra, at 630, that is, proof of an attempt “not to preserve, but to aggrandize,” Pipefitters, supra, at 528-530, n. 16, such an agreement is lawful.
Second, we believe the Board misconstrued our cases in suggesting that “eliminated” work can never be the object of a work preservation agreement. Technological innovation will often by design eliminate some aspect of an industry’s work. For example, in National Woodwork the agreement at issue strove to preserve carpentry work done by hand at the jobsite, even though new off-site machining techniques had eliminated the necessity for much of this work. Yet the jobs of carpenters were no less threatened, nor was their attempt to preserve them any less primary, than if the contractor had decided to subcontract the cutting and fitting of doors to nonunion workers. Cf. Fibreboard Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U. S. 203, 209 (1964). Similarly, containers have eliminated some of the work of loading and unloading cargo by hand for all participants in the industry — longshoremen, truckers, and warehousers alike. “Elimination” of work in the sense that it is made unnecessary by innovation is not of itself a reason to condemn work preservation agreements under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e); to the contrary, such elimination provides the very premise for such agreements.
It must not be forgotten that the relevant inquiry under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) is whether a union’s activity is primary or secondary — that is, whether the union’s efforts are directed at its own employer on a topic affecting employees’ wages, hours, or working conditions that the employer can control, or, instead, are directed at affecting the business relations of neutral employers and are “tactically calculated” to achieve union objectives outside the primary employer-employee relationship. See National Woodwork, 386 U. S., at 644-645; Pipefitters, 429 U. S., at 528-529, and n. 16. The various linguistic formulae and evidentiary mechanisms we have employed to describe the primary/secondary distinction are not talismanic nor can they substitute for analysis. See generally Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369, 386-390 (1969). The inquiry is often an inferential and fact-based one, at times requiring the drawing of lines “more nice than obvious.” Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 366 U. S. 667, 674 (1961); see Pipefitters, supra, at 531 (“commonsense inference”). In this case, however, the ALJ, Board, and Court of Appeals all found that the ILA negotiated the Rules on Containers with the sole object of preserving work for its members and that there is no evidence of “any significant ILA interest in the labor relations of the class of employers boycotted by the Rules.” 266 N. L. R. B., at 249. Furthermore, as the Fourth Circuit noted, this is not a case in which an avowed work preservation agreement “seeks to claim work so different from that traditionally performed by the bargaining unit employees” that a secondary objective might be inferred. 734 F. 2d, at 980. When the objective of an agreement and its enforcement is so clearly one of work preservation, the lawfulness of the agreement under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) is secure absent some other evidence of secondary purpose.
In sum, we believe that the Board correctly identified as erroneous the ALJ’s focus on the effect of the Rules on the work of employees outside the bargaining unit, but then fell into the same analytical trap. The crucial findings are that the ILA’s objective consistently has been to preserve long-shore work, and that the ILA’s employers have the power to control assignment of that work. ILA I, 447 U. S., at 504. In light of these facts, further inquiry into the effects of the Rules as applied was inconsistent with our precedents in this concededly difficult area.
C
In ILA I it was argued that the Rules preserve work made “utterly useless” by containerization and thus are “nothing less than an invidious form of ‘featherbedding’ to block full implementation of modern technological progress.” Id., at 526-527 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). Similar arguments are repeated today, see post, at 89, 90, and were presented in National Woodwork as well. See 386 U. S., at 644. Our response is no different than it was 18 years ago: “Those arguments are addressed to the wrong branch of government.” Ibid. Justice Harlan wrote separately in National Woodwork to underscore the Court’s reasoning on this point:
“The only question thus to be decided... is whether Congress meant, in enacting §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, to prevent this kind of labor-management arrangement designed to forestall possible adverse effects upon workers arising from changing technology.
“[BJoth sides of today’s division in the Court agree that we must be especially careful to eschew a resolution of the issue according to our own economic ideas and to find one in what Congress has done.
“In view of Congress’ deep commitment to the resolution of matters of vital importance to management and labor through the collective bargaining process, and its recognition of the boycott as a legitimate weapon in that process, it would be unfortunate were this Court to attribute to Congress, on the basis of such an opaque legislative record, a purpose to outlaw the kind of collective bargaining and conduct involved in these cases. Especially at a time when Congress is continuing to explore methods for meeting the economic problems increasingly arising in this technological age from scientific advances, this Court should not take such a step until Congress has made unmistakably clear that it wishes wholly to exclude collective bargaining as one avenue of approach to solutions in this elusive aspect of our economy.” Id., at 648-650.
Congress has not altered the provisions at issue in the 18 years since National Woodwork was decided, nor has any new evidence been offered regarding Congress’ original intent. In the meantime, management and labor alike have relied on the work preservation doctrine to guide their bargaining. In such circumstances we should follow the normal presumption of stare decisis in cases of statutory interpretation. See Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720, 736-737 (1977); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 671 (1974).
Ill
Under the Rules on Containers, the ILA has given up some 80% of all containerized cargo work and the technological “container revolution” has secured its position in the industry. We have often noted that a basic premise of the labor laws is that “collective discussions backed by the parties’ economic weapons will result in decisions that are better for both management and labor and for society as a whole.” First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U. S. 666, 678 (1981). The Rules represent a negotiated compromise of a volatile problem bearing directly on the well-being of our national economy. We concur with the ALJ, Board, and Court of Appeals that the Rules on Containers are a lawful work preservation agreement. Nothing in this record supports a conclusion that their enforcement has had a secondary, rather than primary, objective. The judgment below is therefore
Affirmed.
Containers are large metal boxes designed to fit without adjustment into the holds of special ships and onto the chassis of special trucks and railroad cars. “Because cargo does not have to be handled and repacked as it moves from the warehouse by truck to dock, into the vessel, then from the vessel to the dock and by truck or rail to its destination, the costs of handling are greatly reduced. Expenses of separate export packaging, storage, losses from pilferage and breakage, and costs of insurance and processing cargo documents may also be decreased. Perhaps most significantly, a container ship can be loaded or unloaded in a fraction of the time required for a conventional ship. As a result, the unprofitable in-port time of each ship is reduced, and a smaller number of ships are needed to carry a given volume of cargo.” NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U. S. 490, 494-495 (1980).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case characterized the ILA’s position regarding containers as “one of resistence [sic]” from the outset. 266 N. L. R. B. 230, 244 (1983). The 1959 agreement between the ILA and the New York Shipping Association, a multiemployer bargaining group for marine shipping companies in New York, reserved for longshoremen “[a]ny work performed in connection with the loading and discharging of containers... which is performed in the Port.” Ibid. Discontent continued, however, over increasing off-pier use of containers. In 1969, after the lengthiest longshoremen’s strike in the history of the Port of New York, a set of Rules substantially similar to the current Rules was negotiated. The Rules were recognized as a compromise, reserving for the ILA only about 20% of the total containerized cargo handled in New York. Nevertheless, the next five years were marked by work slowdowns and stoppages related to containerization, and the Rules were amended several times to increase their enforceability.
The text of the current Rules is substantively identical to the Rules printed as an Appendix to ILA I. 447 U. S., at 513-522. These Rules have been negotiated between the ILA and the Council of North Atlantic Shipping Associations, a multiemployer bargaining group encompassing the marine shipping companies in 36 major ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Longshoremen on the west coast are represented by a different union, the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen’s Union. Although containerization has been a controversial collective-bargaining topic on the west coast as well, see Ross, Waterfront Lab. Response to Technological Change: A Tale of Two Unions, 21 Labor L. J. 397 (1970), only the ILA and the Atlantic and Gulf coast shippers are before the Court in this case.
The ALJ found that the 50-mile rule developed from the use of the description “50 miles from Columbus Circle” to resolve early container-related grievances in New York. 266 N. L. R. B., at 245, n. 24. The Board approved the 50-mile rule as “a rational attempt to claim only that work actually performed in the general area surrounding the port.” Id., at 235.
A warehouse is deemed “bona fide” if the container is to remain in storage at the warehouse for 30 days or more. Rule 2(B)(4). The ALJ found that this 30-day rule, like the 50-mile rule, represents a negotiated attempt to preserve traditional work patterns; it distinguishes traditional, pre-containerization warehouse functions from “warehouses... being used as ‘drop points’ for [container unloading] and reloading immediately onto trucks.” 266 N. L. R. B., at 257. As the Board found, prior to containerization some short-term cargo storage work was performed by longshoremen at marine terminal warehouses, and containerization has “diverted” some of this traditional longshore work to off-pier warehouses. Id., at 236. The 30-day rule was therefore approved as “a rational attempt to distinguish between short-term storage at a marine terminal warehouse and long-term storage at an inland public warehouse.” Ibid.
The Rules also do not apply to “container loads of mail, household effects of a person who is relocating his place of residence, with no other type of cargo in the container, or personal effects of military personnel.” Rules 2(A)(4) and (B)(4).
The Board accepted the ALJ’s findings that such “traditional” warehouse cargo handling work is performed in connection with, for example, “the ongoing storage of a manufacturer’s goods for distribution on short notice to customers based on future orders and the ongoing storage of a company’s purchased inventory for distribution on short notice to its foreign facilities as demand required.” 266 N. L. R. B., at 236.
Two eases were vacated and remanded in ILA I. International Longshoremen’s Assn. (Dolphin Forwarding), 236 N. L. R. B. 525 (1978) (consolidators), and International Longshoremen’s Assn. (Associated Transport), 231 N. L. R. B. 351 (1977) (truckers), enf. denied, 613 F. 2d 890 (1979), vacated and remanded, 447 U. S. 490 (1980). Three cases were remanded by Courts of Appeals in light of ILA I. International Longshoremen’s Assn. (Consolidated Express), 221 N. L. R. B. 956 (1975) (consolidators), enf’d, 537 F. 2d 706 (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1041, same case, 602 F. 2d 494 (CA3 1979), vacated and remanded, 448 U. S. 902 (1980), remanded, 641 F. 2d 90 (CA3 1981); International Longshoremen’s Assn. (Beck Arabia), 245 N. L. R. B. 1325 (1979) (remanded by CA4) (warehousers); International
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
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 ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, Illinois, alleging that his conviction in 1925 on a charge of murder was the result of a denial of his rights under the Federal Constitution. That court, after a hearing, quashed the writ; and as its order cannot be reviewed by any higher Illinois court under Illinois practice, this petition for a writ of certiorari is properly addressed to this Court. See Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211; 15 U. of Chic. L. Rev. 118, 122.
The facts conceded by respondent are as follows:
The common-law record recites that petitioner was arraigned in open court and advised through interpreters of the meaning and effect of a plea of guilty and that petitioner signed a statement waiving jury trial and pleading guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. It does not appear, however, that an attorney was appointed to represent him. The waiver was not in fact signed by him, and no plea of guilty was entered at the trial. He was 18 years old at that time and had been in this country only two years. He did not understand the English language and it is doubtful that he understood American trial court procedure. The arresting officer served as an interpreter for petitioner at the original trial.
The State of Illinois speaking through the Attorney General admits the foregoing facts, confesses error, and consents to a reversal of the judgment below. He states that the writ of habeas corpus is a proper remedy in Illinois in this case because the facts, which he concedes to be a denial of due process of law under the decisions of this Court, were known to the court at the time of the original trial, though they were not a matter of record at the trial. Whether or not on this showing habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy in the court to correct a denial of due process is a question of state law as to which we accept the concession of the State’s Attorney General.
In light of the confession of error (see Young v. United States, 315 U. S. 257; Bozza v. United States, 330 U. S. 160; cf. Baltzer v. United States, 248 U. S. 593) and the undisputed facts, we conclude that petitioner was denied the due process of law which the Fourteenth Amendment requires.
Permission to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment below is vacated and remanded to the Circuit Court.
So ordered.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a longshoreman, was injured while unloading the M/Y Carib, of Dominican registry, when a shackle broke causing one of the ship’s booms to fall upon and severely injure him. He brought this suit in admiralty to recover damages resulting from the unsea-worthy condition of the ship. The libel was in rem against the Carib and in personam against respondent Pichirilo, her owner. The defense was that the Carib had been demised to petitioner’s employer, Bordas & Company, at all times pertinent hereto, including the time when the unseaworthy condition arose. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, where the Carib lay, held against the ship and the respondent Pichirilo, finding there was no such demise, and judgment for $30,000 was awarded. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Carib was under a demise to petitioner’s employer, which relieved the owner of personal responsibility for unseaworthiness, and that the Carib was not liable in rem because no personal responsibility could be visited upon either the owner or the charterer. 290 F. 2d 812. There being a conflict on the latter point between the Courts of Appeals, see Grillea v. United States, 232 F. 2d 919 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1956), we granted certiorari, 368 U. S. 895. Concluding that the District Court’s findings relative to the operative facts of a demise charter party were not clearly erroneous, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its judgment.
To create a demise the owner of the vessel must completely and exclusively relinquish “possession, command, and navigation” thereof to the demisee. United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 178 (1894); Leary v. United States, 14 Wall. 607 (1872); Reed v. United States, 11 Wall. 591 (1871). See generally Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty, 215-219; Robinson, Admiralty, 593-601; Scrutton, Charterparties (16th ed., McNair & Mocatta), 4r-7. It is therefore tantamount to, though just short of, an outright transfer of ownership. However, anything short of such a complete transfer is a time or voyage charter party of not a charter party at all. While a demise may bring about a change in the respective legal obligations of the owner and demisee, ibid., we need not decide here whether it reheves the owner of his traditional duty to maintain a seaworthy vessel, for under our view of the record the trial court’s determination that there was no demise charter party must stand.
The owner who attempts to escape his normal liability for the unseaworthiness of his vessel on the ground that he has temporarily been relieved of this obligation has the burden of establishing the facts which give rise to such relief. Thus, assuming arguendo that a demise charter party would isolate the owner from liability, the owner has the burden of showing such a charter. This burden is heavy, for courts are reluctant to find a demise when the dealings between the parties are consistent with any lesser relationship. E. g., Reed v. United States, supra, at 601. To establish a demise the owner in the instant case offered only the testimony of the director-partner of the claimed' demisee, petitioner’s employer. He testified that his company had complete control over and responsibility for the operation of the Carib, in consideration of which, the owner was paid $200 monthly. He explained that his company’s agreement with the owner was “a kind of charter, because it does not comply with the regular provisions of a charter party. I pay the seamen, food, repair, maintenance, drydocking; which in a regular charter party are excluded.” To negate the existence of a demise the petitioner offered the deposition of the Captain of the Carib, who.testified simply that he was employed by the owner. On the basis of this evidence the trial court found that the owner “was at all times mentioned in the libel ... in possession and control of the vessel M/V ‘CARIB.’ ” In addition that court pointed out that the only witness offered to prove the existence of a demise had admitted there was no charter and that the Captain of the vessel had testified he was working for the owner, not Bordas & Co. The Court of Appeals in reversing thought the trial court had been misled as to the legal significance of the testimony and that this, as opposed to a refusal to believe the testimony of the owner’s witness, had prompted it to conclude there was no charter.
It is true, as the Court of Appeals pointed out, that the equivocation by the witness for the owner on the nature of his company’s arrangement is not inconsistent with the existence of a demise charter party, for the very elements he thought made the arrangement “a kind of charter” are inherent in a demise charter party. See authorities cited, p. 699, supra> And it is equally true the fact that the Captain is employed by the owner is not fatal to the creation of a demise charter party, for a vessel can be demised complete with captain if he is subject to the orders of the demisee during the period of the demise. United States v. Shea, supra, at 190; Robinson, op. cit., supra, 594-595. If we were convinced, as was the Court of Appeals, that the trial court’s action was colored by a misunderstanding of such legal principles, we would have to remand, as the Court of Appeals should have, for further findings by the trial court on the credibility of the owner’s witness. E. g., Kweskin v. Finkelstein, 223 F. 2d 677, 679 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1955). However, we have concluded that the trial court clearly disbelieved the testimony offered by respondent to establish a demise charter party. The trial judge not only found that respondent was in complete possession and control of the vessel, which in and of itself indicates disbelief in the witness’ testimony, but upon the conclusion of the trial pointedly stated that he did not “believe that Bordas is the operator of the boat.” This factual finding, rather than being tainted by an admission as to the legal relationship between the parties, appears to flow from the court’s interpretation of the Captain’s testimony. And to the extent this finding was based on such testimony, it cannot be said to have been influenced by an erroneous concept of a demise charter party. For as we read the record the Captain’s testimony was sufficiently ambiguous for the trial court to reasonably construe it — as the court did— as saying he remained subject to the owner’s control during the period of the alleged demise. Viewed in this light the testimony, of course, negates the existence of a demise. The determination of the factual content of ambiguous testimony is for the trial court, and such determination can be set aside on review only if “clearly erroneous.” United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 U. S. 485, 495-496 (1950).
The “clearly erroneous” rule of civil actions is applicable to suits in admiralty in general, McAllister v. United States, 348 U. S. 19, 20 (1954); see Roper v. United States, 368 U. S. 20, 23 (1961), and to the existence of the operative facts of a demise charter party in particular, Gardner v. The Calvert, 253 F. 2d 395, 399 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1958). Under this rule an appellate court cannot upset a trial court’s factual findings unless it “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948). A refusal to credit the uncorroborated testimony of the director-partner, who obviously was not disinterested in the outcome of the litigation, would not be considered clearly erroneous. See, e. g., United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326, 339 (1952); Mayer v. Zim Israel Navigation Co., 289 F. 2d 562, 563 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1960). This is especially so when such testimony is prompted by leading questions as was the case here. A fortiori the refusal to accept such testimony, disputed as it was by the testimony of the Captain, cannot be considered clearly erroneous.
Since the trial court’s determination that there was no demise charter party is not clearly erroneous, its holding that the owner is liable in personam and the vessel in rem must be reinstated. The case is therefore remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion including the resolution of any questions it might have left unanswered on the assumption that there was no liability.
Reversed and remanded.
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.
Since the alleged charterer was petitioner’s employer, its liability to him was statutorily limited by the Puerto Rico Workmen’s Accident Compensation Act. 11 L. P. R. A. § 21.
After certiorari was granted in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, faced with a demise to the longshoreman’s employer, aligned itself in toto with the position of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Reed v. The Yaka, 307 F. 2d 203 (1962).
Similarly, we do not pass on whether the vessel can be held liable in rem when neither the demisee nor the owner is personally liable.
Our view of the case makes it unnecessary to determine whether a demise charter party can be created without a written document.
At one point the judge interrupted the direct examination of the witness to point out he could not “give any credit to a witness answering leading questions.”
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the authority of the Federal Power Commission after hearing to order an interim rate reduction as well as a refund of amounts collected in excess thereof where a portion of a previously filed increased rate is found unjustified but the remainder of the proceeding is deferred. Respondent Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, a natural gas company, included within its filed increased rate schedule a 7% over-all return on its net investment. In considering this item along with others involved in the filing, including the allocation of the over-all cost of service among its rate zones, the Commission concluded, after a full hearing, that 6% % rather than the filed 7% would be a just and reasonable return. It accordingly required Tennessee Gas to file reduced rates, based on the lower return figure, retroactive to the end of a five-month suspension period, and ordered a refund of the excessive amounts collected since that date. 24 F. P. C. 204. The Court of Appeals, 293 F. 2d 761, found that the 6%% return was just and reasonable. It held, however, by a divided vote, that the Commission erred in ordering an immediate reduction and refund since it had not determined other issues in the proceeding, particularly that of the proper allocation of the over-all costs of the company’s services among its six zones. The latter, the court reasoned, might be determinative of the ultimate question of whether the over-all filed rates in each zone were just and reasonable; therefore, the interim order might result in irretrievable loss to the company. The importance of the question in the administration of the Natural Gas Act led us to grant certiorari, 368 U. S. 974. We have concluded that the issuance of the order was an appropriate exercise of the power granted the Commission by the Act.
I.
Tennessee Gas does not have a system-wide rate applicable to all services regardless of where performed. It has since the early 1950’s, with Commission approval, divided its extensive pipeline system into six rate zones with rate differentials. The appropriate allocation of its costs of service among these zones and types of customers was not then decided by the Commission nor agreed upon between the parties, but was left for future decision. It was in this posture that in 1959 Tennessee Gas, pursuant to § 4 (d) of the Natural Gas Act, filed with the Commission proposed increased rates for its six rate zones. The rates were predicated upon a cost of service which included a claim to a 7 % rate of return on net investment. At the inception of hearings on the reasonableness of the filed rates the Commission, under its § 4 (e) authority, imposed a five-month suspension period on the proposed increase after which the rates became effective subject to refund of any portion not ultimately justified by Tennessee Gas in the proceedings.
Hearings commenced on February 2, 1960, and Tennessee Gas presented its evidence on cost of service and rate of return. The Commission staff presented evidence on the latter alone and then proposed that the rate of return issue be treated separately from cost of service and allocation of rates among.zones. At the time of this proposal to the Commission the zone allocation issue was also pending in another docket in a proceeding involving Tennessee Gas. By motion Tennessee Gas requested that the allocation issue be decided simultaneously with that involving the rate of return. On August 5, 1960, this motion was denied, and four days later the Commission issued the interim order under attack here. It found that a 7 Jo return was excessive and that a 6% % rate of return was just and reasonable. This finding was based on the Commission’s determination that Tennessee Gas had failed to justify a rate of return greater than 6%%. Accordingly, the Commission issued an interim order which disallowed the 7% return, required Tennessee Gas to file appropriate lower rates retroactively to the effective date of the increased rates and ordered refunds of the differences collected since that time. Tennessee Gas does not contest the Commission’s determination that a 6%% return on its net investment is just and reasonable. It does contend that to require the refunds prior to a determination of cost allocation among its zones of operation might result in its being unable to realize this return during the refund period. In this connection it points out that the rates as finally determined might, in some of its zones, be above the rates collected less the refund ordered. This would result in Tennessee Gas not being able to recoup a return of 6%% since it would be unable to collect retroactively the higher rates found appropriate in those zones while it would be required to make full refunds in the remaining lower rate zones.
The Court of Appeals, in setting aside the Commission’s order of immediate reduction and refund, found that it was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion to thus splinter the issues, especially since the cost allocation among zones issue was deemed “ripe for decision,” and a ruling on it was an “essential element in determining whether the filed rates are excessive.” The court also questioned whether a hearing confined to the issue of rate of return was such a “full hearing” as § 4 (e) demands prerequisite to a rate-change and refund order.
The Federal Power Commission and the City of Pittsburgh, which is acting in behalf of resident consumers of natural gas, are here in separate cases. Since they raise identical factual and legal issues, we consider the two cases together.
II.
As all of the respondents admit, there is “no question” as to the Commission's authority to issue interim rate orders. Indeed, such general authority is well established by cases in this Court, Federal Power Comm’n v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575 (1942); New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184 (1923), as well as in the Courts of Appeals. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 236 F. 2d 606 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1956); State Corporation Comm’n of Kansas v. Federal Power Comm’n, 206 F. 2d 690 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1953). It is true that none of these cases involved an undecided cost allocation issue applicable retroactively. However, in Natural Gas Pipeline Co. this Court took pains to point out the fact that “establishment of a rate for a regulated industry often involves two steps of different character, one of which may appropriately precede the other.” 315 U. S., at p. 584. Significantly, that case also involved the issue of a fair rate of return and “the adjustment of a rate schedule . . . so as to eliminate discriminations and unfairness from its details.” Ibid. And the Court specifically found power to order a decrease in rates “without establishing a specific schedule.” It declared that the proviso of § 5 authorized the Commission to “order a decrease where existing rates are unjust ... or are not the lowest reasonable rates.” Finally, the Court concluded that § 16 placed discretion in the Commission to “issue . . . such orders ... as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” Here the Commission took similar action directing Tennessee Gas to file a new schedule which would reflect the prescribed %% reduction in the rate of return and, in addition, to refund under § 4 (e) the amounts collected in excess of the lower, substituted charges reflecting the lawful rate of return. The fact that the Natural Gas Pipeline Co. case was initiated under § 5 of the Act and the refund provisions of § 4 (e) were not available was, in our opinion, of no consequence since the hazard of not making a profit remains on the company in each instance. “Discriminations and unfairness” if later found present in Natural Gas Pipeline’s schedule might have caused it losses just as the refunds might here. In addition, an analysis of the policy of the Act clearly indicates that a natural gas company initiating an increase in rates under § 4 (d) assumes the hazards involved in that procedure. It bears the burden of establishing its rate schedule as being “just and reasonable.” In addition, the company can never recoup the income lost when the five-month suspension power of the Commission is exercised under §4(e). The company is also required to refund any sums thereafter collected should it not sustain its burden of proving the reasonableness of an increased rate, and it may suffer further loss when the Commission upon a finding of excessiveness makes adjustments in the rate detail of the company’s filing. In this latter respect a rate for one class or zone of customers may be found by the Commission to be too low, but the company cannot recoup its losses by making retroactive the higher rate subsequently allowed; on the other hand, when another class or zone of customers is found to be subjected to excessive rates and a lower rate is ordered, the company must make refunds to them. The company’s losses in the first instance do not justify its illegal gain in the latter. Such situations are entirely consistent with the policy of the Act and, we are told, occur with frequency. The company having initially filed the rates and either collected an illegal return or failed to collect a sufficient one must, under the theory of the Act, shoulder the hazards incident to its action including not only the refund of any illegal gain but also its losses where its filed rate is found to be inadequate.
Nor do we share the doubts of the Court of Appeals concerning the practicalities of the two-step procedure invoked by the Commission. We cannot see how the severance of the two issues left Tennessee Gas without guidance as to “the extent to which individual rates should be reduced, or to whom refunds are due.” 293 F. 2d, at p. 767. The Commission has found that the revised over-all rate schedule should have been calculated on a rate of return of 6%% rather than 7%. As a result the over-all rate was to that extent unlawful and refunds were due across the board to all customers in the Tennessee Gas system. The interim order directed their payment. True, the old and undecided zone rate structure under attack as discriminatory was left in effect by this order and survives a bit longer. But the probabilities present in that situation are more than offset by the certainty of the Commission’s actions in finding the 7% rate unlawful, fixing the 6% % lawful return and giving timely effectiveness, including refunds, to the latter. Perhaps discrimination may later be found in the allocation of cost between some zones, but it would affect only the customers in those zones while the postponement of the interim order here would be of continuing detriment to all customers in all zones. Moreover, if decreased rates and resultant refunds are later found to be necessary in those isolated instances the Commission has the power to so order upon such finding and the individual lawful rates could at that time be fixed.
Moreover, the use of the interim order technique is in keeping with the purposes of the Act “to protect consumers against exploitation at the hands of natural gas companies . . . ,” Federal Power Comm’n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 610 (1944), and “to underwrite just and reasonable rates to the consumers of natural gas . . . .” Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 360 U. S. 378, 388 (1959). Faced with the finding that the rate of return was excessive, the Commission acted properly within its statutory power in issuing the interim order of reduction and refund, since the purpose of the Act is “to afford consumers a complete, permanent and effective bond of protection from excessive rates and charges. . . Id., at p. 388. To do otherwise would have permitted Tennessee Gas to collect the illegal rate for an additional 18 months at a cost of over $16,500,000 to consumers. True, the exaction would have been subject to refund, but experience has shown this to be somewhat illusory in view of the trickling down process necessary to be followed, the incidental cost of which is often borne by the consumer, and in view of the transient nature of our society which often prevents refunds from reaching those to whom they are due. It is, therefore, the duty of the Commission to look at “the backdrop of the practical consequences [resulting] . . . and the purposes of the Act,” Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 364 U. S. 137, 147 (1960), in exercising its discretion under § 16 to issue interim orders and, where refunds are found due, to direct their payment at the earliest possible moment consistent with due process. In so doing under the circumstances here the Commission’s ultimate action in directing the severance and in entering the interim order was not only entirely appropriate but in the best tradition of effective administrative practice.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed insofar as it set aside the interim order; otherwise it is affirmed.
Reversed in part.
On motion of the Commission’s staff counsel, the proceeding was divided into two phases: (1) determination of rate of return; (2) determination of other factors, including allocation of rates among zones.
15 U. S. C. § 717c (d) :
“Unless the Commission otherwise órders, no change shall be made by any natural-gas company in any such rate, charge, classification, or service, or in any rule, regulation, or contract relating thereto, except after thirty days’ notice to the Commission and to the public. Such notice shall be given by filing with the Commission and keeping open for public inspection new schedules stating plainly the change or changes to be made in the schedule or schedules then in force and the time when the change or changes will go into effect. The Commission, for good cause shown, may allow changes to take effect without requiring the thirty days’ notice herein provided for by an order specifying the changes so to be made and the time when they shall take effect and the manner in which they shall be filed and published.”
15 U. S. C. § 717c (e):
“Whenever any such new schedule is filed the Commission shall have authority ... to enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate, charge, classification, or service; and, pending such hearing and the decision thereon, the Commission, upon filing with such schedules and delivering to the natural-gas company affected thereby a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension, may suspend the operation of such schedule and defer the use of such rate, charge, classification, or service, but not for a longer period than five months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect. . . .”
In this connection we note the Commission found:
“Hearings on the cost allocation issue, severed from the other issues in Docket No. G-11980 by Commission order, were concluded on December 17, 1959, and briefing thereon was concluded on April 11, 1960. Tennessee’s motion for omission of the intermediate decision on that issue is neither timely nor concurred in by the other parties to the proceeding. Further, while we recognize that an early decision on that issue is desirable, the nature and considerable size of the record, indicates that it would be more practicable in the interests of an early decision and in the interest of effective administration of the Natural Gas Act, that the Presiding Examiner, who has available knowledge of that record, should proceed with consideration of the evidence and render decision thereon.” Unreported order of the Commission issued Aug. 5, 1960.
Respondents Columbia Gas Companies raise a separate point as to their not being permitted to offer evidence in this case as to cost allocation. We note that they had a full opportunity to do so in another proceeding involving the same parties. This contention, therefore, has no merit. This hearing, insofar as it determined that the rate of return was unreasonable, was to that extent and for the purpose of the interim order the “full hearing” contemplated by the statute, even though it did not at that time dispose of the entire case.
15 U. S. C. § 717d (a):
“. . . Provided, however, That the Commission shall have no power to order any increase in any rate contained in the currently effective schedule of such natural gas company on file with the Commission, unless such increase is in accordance with a new schedule filed by such natural gas company; but the Commission may order a decrease where existing rates are unjust, unduly discriminatory, preferential, otherwise unlawful, or are not the lowest reasonable rates.”
15 U. S. C. § 717o:
“The Commission shall have power to perform any and all acts, and to prescribe, issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders, rules, and regulations as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Among other things, such rules and regulations may define accounting, technical,.and trade terms used in this chapter; and may prescribe the form or forms of all statements, declarations, applications, and reports to be filed with the Commission, the information which they shall contain, and the time within which they shall be filed. Unless a different date is specified therein, rules and regulations of the Commission shall be effective thirty days after publication in the manner which the Commission shall prescribe. Orders of the Commission shall be effective on the date and in the manner which the Commission shall prescribe. For the purposes of its rules and regulations, the Commission may classify persons and matters within its jurisdiction and prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons or matters. All rules and regulations of the Commission shall be filed with its secretary and shall be kept open in convenient form for public inspection and examination during reasonable business hours. (June 21, 1938, ch. 556, § 16, 52 Stat. 830,)”
The cost allocation issue was decided 18 months following the Commission’s decision on rate of return, and substantial issues on the cost-of-service question are still unresolved. If the interim order had not been entered the illegal rate would have been in effect 22 months, with an excessive return of some $20,000,000.
In some of the States refunds due unfound former customers remain with the company in separate accounts subject to future order; a larger group escheats such amounts to the State; others permit them to be used in defraying the cost of the refund; a fourth group has no problem regarding transients since refunds are prorated among company customers and credited on future bills; and one State includes all refunds in future rate reductions. While refunds are permissible in cash, most of the States approve plans whereby credits are permitted on future gas bills in proportion to average consumption.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a three-judge District Court specially constituted on appellee’s application for an injunction to restrain enforcement of a portion of an Act of Congress for repugnance to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Section 304 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1044, 21 U. S. C. § 334 (a), as amended, 62 Stat. 582, 21 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 334 (a), permits multiple seizures of misbranded articles “when the Administrator has probable cause to believe from facts found, without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of the Agency that the misbranded article is dangerous to health, or that the labeling of the misbranded article is fraudulent, or would be in a material respect misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.”
Appellee is the exclusive national distributor of Nutrilite Food Supplement, an encapsulated concentrate of alfalfa, water cress, parsley, and synthetic vitamins combined in a package with mineral tablets. There is no claim that the ingredients of the preparation are harmful or dangerous to health. The sole claim is that the labeling was, to use the statutory words, “misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer” and that therefore the preparation was “misbranded” when introduced into interstate commerce.
This was indeed the administrative finding behind eleven seizures resulting in that number of libel suits, between September and December, 1948. The misbranding, it was found, resulted from the booklet which accompanied the preparation. Shortly thereafter the present suit was instituted to have the multiple seizure provision of § 304 (a) declared unconstitutional and to dismiss all libel cases except the first one instituted. The District Court held that appellants had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Fifth Amendment in instituting multiple libel suits without first affording the appellee a hearing on the probable cause issue; that the multiple seizure provision of § 304 (a) was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and that appellants should be permanently enjoined from instituting any action raising a claim that the booklet accompanying the preparation was a misbranding since it was not fraudulent, false, or misleading. 87 F. Supp. 650.
First. The administrative finding of probable cause required by § 304 (a) is merely the statutory prerequisite to the bringing of the lawsuit. When the libels are filed the owner has an opportunity to appear as a claimant and to have a full hearing before the court. This hearing, we conclude, satisfies the requirements of due process.
At times a preliminary decision by an agency is a step in an administrative proceeding. We have repeatedly held that no hearing at the preliminary stage is required by due process so long as the requisite hearing is held before the final administrative order becomes effective. See Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742; Inland Empire Council v. Millis, 325 U. S. 697; Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U. S. 126.
But this case does not go as far. Here an administrative agency is merely determining whether a judicial proceeding should be instituted. Moreover, its finding of probable cause, while a necessary prerequisite to multiple seizures, has no effect in and of itself. All proceedings for the enforcement of the Act or to restrain violations of it must be brought by and in the name of the United States. § 307. Whether a suit will be instituted depends on the Attorney General, not on the administrative agency. He may or may not accept the agency’s recommendation. If he does, seizures are made and libels are instituted. But the seizures and suits are dependent on the discretion of the Attorney General.
It is said that these multiple seizure decisions of the Administrator can cause irreparable damage to a business. And so they can. The impact of the initiation of judicial proceedings is often serious. Take the case of the grand jury. It returns an indictment against a man without a hearing. It does not determine his guilt; it only determines whether there is probable cause to believe he is guilty. But that determination is conclusive on the issue of probable cause. As a result the defendant can be arrested and held for trial. See Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 85; Ex parte United States, 287 U. S. 241, 250. The impact of an indictment is on the reputation or liberty of a man. The same is true where a prosecutor files an information charging violations of the law. The harm to property and business can also be incalculable by the mere institution of proceedings. Yet it has never been held that the hand of government must be stayed until the courts have an opportunity to determine whether the government is justified in instituting suit in the courts. Discretion of any official may be abused. Yet it is not a requirement of due process that there be judicial inquiry before discretion can be exercised. It is sufficient, where only property rights are concerned, that there is at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 596-597; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 520; Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 442-443.
One of the oldest examples is the summary destruction of property without prior notice or hearing for the protection of public health. There is no constitutional reason why Congress in the interests of consumer protection may not extend that area of control. It may conclude, as it did here, that public damage may result even from harmless articles if they are allowed to be sold as panaceas for man’s ills. A requirement for a hearing, as a matter of constitutional right, does not arise merely because the danger of injury may be more apparent or immediate in the one case than in the other. For all we know, the most damage may come from misleading or fraudulent labels. That is a decision for Congress, not for us. The decision of Congress was that the administrative determination to make multiple seizures should be made without a hearing. We cannot say that due process requires one at that stage.
Second. The District Court had no jurisdiction to review the administrative determination of probable cause.
The determination of probable cause in and of itself had no binding legal consequence any more than did the final valuation made by the Interstate Commerce Commission in United States v. Los Angeles & S. L. R. Co., 273 U. S. 299. It took the exercise of discretion on the part of the Attorney General, as we have pointed out above, to bring it into play against appellee’s business. Judicial review of such a preliminary step in a judicial proceeding is so unique that we are not willing easily to infer that it exists.
Judicial review of this preliminary phase of the administrative procedure does not fit the statutory scheme nor serve the policy of the Act. Congress made numerous administrative determinations under the Act reviewable by the courts. But it did not place the finding of probable cause under § 304 (a) in that category. This highly selective manner in which Congress has provided for judicial review reinforces the inference that the only-review of the issue of probable cause which Congress granted was the one provided in the libel suit. Cf. Switchmen’s Union v. Board, 320 U. S. 297, 305-306.
The purpose of the multiple seizure provision is plain. It is to arrest the distribution of an article that is dangerous, or whose labeling is fraudulent or misleading, pending a determination of the issue of adulteration or misbranding. The public therefore has a stake in the jurisdictional issue before us. If the District Court can step in, stay the institution of seizures, and bring the administrative regulation to a halt until it hears the case, the public will be denied the speedy protection which Congress provided by multiple seizures. It is not enough to say that the vitamin preparation in the present case is not dangerous to health. This preparation may be relatively innocuous. But the statutory scheme treats every “misbranded article” the same in this respect — -whether it is “dangerous to health,” or its labeling is “fraudulent,” or materially “misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.” *** What we do today determines the jurisdiction of the District Court in all the cases in that category. If the court in the present case can halt all multiple seizures but one, so can the court in other cases. The means which Congress provided to protect consumers against the injurious consequences of protracted proceedings would then be seriously impaired. Congress weighed the potential injury to the public from misbranded articles against the injury to the purveyor of the article from a temporary interference with its distribution and decided in favor of the speedy, preventive device of multiple seizures. We would impair or destroy the effectiveness of that device if we sanctioned the interference which a grant of jurisdiction to the District Court would entail. Multiple seizures are the means of protection afforded the public. Consolidation of all the libel suits so that one trial may be had is the relief afforded the distributors of the articles.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
62 Stat. 928, 961, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253, 2101.
62 Stat. 968, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284.
The provision of which the quoted portion is a part reads as follows:
“Any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, or which may not, under the provisions of section 404 or 505, be introduced into interstate commerce, shall be liable to be proceeded against while in interstate commerce, or at any time thereafter, on libel of information and condemned in any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the article is found: Provided, however, That no libel for condemnation shall be instituted under this Act, for any alleged misbranding if there is pending in any court a libel for condemnation proceeding under this Act based upon the same alleged misbranding, and not more than one such proceeding shall be instituted if no such proceeding is so pending, except that such limitation shall not apply (1) when such misbranding has been the basis of a prior judgment in favor of the United States, in a criminal, injunction, or libel for condemnation proceeding under this Act, or (2) when the Administrator has probable cause to believe from facts found, without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of the Agency that the misbranded article is dangerous to health, or that the labeling of the misbranded article is fraudulent, or would be in a material respect misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.”
The booklet, How to Get Well and Stay Well, is used by salesmen in soliciting prospective customers. A version of the booklet in use in 1947 represented that Nutrilite had “cured or greatly helped” such “common ailments” as “Low blood pressure, Ulcers, Mental depression, Pyorrhea, Muscular twitching, Rickets, Worry over small things, Tonsilitis, Hay Fever, Sensitiveness to noise, Underweight, Easily tired, Gas in Stomach, Cuts heal slowly, Faulty vision, Headache, Constipation, Anemia, Boils, Flabby tissues, Hysterical tendency, Eczema, Overweight, Faulty memory, Lack of ambition, Certain bone conditions, Nervousness, Nosebleed, Insomnia (sleeplessness), Allergies, Asthma, Restlessness, Bad skin color, Poor appetite, Biliousness, Neuritis, Night blindness, Migraine, High blood pressure, Sinus trouble, Lack of concentration, Dental caries, Irregular heartbeat, Colitis, Craving for sour foods, Arthritis (rheumatism), Neuralgia, Deafness, Subject to colds.” This version is the basis for an indictment now pending in the Southern District of California charging Lee S. Mytinger and William S. Casselberry with the misbranding of Nutrilite in violation-of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
After a hearing prior to the indictment, appellee revised the booklet. Direct curative claims were eliminated. But pages 41-52 of the revised booklet were devoted to case histories explaining that Nutrilite brought relief from such ailments as diabetes, feeblemindedness, stomach pains, sneezing and weeping. Appellant Crawford, Associate Commissioner of Food and Drugs, concluded that there was probable cause to believe and that he did believe that this version of the booklet was misleading. On September 28 and 30, 1948, he recommended seizures of Nutrilite shipments.
Appellee thereafter ordered its salesmen to remove pages 37-58 which contained the case histories. The pages which remained pointed to the dangers and prevalence of illness, described the discovery of Nutrilite, and recommended the booklet to those who wanted to get well and stay well. On December 2, 1948, appellant Larrick, Assistant Commissioner of Foods and Drugs, made a probable cause determination on these pages of the booklet and recommended seizure.
Six new pages were thereafter added to the booklet. On December 9, 1948, appellant Dunbar, Commissioner of Foods and Drugs, made a probable cause determination on that version of the booklet and recommended further seizures.
Sec. 304 (b) provides in part:
“The article shall be liable to seizure by process pursuant to the libel, and the procedure in cases under this section shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty; except that on demand of either party any issue of fact joined in any such case shall be tried by jury.”
Review of an order of the Administrator refusing to permit an application for a new drug to become effective or suspending the effectiveness of an application is authorized in § 505 (h), 21 U. S. C. §355 (h). Orders of the Administrator in connection with issuing, amending, or repealing regulations under §§401, 403 (j), 404 (a), 406 (a) and (b), 501 (b), 502 (d), 502 fh), 504, 604 are expressly made reviewable by § 701 (e) and (f), 21 U. S. C. § 371 (e) and (f).
See § 304 (a) note 3, supra.
Sec. 304 (b) provides in part:
“When libel for condemnation proceedings under this section, involving the same claimant and the same issues of adulteration or misbranding, are pending in two or more jurisdictions, such pending proceedings, upon application of the claimant seasonably made to the court of one such jurisdiction, shall be consolidated for trial by order of such court, and tried in (1) any district selected by the claimant where one of such proceedings is pending; or (2) a district agreed upon by stipulation between the parties. If no order for consolidation is so made within a reasonable time, the claimant may apply to the court of one such jurisdiction, and such "court (after giving the United States attorney for such district reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard) shall by order, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, specify a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant’s principal place of business, in which all such pending proceedings shall be consolidated for trial and tried. Such order of consolidation shall not apply so as to require the removal of any case the date for trial of which has been fixed. The court granting such order shall give prompt notification thereof to the other courts having jurisdiction of the cases covered thereby.”
Congress has granted distributors through the provision for consolidation of all libel suits the measure of relief which courts at times grant through a stay of multiple actions. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Leonel Torres Herrera was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in January 1982. He unsuccessfully challenged the conviction on direct appeal and state collateral proceedings in the Texas state courts, and in a federal habeas petition. In February 1992 — 10 years after his conviction — he urged in a second federal habeas petition that he was “actually innocent” of the murder for which he was sentenced to death, and that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law therefore forbid his execution. He supported this claim with affidavits tending to show that his now-dead brother, rather than he, had been the perpetrator of the crime. Petitioner urges us to hold that this showing of innocence entitles him to relief in this federal habeas proceeding. We hold that it does not.
Shortly before 11 p.m. on an evening in late September 1981, the body of Texas Department of Public Safety Officer David Rucker was found by a passer-by on a stretch of highway about six miles east of Los Fresnos, Texas, a few miles north of Brownsville in the Rio Grande Valley. Rucker’s body was lying beside his patrol car. He had been shot in the head.
At about the same time, Los Fresnos Police Officer Enrique Carrisalez observed a speeding vehicle traveling west towards Los Fresnos, away from the place where Rucker’s body had been found, along the same road. Carrisalez, who was accompanied in his patrol car by Enrique Hernandez, turned on his flashing red lights and pursued the speeding vehicle. After the car had stopped briefly at a red light, it signaled that it would pull over and did so. The patrol car pulled up behind it. Carrisalez took a flashlight and walked toward the car of the speeder. The driver opened his door and exchanged a few words with Carrisalez before firing at least one shot at Carrisalez’ chest. The officer died nine days later.
Petitioner Herrera was arrested a few days after the shootings and charged with the capital murder of both Carri-salez and Rucker. He was tried and found guilty of the capital murder of Carrisalez in January 1982, and sentenced to death. In July 1982, petitioner pleaded guilty to the murder of Rucker.
At petitioner’s trial for the murder of Carrisalez, Hernandez, who had witnessed Carrisalez’ slaying from the officer’s patrol car, identified petitioner as the person who had wielded the gun. A declaration by Officer Carrisalez to the same effect, made while he was in the hospital, was also admitted. Through a license plate cheek, it was shown that the speeding car involved in Carrisalez’ murder was registered to petitioner’s “live-in” girlfriend. Petitioner was known to drive this car, and he had a set of keys to the car in his pants pocket when he was arrested. Hernandez identified the car as the vehicle from which the murderer had emerged to fire the fatal shot. He also testified that there had been only one person in the car that night.
The evidence showed that Herrera’s Social Security card had been found alongside Rucker’s patrol car on the night he was killed. Splatters of blood on the car identified as the vehicle involved in the shootings, and on petitioner’s blue jeans and wallet were identified as type A blood — the same type which Rucker had. (Herrera has type 0 blood.) Similar evidence with respect to strands of hair found in the car indicated that the hair was Rucker’s and not Herrera’s. A handwritten letter was also found on the person of petitioner
Mtíejp i|piaiiá^||8H¥i8te §|ñlipg| ¶¶^ %mkm wm ffipli&M# mi tapped aéb&M ^|§§^^§8^8^^1 H|.§| IplfSffl íf§|S?; Pifleñá’lte ilfl i Sákif teS I fel¥§ tagfet fFÍlf ÍB ÉIÍF Mi: Wfe8 te8W§ flf? 4% 81RR8Í GfelRgl Él fitHFl’i gFSllffil MÉ pFGfeliffli fFSffl Él glit: Wfelt í M MI M1 &m iRá pffipii: §ri \m mm séifí; mú ír fe mÉü wi M íh* éi$> fe wm it te “l’ffl B8t I ÍBFfflfRtlá glF§8H: : : : I feilíi¥8 ÍR Él M Wfelt $8Hlá ft ||^ft|8tó ¶||§?8) H1R Élt FÍÉ ÉIÍF Iftli Í8F 8É1F§? III: ^Iffllllilfll S |1¡ tlflSlilÉ^Éll fef ÉlSlt Élffl: ¥fel fflSit Wi Élt íftl^ ffllfel Ü8F B18gl§ Í8 Me tflffl: ÍR 8ÉIF words, to encourage crime. “Wilt felgglRll t8 SHSfelF Mi Í8F I GIFttiR FÜ18R: í feñiW feíffl II lite lato: Si m ír my Mimm¡ M te ^islittá isíri sf its laws má üfilFlá Él gÍRllt$ lite till 8RI pH fet¥l f8F ffll WfelR Él tííílf S8ffll§: m PiFS8Rll Üli? $feígfe Sli telR I S8R§PFIS^ IÍR88 Hf feigfe SÉ88Í ÉgFSj fell R8ÉÍRg t8 á8 MÉ Wfelt Rll felgglRlá: ffel 8É1F 8Í8IF Élt felSlfflt BtFÍ 8f 8HF Mil ffll IRá StíÉlFl M Élt Right felá B8t t8 88 ÍR Éíl ímh Si Mi 8Ht t8 88 Wfelt ll felá t8 á8; gfflfestj fetít Élt’i lii: fteFI’i I l8t 8f Ri Élt M1F áifflFIRt ftsii ír ten m® ál$ IRá Élt ii Wfelt Sül§ BF8fellffl§ Í8F ill: iSRiRtlliigiklf $8Fál: “?8H Sl¥i WF8ÍI 111 |8R MRt 8Í Hf life M Éiflfc É8HÍ PHFI- lli8: ñ M% tipil iRá pieteFii te pfsp wist l feet §iiá: l will pF8¥i m$ §iát if py igGipt te liitiR: fea [miRtillif ifeli wsFáj fFitásm ef ptefe: i¥IR I GFiffliRll fell Élt Fíffet: i Mil gFÜIRt Hfitlf Íf ÉÍI Íl Ftlí W8F8 feF W8Fá 8¥IF Él iRláfe í mil ÉFR Rf §§lf ÍR] ÍF 98t* á8R;t fel¥t fflíllÍ8R! 8f ffllR 8Ht ÉIFI?MÍR§ jHlt 8R ffll ^feíll 8ÉtF§=F8teiF§> Fipiltl: 8F tegllFI=IFI tlMfig ifePRtlgl 8f Él lM’1 tíffll: Í58RI1 W IBllliRg IRá WFitiRf: lt’1 felFá It tifflll lite ÉÍI:” 4pp: t8 §FÍlf ÍÍIF M §titn ii mm§ §mm §i=li:
petition, again challenging the identifications offered against him at trial. This petition was denied, see 904 F. 2d 944 (CA5), and we again denied certiorari, 498 U. S. 925 (1990).
Petitioner next returned to state court and filed a second habeas petition, raising, among other things, a claim of “actual innocence” based on newly discovered evidence. In support of this claim petitioner presented the affidavits of Hector Villarreal, an attorney who had represented petitioner’s brother, Raul Herrera, Sr., and of Juan Franco Palacious, one of Raul, Senior’s former cellmates. Both individuals claimed that Raul, Senior, who died in 1984, had told them that he — and not petitioner — had killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez. The State District Court denied this application, finding that “no evidence at trial remotely suggested] that anyone other than [petitioner] committed the offense.” Ex parte Herrera, No. 81-CR-672-C (Tex. 197th Jud. Dist., Jan. 14, 1991), ¶ 35. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, Ex parte Herrera, 819 S. W. 2d 528 (1991), and we denied certiorari, Herrera v. Texas, 502 U. S. 1085 (1992).
In February 1992, petitioner lodged the instant habeas petition — his second — in federal court, alleging, among other things, that he is innocent of the murders of Rucker and Car-risalez, and that his execution would thus violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition to proffering the above affidavits, petitioner presented the affidavits of Raul Herrera, Jr., Raul, Senior’s son, and Jose Ybarra, Jr., a schoolmate of the Herrera brothers. Raul, Junior, averred that he had witnessed his father shoot Officers Rucker and Carrisalez and petitioner was not present. Raul, Junior, was nine years old at the time of the killings. Ybarra alleged that Raul, Senior, told him one summer night in 1983 that he had shot the two police officers. Petitioner alleged that' law enforcement officials were aware of this evidence, and had withheld it in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963).
The District Court dismissed most of petitioner’s claims as an abuse of the writ. No. M-92-30 (SD Tex., Feb. 17,1992). However, “in order to ensure that Petitioner can assert his constitutional claims and out of a sense of fairness and due process,” the District Court granted petitioner’s request for a stay of execution so that he could present his claim of actual innocence, along with the Raul, Junior, and Ybarra affidavits, in state court. App. 38-39. Although it initially dismissed petitioner’s Brady claim on the ground that petitioner had failed to present “any evidence of withholding exculpatory material by the prosecution,” App. 37, the District Court also granted an evidentiary hearing on this claim after reconsideration, id., at 54.
The Court of Appeals vacated the stay of execution. 954 F. 2d 1029 (CA5 1992). It agreed with the District Court’s initial conclusion that there was no evidentiary basis for petitioner’s Brady claim, and found disingenuous petitioner’s attempt to couch his claim of actual innocence in Brady terms. 954 F. 2d, at 1032. Absent an accompanying constitutional violation, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner’s claim of actual innocence was not cognizable because, under Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 317 (1963), “the existence merely of newly discovered evidence relevant to the guilt of a state prisoner is not a ground for relief on federal habeas corpus.” See 954 F. 2d, at 1034. We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 1085 (1992), and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed petitioner’s execution. We now affirm.
Petitioner asserts that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit the execution of a person who is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. This proposition has an elemental appeal, as would the similar proposition that the Constitution prohibits the imprisonment of one who is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. After all, the central purpose of any system of criminal justice is to convict the guilty and free the innocent. See United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225, 230 (1975). But the evidence upon which petitioner’s claim of innocence rests was not produced at his trial, but rather eight years later. In any system of criminal justice, “innocence” or “guilt” must be determined in some sort of a judicial proceeding. Petitioner’s showing of innocence, and indeed his constitutional claim for relief based upon that showing, must be evaluated in the light of the previous proceedings in this case, which have stretched over a span of 10 years.
A person when first charged with a crime is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and may insist that his guilt be established beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). Other constitutional provisions also have the effect of ensuring against the risk of convicting an innocent person. See, e. g., Coy v. Iowa, 487 U. S. 1012 (1988) (right to confront adverse witnesses); Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400 (1988) (right to compulsory process); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984) (right to effective assistance of counsel); Winship, supra (prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968) (right to jury trial); Brady v. Maryland, supra (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) (right to assistance of counsel); In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955) (right to “fair trial in a fair tribunal”). In capital cases, we have required additional protections because of the nature of the penalty at stake. See, e. g., Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980) (jury must be given option of convicting the defendant of a lesser offense). All of these constitutional safeguards, of course, make it more difficult for the State to rebut and finally overturn the presumption of innocence which attaches to every criminal defendant. But we have also observed that “[d]ue process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person.” Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 208 (1977). To conclude otherwise would all but paralyze our system for enforcement of the criminal law.
Once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the presumption of innocence disappears. Cf. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, 610 (1974) (“The purpose of the trial stage from the State’s point of view is to convert a criminal defendant from a person presumed innocent to one found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”). Here, it is not disputed that the State met its burden of proving at trial that petitioner was guilty of the capital murder of Officer Carrisalez beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in the eyes of the law, petitioner does not come before the Court as one who is “innocent,” but, on the contrary, as one who has been convicted by due process of law of two brutal murders.
Based on affidavits here filed, petitioner claims that evidence never presented to the trial court proves him innocent notwithstanding the verdict reached at his trial. Such a claim is not cognizable in the state courts of Texas. For to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must file a motion within 30 days after imposition or suspension of sentence. Tex. Rule App. Proc. 31(a)(1) (1992). The Texas courts have construed this 30-day time limit as jurisdictional. See Beathard v. State, 767 S. W. 2d 423, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Drew v. State, 743 S. W. 2d 207, 222-223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding. Chief Justice Warren made this clear in Townsend v. Sain, supra, at 317 (emphasis added):
“Where newly discovered evidence is alleged in a ha-beas application, evidence which could not reasonably have been presented to the state trier of facts, the federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing. Of course, such evidence must bear upon the constitutionality of the applicant’s detention; the existence merely of newly discovered evidence relevant to the guilt of a state prisoner is not a ground for relief on federal ha-beas corpus.”
This rule is grounded in the principle that federal habeas courts sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution — not to correct errors of fact. See, e. g., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, 87-88 (1923) (Holmes, J.) (“[W]hat we have to deal with [on habeas review] is not the petitioners’ innocence or guilt but solely the question whether their constitutional rights have been preserved”); Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, 84 (1905) (“[I]t is well settled that upon habeas corpus the court will not weigh the evidence”) (emphasis in original); Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 305 (1888) (“As the writ of habeas corpus does not perform the office of a writ of error or an appeal, [the facts establishing guilt] cannot be re-examined or reviewed in this collateral proceeding”) (emphasis in original).
More recent authority construing federal habeas statutes speaks in a similar vein. “Federal courts are not forums in which to relitigate state trials.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 887 (1983). The guilt or innocence determination in state criminal trials is “a decisive and portentous event.” Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 90 (1977). “Society’s resources have been concentrated at that time and place in order to decide, within the limits of human fallibility, the question of guilt or innocence of one of its citizens.” Ibid. Few rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to provide for federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual innocence.
Our decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979), comes as close to authorizing evidentiary review of a state-court conviction on federal habeas as any of our cases. There, we held that a federal habeas court may review a claim that the evidence adduced at a state trial was not sufficient to convict a criminal defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. But in so holding, we emphasized:
“[T]his inquiry does not require a court to ‘ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id., at 318-319 (citations omitted; emphasis in original).
We specifically noted that “the standard announced... does not permit a court to make its own subjective determination of guilt or innocence.” Id., at 320, n. 13.
The type of federal habeas review sought by petitioner here is different in critical respects than that authorized by Jackson. First, the Jackson inquiry is aimed at determining whether there has been an independent constitutional violation — i. e., a conviction based on evidence that fails to meet the Winship standard. Thus, federal habeas courts act in their historic capacity — to assure that the habeas petitioner is not being held in violation of his or her federal constitutional rights. Second, the sufficiency of the evidence review authorized by Jackson is limited to “record evidence.” 443 U. S., at 318. Jackson does not extend to non-record evidence, including newly discovered evidence. Finally, the Jackson inquiry does not focus on whether the trier of fact made the correct guilt or innocence determination, but rather whether it made a rational decision to convict or acquit.
Petitioner is understandably imprecise in describing the sort of federal relief to which a suitable showing of actual innocence would entitle him. In his brief he states that the federal habeas court should have “an important initial opportunity to hear the evidence and resolve the merits of Petitioner’s claim.” Brief for Petitioner 42. Acceptance of this view would presumably require the habeas court to hear testimony from the witnesses who testified at trial as well as those who made the statements in the affidavits which petitioner has presented, and to determine anew whether or not petitioner is guilty of the murder of Officer Carrisalez. Indeed, the dissent’s approach differs little from that hypothesized here.
The dissent would place the burden on petitioner to show that he is “probably” innocent. Post, at 442. Although petitioner would not be entitled to discovery “as a matter of right,” the District Court would retain its “discretion to order discovery... when it would help the court make a reliable determination with respect to the prisoner’s claim.” Post, at 444. And although the District Court would not be required to hear testimony from the witnesses who testified at trial or the affiants upon whom petitioner relies, the dissent would allow the District Court to do so “if the petition warrants a hearing.” Ibid, At the end of the day, the dissent would have the District Court “make a case-by-case determination about the reliability of the newly discovered evidence under the circumstances,” and then “weigh the evidence in favor of the prisoner against the evidence of his guilt.” Post, at 443.
The dissent fails to articulate the relief that would be available if petitioner were to meets its “probable innocence” standard. Would it be commutation of petitioner’s death sentence, new trial, or unconditional release from imprisonment? The typical relief granted in federal habeas corpus is a conditional order of release unless the State elects to retry the successful habeas petitioner, or in a capital case a similar conditional order vacating the death sentence. Were petitioner to satisfy the dissent’s “probable innocence” standard, therefore, the District Court would presumably be required to grant a conditional order of relief, which would in effect require the State to retry petitioner 10 years after his first trial, not because of any constitutional violation which had occurred at the first trial, but simply because of a belief that in light of petitioner’s new-found evidence a jury might find him not guilty at a second trial.
Yet there is no guarantee that the guilt or innocence determination would be any more exact. To the contrary, the passage of time only diminishes the reliability of criminal adjudications. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 491 (1991) (“[WJhen a habeas petitioner succeeds in obtaining a new trial, the ‘erosion of memory and dispersion of witnesses that occur with the passage of time’ prejudice the government and diminish the chances of a reliable criminal adjudication”) (quoting Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436, 453 (1986) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted; citation omitted)); United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469, 476 (1947). Under the dissent’s approach, the District Court would be placed in the even more difficult position of having to weigh the probative value of “hot” and “cold” evidence on petitioner’s guilt or innocence.
This is not to say that our habeas jurisprudence casts a blind eye toward innocence. In a series of cases culminating with Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333 (1992), decided last Term, we have held that a petitioner otherwise subject to defenses of abusive or successive use of the writ may have his federal constitutional claim considered on the merits if he makes a proper showing of actual innocence. This rule, or fundamental miscarriage of justice exception, is grounded in the “equitable discretion” of habeas courts to see that federal constitutional errors do not result in the incarceration of innocent persons. See McCleskey, supra, at 502. But this body of our habeas jurisprudence makes clear that a claim of “actual innocence” is not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.
Petitioner in this case is simply not entitled to habeas relief based on the reasoning of this line of cases. For he does not seek excusal of a procedural error so that he may bring an independent constitutional claim challenging his conviction or sentence, but rather argues that he is entitled to ha-beas relief because newly discovered evidence shows that his conviction is factually incorrect. The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception is available “only where the prisoner supplements his constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence.” Kuhlmann, supra, at 454 (emphasis added). We have never held that it extends to freestanding claims of actual innocence. Therefore, the exception is inapplicable here.
Petitioner asserts that this case is different because he has been sentenced to death. But we have “refused to hold that the fact that a death sentence has been imposed requires a different standard of review on federal habeas corpus. ” Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U. S. 1, 9 (1989) (plurality opinion). We have, of course, held that the Eighth Amendment requires increased reliability of the process by which capital punishment may be imposed. See, e. g., McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433 (1990) (unanimity requirement imper-missibly limits jurors’ consideration of mitigating evidence); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982) (jury must be allowed to consider all of a capital defendant’s mitigating character evidence); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion) (same). But petitioner’s claim does not fit well into the doctrine of these cases, since, as we have pointed out, it is far from clear that a second trial 10 years after the first trial would produce a more reliable result.
Perhaps mindful of this, petitioner urges not that he necessarily receive a new trial, but that his death sentence simply be vacated if a federal habeas court deems that a satisfactory showing of “actual innocence” has been made. Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-20. But such a result is scarcely logical; petitioner’s claim is not that some error was made in imposing a capital sentence upon him, but that a fundamental error was made in finding him guilty of the underlying murder in the first place. It would be a rather strange jurisprudence, in these circumstances, which held that under our Constitution he could not be executed, but that he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Petitioner argues that our decision in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986), supports his position. The plurality in Ford held that, because the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of insane persons, certain procedural protections inhere in the sanity determination. “[I]f the Constitution renders the fact or timing of his execution contingent upon establishment of a further fact,” Justice Marshall wrote, “then that fact must be determined with the high regard for truth that befits a decision affecting the life or death of a human being.” Id., at 411. Because the Florida scheme for determining the sanity of persons sentenced to death failed “to achieve even the minimal degree of reliability,” id., at 413, the plurality concluded that Ford was entitled to an evi-dentiary hearing on his sanity before the District Court.
Unlike petitioner here, Ford did not challenge the validity of his conviction. Rather, he challenged the constitutionality of his death sentence in view of his claim of insanity. Because Ford’s claim went to a matter of punishment — not guilt — it was properly examined within the purview of the Eighth Amendment. Moreover, unlike the question of guilt or innocence, which becomes more uncertain with time for evidentiary reasons, the issue of sanity is properly considered in proximity to the execution. Finally, unlike the sanity determination under the Florida scheme at issue in Ford, the guilt or innocence determination in our system of criminal justice is made “with the high regard for truth that befits a decision affecting the life or death of a human being.” Id., at 411.
Petitioner also relies on Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U. S. 578 (1988), where we held that the Eighth Amendment requires reexamination of a death sentence based in part on a prior felony conviction which was set aside in the rendering State after the capital sentence was imposed. There, the State insisted that it was too late in the day to raise this point. But we pointed out that the Mississippi Supreme Court had previously considered similar claims by writ of error coram nobis. Thus, there was no need to override state law relating to newly discovered evidence in order to consider Johnson’s claim on the merits. Here, there is no doubt that petitioner seeks additional process — an eviden-tiary hearing on his claim of “actual innocence” based on newly discovered evidence — which is not available under Texas law more than 30 days after imposition or suspension of sentence. Tex. Rule App. Proc. 31(a)(1) (1992).
Alternatively, petitioner invokes the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law in support of his claim that his showing of actual innocence entitles him to a new trial, or at least to a vacation of his death sentence. “[Because the States have considerable expertise in matters of criminal procedure and the criminal process is grounded in centuries of common-law tradition,” we have “exercis[ed] substantial deference to legislative judgments in this area.” Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 445-446 (1992). Thus, we have found criminal process lacking only where it “ ‘offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’” Ibid, (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 202 (1977)). “Historical practice is probative of whether a procedural rule can be characterized as fundamental.” 505 U. S., at 446.
The Constitution itself, of course, makes no mention of new trials. New trials in criminal cases were not granted in England until the end of the 17th century. And even then, they were available only in misdemeanor cases, though the writ of error coram nobis was available for some errors of fact in felony cases. Orfield, New Trial in Federal Criminal Cases, 2 Vill. L. Rev. 293, 304 (1957). The First Congress provided for new trials for “reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in courts of law.” Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 17,1 Stat. 83. This rule was early held to extend to criminal cases. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, 175 (1895) (Gray, J., dissenting) (citing cases). One of the grounds upon which new trials were granted was newly discovered evidence. See F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice §§854-874, pp. 584-592 (8th ed. 1880).
The early federal cases adhere to the common-law rule that a new trial may be granted only during the term of court in which the final judgment was entered. See, e. g., United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 67 (1914); United States v. Simmons, 27 F. Cas. 1080 (No. 16,289) (CC EDNY 1878). Otherwise, “the court at a subsequent term has power to correct inaccuracies in mere matters of form, or clerical errors.” 235 U. S., at 67. In 1934, this Court departed from the common-law rule and adopted a time limit — 60 days after final judgment — for filing new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence. Rule 11(3), Criminal Rules of Practice and Procedure, 292 U. S. 659, 662. Four years later, we amended Rule 11(3) to allow such motions in capital cases “at any time” before the execution took place. 304 U. S. 592 (1938) (codified at 18 U. S. C. §688 (1940)).
There ensued a debate as to whether this Court should abolish the time limit for filing new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice, or retain a time limit even in capital cases to promote finality. See Orfield, supra, at 299-304. In 1946, we set a 2-year time limit for filing new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence and abolished the exception for capital cases. Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 327 U. S. 821, 855-856 (“A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment”). We have strictly construed the Rule 33 time limits. Cf. United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469, 473 (1947). And the Rule’s treatment of new trials based on newly discovered evidence has not changed since its adoption.
The American Colonies adopted the English common law on new trials. Riddell, New Trial in Present Practice, 27 Yale L. J. 353, 360 (1917). Thus, where new trials were available, motions for such relief typically had to be filed before the expiration of the term during which the trial was held. H. Underhill, Criminal Evidence 579, n
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
This Court granted certiorari, 368 U. S. 966, to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, holding that in a diversity action in the Federal District Court, state law, here that of Oklahoma, governs in determining whether an action is “legal” or “equitable” for the purpose of deciding whether a claimant has a right to a jury trial. Applying Oklahoma law, the Court of Appeals decided that a jury trial, although asked for by petitioner, was not here appropriate. 295 F. 2d 534.
In this Court respondent frankly concedes that, contrary to the Court of Appeals holding, federal law governs in determining the right to a jury trial in the federal courts. Respondent seeks to sustain the result reached by the Court of Appeals, however, on the twin grounds that, applying federal law, no jury was required in this case because (1) the District Court properly granted summary judgment for.respondent under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and (2) the present action is “equitable” and not “legal” in character.
We agree with respondent that the right to a jury trial in the federal courts is to be determined as a matter of federal law in diversity as well as other actions. The federal policy favoring jury trials is of historic and continuing strength. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 446-449; Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106; Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U. S. 525, 537-539; Beacon Theatres, Inc., v. Westover, 359 U. S. 500; Dairy Queen, Inc., v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469. Only through a holding that the jury-trial right is to be determined according to federal law can the uniformity in its exercise which is demanded by the Seventh Amendment be achieved. In diversity cases, of course, the substantive dimension of the claim asserted finds its source in state law, Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64; see Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U. S. 208; Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109, but the characterization of that state-created claim as legal or equitable for purposes of whether a right to jury trial is indicated must be made by recourse to federal law.
However, we do not agree with respondent that in this case a summary judgment was warranted or that this is an “equitable” action not requiring a jury trial.
In two appeals in this case, the Court of Appeals has ruled that in view of conflicting facts presented by affidavits and depositions to the District Court, summary judgment was not warranted. We accept and do not disturb the ruling of the Court of Appeals on this phase of the case since it has ample support in the record.
On the question whether, as a matter of federal law, the instant action is legal or equitable, we conclude that it is “legal” in character. The record discloses that the controversy between petitioner and respondent in substance involves the amount of fees petitioner, a client, is obligated to pay respondent, his lawyer. Petitioner admits his obligation to pay a “reasonable” fee under a contingent fee retainer contract stipulating that reasonableness may be set in a court trial. Respondent relies on a subsequent contract specifying 50% of the recovery, under certain circumstances, as the amount of the fee. Petitioner counters that the latter contract is the product of fraud and overreaching by the lawyer.
The case was in its basic character a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract, a traditionally “legal” action. See Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 447; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548. The fact that the action is in form a declaratory judgment case should not obscure the essentially legal nature of the action. The questions involved are traditional common-law issues which can be and should have been submitted to a jury under appropriate instructions as petitioner requested.
Accordingly, the courts below erred in denying petitioner the jury trial guaranteed him by the Seventh Amendment and the judgment is reversed.
Reversed.
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” U. S. Const., Amend. VII.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari to decide whether the area near a barn, located approximately 50 yards from a fence surrounding a ranch house, is, for Fourth Amendment purposes, within the curtilage of the house. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the barn lay within the house’s curtilage, and that the District Court should have suppressed certain evidence obtained as a result of law enforcement officials’ intrusion onto the area immediately surrounding the barn. 782 F. 2d 1226 (1986). We conclude that the barn and the area around it lay outside the curtilage of the house, and accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Respondent Ronald Dale Dunn and a codefendant, Robert Lyle Carpenter, were convicted by a jury of conspiring to manufacture phenylacetone and amphetamine, and to possess amphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. Respondent was also convicted of manufacturing these two controlled substances and possessing amphetamine with intent to distribute. The events giving rise to respondent’s apprehension and conviction began in 1980 when agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) discovered that Carpenter had purchased large quantities of chemicals and equipment used in the manufacture of amphetamine and phenylacetone. DEA agents obtained warrants from a Texas state judge authorizing installation of miniature electronic transmitter tracking devices, or “beepers,” in an electric hot plate stirrer, a drum of acetic anhy-dride, and a container holding phenylacetic acid, a precursor to phenylacetone. All of these items had been ordered by Carpenter. On September 3, 1980, Carpenter took possession of the electric hot plate stirrer, but the agents lost the signal from the “beeper” a few days later. The agents were able to track the “beeper” in the container of chemicals, however, from October 27, 1980, until November 5, 1980, on which date Carpenter’s pickup truck, which was carrying the container, arrived at respondent’s ranch. Aerial photographs of the ranch property showed Carpenter’s truck backed up to a barn behind the ranch house. The agents also began receiving transmission signals from the “beeper” in the hot plate stirrer that they had lost in early September and determined that the stirrer was on respondent’s ranch property.
Respondent’s ranch comprised approximately 198 acres and was completely encircled by a perimeter fence. The property also contained several interior fences, constructed mainly of posts and multiple strands of barbed wire. The ranch residence was situated 14 mile from a public road. A fence encircled the residence and a nearby small greenhouse. Two barns were located approximately 50 yards from this fence. The front of the larger of the two barns was enclosed by a wooden fence and had an open overhang. Locked, waist-high gates barred entry into the barn proper, and netting material stretched from the ceiling to the top of the wooden gates.
On the evening of November 5, 1980, law enforcement officials made a warrantless entry onto respondent’s ranch property. A DEA agent accompanied by an officer from the Houston Police Department crossed over the perimeter fence and one interior fence. Standing approximately midway between the residence and the barns, the DEA agent smelled what he believed to be phenylacetic acid, the odor coming from the direction of the barns. The officers approached the smaller of the barns — crossing over a barbed wire fence— and, looking into the bam, observed only empty boxes. The officers then proceeded to the larger barn, crossing another barbed wire fence as well as a wooden fence that enclosed the front portion of the barn. The officers walked under the barn’s overhang to the locked wooden gates and, shining a flashlight through the netting on top of the gates, peered into the barn. They observed what the DEA agent thought to be a phenylacetone laboratory. The officers did not enter the barn. At this point the officers departed from respondent’s property, but entered it twice more on November 6 to confirm the presence of the phenylacetone laboratory.
On November 6, 1980, at 8:30 p.m., a Federal Magistrate issued a warrant authorizing a search of respondent’s ranch. DEA agents and state law enforcement officials executed the warrant on November 8, 1980. The officers arrested respondent and seized chemicals and equipment, as well as bags of amphetamines they discovered in a closet in the ranch house.
The District Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant and respondent and Carpenter were convicted. In a decision rendered in 1982, the Court of Appeals reversed respondent’s conviction. United States v. Dunn, 674 F. 2d 1093. The court concluded that the search warrant had been issued based on information obtained during the officers’ unlawful warrantless entry onto respondent’s ranch property and, therefore, all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should have been suppressed. Underpinning this conclusion was the court’s reasoning that “the barn in question was within the curtilage of the residence and was within the protective ambit of the fourth amendment.” Id., at 1100. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in fight of Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984). 467 U. S. 1201 (1984). On remand, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its judgment that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should have been suppressed, but altered the legal basis supporting this conclusion: the large barn was not within the curtilage of the house, but by standing outside the barn and peering into the structure, the officers nonetheless violated respondent’s “reasonable expectation of privacy in his barn and its contents.” 766 F. 2d 880, 886 (1985). The Government again filed a petition for certiorari. On January 17, 1986, before this Court acted on the petition, the Court of Appeals recalled and vacated its judgment issued on remand, stating that it would enter a new judgment in due course. 781 F. 2d 52. On February 4, 1986, the Court of Appeals reinstated the original opinion rendered in 1982, asserting that “[u]pon studied reflection, we now conclude and hold that the barn was inside the protected curtilage.” 782 F. 2d, at 1227. The Government thereupon submitted a supplement to its petition for certiorari, revising the question presented to whether the barn lay within the curtilage of the house. We granted the petition, 477 U. S. 903, and now reverse.
II
The curtilage concept originated at common law to extend to the area immediately surrounding a dwelling house the same protection under the law of burglary as was afforded the house itself. The concept plays a part, however, in interpreting the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, 59 (1924), held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection accorded “persons, houses, papers, and effects” did not extend to the open fields, the Court observing that the distinction between a person’s house and open fields “is as old as the common law. 4 Bl. Comm. 223, 225, 226.”
We reaffirmed the holding of Hester in Oliver v. United States, supra. There, we recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects the curtilage of a house and that the extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself. 466 U. S., at 180. We identified the central component of this inquiry as whether the area harbors the “intimate activity associated with the ‘sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.’” Ibid, (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 (1886)).
Drawing upon the Court’s own cases and the cumulative experience of the lower courts that have grappled with the task of defining the extent of a home’s curtilage, we believe that curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. See California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 221 (1986) (Powell, J., dissenting) (citing Care v. United States, 231 F. 2d 22, 25 (CA10), cert. denied, 351 U. S. 932 (1956); United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F. 2d 992, 993-994 (CA4 1981)). We do not suggest that combining these factors produces a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a “correct” answer to all extent-of-curtilage questions. Rather, these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration — whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s “umbrella” of Fourth Amendment protection. Applying these factors to respondent’s barn and to the area immediately surrounding it, we have little difficulty in concluding that this area lay outside the curtilage of the ranch house.
First. The record discloses that the barn was located 50 yards from the fence surrounding the house and 60 yards from the house itself. 766 F. 2d, at 882-883; 782 F. 2d, at 1228. Standing in isolation, this substantial distance supports no inference that the barn should be treated as an adjunct of the house.
Second. It is also significant that respondent’s barn did not lie within the area surrounding the house that was enclosed by a fence. We noted in Oliver, supra, that “for most homes, the boundaries of the curtilage will be clearly marked; and the conception defining the curtilage — as the area around the home to which the activity of home life extends —is a familiar one easily understood from our daily experience.” 466 U. S., at 182, n. 12. Viewing the physical layout of respondent’s ranch in its entirety, see 782 F. 2d, at 1228, it is plain that the fence surrounding the residence serves to demark a specific area of land immediately adjacent to the house that is readily identifiable as part and parcel of the house. Conversely, the barn — the front portion itself enclosed by a fence — and the area immediately surrounding it, stands out as a distinct portion of respondent’s ranch, quite separate from the residence.
Third. It is especially significant that the law enforcement officials possessed objective data indicating that the barn was not being used for intimate activities of the home. The aerial photographs showed that the truck Carpenter had been driving that contained the container of phenylacetic acid was backed up to the barn, “apparently,” in the words of the Court of Appeals, “for the unloading of its contents.” 674 F. 2d, at 1096. When on respondent’s property, the officers’ suspicion was further directed toward the barn because of “a very strong odor” of phenylacetic acid. App. 15. As the DEA agent approached the barn, he “could hear a motor running, like a pump motor of some sort . . . .” Id., at 17. Furthermore, the officers detected an “extremely strong” odor of phenylacetic acid coming from a small crack in the wall of the barn. Ibid. Finally, as the officers were standing in front of the barn, immediately prior to looking into its interior through the netting material, “the smell was very, very strong . . . [and the officers] could hear the motor running very loudly.” Id., at 18. When considered together, the above facts indicated to the officers that the use to which the barn was being put could not fairly be characterized as so associated with the activities and privacies of domestic life that the officers should have deemed the barn as part of respondent’s home.
Fourth. Respondent did little to protect the barn area from observation by those standing in the open fields. Nothing in the record suggests that the various interior fences on respondent’s property had any function other than that of the typical ranch fence; the fences were designed and constructed to corral livestock, not to prevent persons from observing what lay inside the enclosed areas.
l — l HH 1 — I
Respondent submits an alternative basis for affirming the judgment below, one that was presented to but ultimately not relied upon by the Court of Appeals. Respondent asserts that he possessed an expectation of privacy, independent from his home’s curtilage, in the barn and its contents, because the barn is an essential part of his business. Brief for Respondent 9. Respondent overlooks the significance of Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984).
We may accept, for the sake of argument, respondent’s submission that his barn enjoyed Fourth Amendment protection and could not be entered and its contents seized without a warrant. But it does not follow on the record before us that the officers’ conduct and the ensuing search and seizure violated the Constitution. Oliver reaffirmed the precept, established in Hester, that an open field is neither a “house” nor an “effect,” and, therefore, “the government’s intrusion upon the open fields is not one of those ‘unreasonable searches’ proscribed by the text of the Fourth Amendment.” 466 U. S., at 177. The Court expressly rejected the argument that the erection of fences on an open field — at least of the variety involved in those cases and in the present case — creates a constitutionally protected privacy interest. Id., at 182-183. “[T]he term ‘open fields’ may include any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage. An open field need be neither ‘open’ nor a ‘field’ as those terms are used in common speech.” Id., at 180, n. 11. It follows that no constitutional violation occurred here when the officers crossed over respondent’s ranch-style perimeter fence, and over several similarly constructed interior fences, prior to stopping at the locked front gate of the barn. As previously mentioned, the officers never entered the barn, nor did they enter any other structure on respondent’s premises. Once at their vantage point, they merely stood, outside the curti-lage of the house and in the open fields upon which the barn was constructed, and peered into the barn’s open front. And, standing as they were in the open fields, the Constitution did not forbid them to observe the phenylacetone laboratory located in respondent’s barn. This conclusion flows naturally from our previous decisions.
Under Oliver and Hester, there is no constitutional difference between police observations conducted while in a public place and while standing in the open fields. Similarly, the fact that the objects observed by the officers lay within an area that we have assumed, but not decided, was protected by the Fourth Amendment does not affect our conclusion. Last Term, in California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207 (1986), we held that warrantless naked-eye aerial observation of a home’s curtilage did not violate the Fourth Amendment. We based our holding on the premise that the Fourth Amendment “has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares.” Id., at 213. Importantly, we deemed it irrelevant that the police observation at issue was directed specifically at the identification of marijuana plants growing on an area protected by the Fourth Amendment. Ibid. Finally, the plurality opinion in Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 739-740 (1983), notes that it is “beyond dispute” that the action of a police officer in shining his flashlight to illuminate the interior of a car, without probable cause to search the car, “trenched upon no right secured . . . by the Fourth Amendment.” The holding in United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559, 563 (1927) is of similar import. Here, the officers’ use of the beam of a flashlight, directed through the essentially open front of respondent’s barn, did not transform their observations into an unreasonable search within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.
The officers lawfully viewed the interior of respondent’s barn, and their observations were properly considered by the Magistrate in issuing a search warrant for respondent’s premises. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
In denying respondent’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, the District Court Judge stated that the law enforcement officials, during their incursions onto respondent’s property, “did not invade the premises, that is, the houses or the barns . . . .” Tr. 216. The Court of Appeals did not disturb this finding. At the suppression hearing, the DEA agent described the officers’ approach to the large barn on November 5:
“A. We came back around, we crossed a small wooden type fence here, which put us right underneath a type of a tin overhang and in front of us was a wooden locked gate ....
“Q. How high was that gate?
“A. It probably came up to my waist, estimated.
“Q. Was that gate open or shut?
“A. It was shut and it was locked.
“Q. Was there anything above that gate?
“A. Yes, there was.
“Q. What was that?
“A. A fish netting, kind of a netting, that was hanging from the ceiling down to the gate.
“Q. Did you cross over that gate and go into the barn?
“A. No.
“Q. Did you stand outside the gate?
“A. We stood right at the gate.”
App. 17-18.
Prior to the actual search of the barn and ranch house, the agents entered the property for further observations.
In the section of Blaekstone’s Commentaries which the Court cited, Blackstone described the elements of common-law burglary, and elaborated on the element that a breaking occur in a mansion or dwelling house. In defining the terms “mansion or dwelling-house,” Blackstone wrote that “no distant barn, warehouse, or the like are under the same privileges, nor looked upon as a man’s castle of defence . . . .” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *225. Blackstone observed, however, that “if the barn, stable, or warehouse, be parcel of the mansion-house, and within the same common fence, though not under the same roof or contiguous, a burglary may be committed therein; for the capital house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenances, if within the curtilage or homestall.” Ibid.
We decline the Government’s invitation to adopt a “bright-line rule” that “the curtilage should extend no farther than the nearest fence surrounding a fenced house.” Brief for United States 14. Fencing configurations are important factors in defining the curtilage, see infra, at 302, but, as we emphasize above, the primary focus is whether the area in question harbors those intimate activities associated with domestic life and the privacies of the home. Application of the Government’s “first fence rule” might well lead to diminished Fourth Amendment protection in those cases where a structure lying outside a home’s enclosing fence was used for such domestic activities. And, in those cases where a house is situated on a large parcel of property and has no nearby enclosing fence, the Government’s rule would serve no utility; a court would still be required to assess the various factors outlined above to define the extent of the curtilage.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present consolidated appeals from a single decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit holding that 47 U. S. C. § 224 (the Pole Attachments Act) effects an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation.
I
The Pole Attachments Act, 92 Stat. 35, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §224, was enacted by Congress as a solution to a perceived danger of anticompetitive practices by utilities in connection with cable television service. Cable television operators, in order to deliver television signals to their subscribers, must have a physical carrier for the cable; in most instances underground installation of the necessary cables is impossible or impracticable. Utility company poles provide, under such circumstances, virtually the only practical physical medium for the installation of television cables. Over the past 30 years, utility companies throughout the country have entered into arrangements for the leasing of space on poles to operators of cable television systems. These contracts have generally provided for the payment by the cable companies of a yearly rent for space on each pole to which cables were attached, the fixed costs of making modifications to the poles and of physical installation of cables being borne by the cable operators. In many States the rates charged by the utility companies for these attachments have not been subject to regulation.
In response to arguments by cable operators that utility companies were exploiting their monopoly position by engaging in widespread overcharging, Congress in the Pole Attachments Act authorized the Federal Communications Commission to fill the gap left by state systems of public utilities regulation. See S. Rep. No. 95-580, pp. 12-14 (1977). The Act provides that any cable company operating in a State which does not regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments may seek relief from alleged overcharging before the Commission, which is empowered to “regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such rates, terms, and conditions are just and reasonable . . . .” 47 U. S. C. § 224(b)(1). The Act establishes a standard for the Commission’s determination of rates, providing that “a rate is just and reasonable if it assures a utility the recovery of not less than the additional costs of providing pole attachments, nor more than an amount determined by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space, or the percentage of the total duct or conduit capacity, which is occupied by the pole attachment by the sum of the operating expenses and actual capital costs of the utility attributable to the entire pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way.” § 224(d)(1).
In 1963, appellee Florida Power Corporation (Florida Power) entered into a pole attachment agreement with appellant Cox Cablevision Corporation (Cox). Florida Power subsequently, in 1977 and 1980, contracted for similar purposes with Teleprompter Corporation and Teleprompter Southeast, Inc. (Teleprompter), and Acton CATV, Inc. (Acton), respectively. In November 1980, Teleprompter filed a complaint with the FCC, alleging that its 1980 per pole rent of $6.24 was unreasonable under the Act. In February 1981, Acton filed a complaint concerning the rate under its agreement, which was $7.15 per pole. In July 1981, the Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau issued a memorandum opinion and order finding in favor of Teleprompter and Acton, reforming the agreements to provide in both cases for yearly rents of $1.79 per pole, and ordering refunds of excess rents paid after the filing of the complaints. Florida Power filed an application for review by the FCC; during the pendency of this application Cox filed a complaint seeking revision of the rent charge under its 1963 agreement, which was at that time set at $5.50 per pole. The Common Carrier Bureau ordered reformation of Cox’s agreement to provide for rent of $1.79 per pole. In September 1984 the FCC, in a single order, approved the orders of the Common Carrier Bureau in all three cases. The Commission rejected constitutional arguments raised by Florida Power under the Takings and Due Process Clauses, and upheld the rate calculations made by the Bureau.
Florida Power then sought review of the FCC’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Neither Florida Power nor any of the intervenors argued before the Eleventh Circuit that the Pole Attachments Act was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals nonetheless held in a per curiam opinion that the Pole Attachments Act violated the Fifth Amendment. 772 F. 2d 1537 (1985). The court first concluded that the Act effected a taking of property because it authorized a permanent physical occupation of property under our decision in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982). 772 F. 2d, at 1544. The court then struck down the Act under the Fifth Amendment because it authorizes the FCC to make the initial determination of the amount of compensation to be paid under legislatively prescribed standards. “By prescribing a ‘binding rule’ in regard to the ascertainment of just compensation,” the court stated, “Congress has usurped what has long been held an exclusive judicial function.” Id., at 1546.
The FCC and intervenor cable operators noticed separate appeals from this decision. We noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the cases for argument and decision, 476 U. S. 1156 (1986). We now reverse.
I — I HH
The Court of Appeals found at the outset that the Pole Attachments Act authorizes a permanent physical occupation of property, which, under the rule we adopted in Loretto, is per se a taking for which compensation must be paid. 772 F. 2d, at 1543-1544. We disagree with this premise, for we find that Loretto has no application to the facts of this litigation.
In Loretto we reviewed a New York statute which prohibited any owner of rental property from “interfer[ing] with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property or premises,” and provided that the landlord could charge cable operators for access to his property only the amount “which the [State Commission on Cable Television] shall, by regulation, determine to be reasonable.” 458 U. S., at 423, and n. 3. The appellant in Loretto had purchased an apartment building upon the roof of which appellee had mounted cables and switching boxes for the provision of cable television service to tenants. The State Commission on Cable Television had declared that a one-time charge of $1 might be levied by landlords in return for the statutory compulsory access to property. Id., at 424-425. We found that our prior decisions interpreting the Takings Clause, along with the purposes of the Clause itself, compelled the conclusion that “a permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard to the public interests that it may serve.” Id., at 426. We reversed the holding of the New York Court of Appeals that the challenged statute did not take property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and remanded for consideration of the issue whether just compensation had been paid.
We characterized our holding in Loretto as “very narrow.” Id., at 441. The Court of Appeals in its decision in these cases broadened that narrow holding beyond the scope to which it legitimately applies. For, while the statute we considered in Loretto specifically required landlords to permit permanent occupation of their property by cable companies, nothing in the Pole Attachments Act as interpreted by the FCC in these cases gives cable companies any right to occupy space on utility poles, or prohibits utility companies from refusing to enter into attachment agreements with cable operators. The Act authorizes the FCC, in the absence of parallel state regulation, to review the rents charged by public utility landlords who have voluntarily entered into leases with cable company tenants renting space on utility poles. As we observed in Loretto, statutes regulating the economic relations of landlords and tenants are not per se takings. Id., at 440; see Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 517-518 (1944); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 157 (1921); see also Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Inc. v. Callahan, 464 U. S. 875 (1983) (dismissing challenge to rent control ordinance under Loretto for want of substantial federal question). “So long as these regulations do not require the landlord to suffer the physical occupation of a portion of his building by a third party, they will be analyzed under the multifactor inquiry generally applicable to nonpossessory governmental activity.” Loretto, supra, at 440 (emphasis added).
This element of required acquiescence is at the heart of the concept of occupation. As we said in Loretto:
“[Property law has long protected an owner’s expectation that he will be relatively undisturbed at least in the possession of his property. To require, as well, that the owner permit another to exercise complete dominion literally adds insult to injury. Furthermore, such an occupation is qualitatively more severe than a regulation of the use of property, even a regulation that imposes affirmative duties on the owner, since the owner may have no control over the timing, extent, or nature of the invasion.” 458 U. S., at 436 (citation omitted).
Appellees contend, in essence, that it is a taking under Loretto for a tenant invited to lease at a rent of $7.15 to remain at the regulated rent of $1.79. But it is the invitation, not the rent, that makes the difference. The line which separates these cases from Loretto is the unambiguous distinction between a commercial lessee and an interloper with a government license. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the per se rule of Loretto to the Pole Attachments Act.
I — i I — I HH
The remaining question, whether under traditional Fifth Amendment standards the challenged FCC order effected a taking of property, is readily answered. It is of course settled beyond dispute that regulation of rates chargeable from the employment of private property devoted to public uses is constitutionally permissible. See Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 133-134 (1877); Permian Basin Area Bate Cases, 390 U. S. 747, 768-769 (1968). Such regulation of maximum rates or prices “may, consistently with the Constitution, limit stringently the return recovered on investment, for investors’ interests provide only one of the variables in the constitutional calculus of reasonableness.” Id., at 769. So long as the rates set are not confiscatory, the Fifth Amendment does not bar their imposition. St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 38, 53 (1936); see Permian Basin, supra, at 770.
The Pole Attachments Act, as previously noted, provides a range of reasonableness within which the FCC may undertake ratesetting. The Act provides that the minimum reasonable rate is equal to “the additional costs of providing pole attachments,” while the maximum reasonable rate is to be calculated “by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space, or the percentage of the total duct or conduit capacity, which is occupied by the pole attachment by the sum of the operating expenses and actual capital costs of the utility attributable to the entire pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way.” 47 U. S. C. § 224(d)(1). The minimum measure is thus equivalent to the marginal cost of attachments, while the statutory maximum measure is determined by the fully allocated cost of the construction and operation of the pole to which cable is attached.
The FCC has evidently interpreted the statute to provide that when it reduces the contract rate for pole attachments, it may only reduce to the maximum rate allowed under the statute. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. The rate imposed by the Commission in this case was calculated according to the statutory formula for the determination of fully allocated cost. App. to Juris. Statement of FCC 23a. Appellees have not contended, nor could it seriously be argued, that a rate providing for the recovery of fully allocated cost, including the actual cost of capital, is confiscatory. Accordingly, we hold that the the FCC regulatory order challenged below does not effect a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment.
IV
Because we hold that the Pole Attachments Act does not authorize a taking of property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, the holding of the Court of Appeals, that the Act is void because it unconstitutionally constrains the judicial determination of just compensation for takings, necessarily falls. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The Commission had previously investigated allegations of overcharging by utilities, but had concluded that it had no jurisdiction because pole attachments were not “communications by wire or radio” under the Communications Act, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151. See California Water & Telephone Co., 64 F. C. C. 2d 753, 758 (1977).
Florida Power’s agreements with Cox and Acton were for a minimum term of one year, thereafter terminable by either party on six months’ notice. The agreement with Teleprompter provided for a minimum term of 57s years, terminable thereafter on six months’ notice.
The rate ordered by the Commission was in both instances substantially lower than the rate which the cable operators had asked the Commission to adopt. The cable operators, after review of information provided by Florida Power, had requested the imposition of annual rents of approximately $2.20 per pole.
Appellants in No. 85-1660, Group W Cable, Inc., National Cable Television Association, Inc., and Cox Cablevision Corporation, intervened before the Court of Appeals supporting the FCC. Tampa Electric Company, Alabama Power Company, Arizona Public Service Company, and Mississippi Power and Light Company, appellees in both cases, intervened before the Court of Appeals in support of Florida Power.
Florida Power’s opening brief in the Court of Appeals stated that its petition for review of the Commission’s order did not “involve a facial attack on the constitutionality of a legislative act.” See Brief for Petitioner in No. 84-3683 (CA11), p. 35.
The Court of Appeals found, and appellees contend here, that “[t]he hard reality of the matter is that if Florida Power desires to exclude the cable companies, for whatever reason, they are powerless to do so . . . because in previous cases where utilities have ordered cable companies to disconnect, the FCC has routinely intervened by issuing temporary stays which prevent the exclusion of the cable companies.” 772 F. 2d 1537,1543 (1985). According to the Solicitor General, the FCC “has not yet taken a position” on whether utilities may terminate attachment contracts for non-retaliatory reasons. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. The language of the Act provides no explicit authority to the FCC to require pole access for cable operators, and the legislative history strongly suggests that Congress intended no such authorization. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 95-580, p. 16 (1977) (The Act “does not vest within a CATV system operator a right to access to a utility pole, nor does the bill, as reported, require a power company to dedicate a portion of its pole plant to communications use”). We do not decide today what the application of Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982), would be if the FCC in a future case required utilities, over objection, to enter into, renew, or refrain from terminating pole attachment agreements.
In view of the Commission’s interpretation of the statute, and use of the fully allocated cost measure in this case, we have no occasion to consider the constitutionality of the minimum rate allowable under the statute.
Our disposition of the takings question makes it unnecessary to review on the merits the Court of Appeals’ holding that Congress may not establish standards under which the initial determination of compensation will be made by an administrative authority subject to final judicial review.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, Gaines Ted Huson, suffered a back injury while working on an artificial island drilling rig owned and operated by the petitioner, Chevron Oil Co., and located on the Outer Continental Shelf off the Gulf Coast of Louisiana. The injury occurred in December 1965. Allegedly, it was not until many months later that the injury was discovered to be a serious one. In January 1968 the respondent brought suit for damages against the petitioner in federal district court. The respondent’s delay in suing the petitioner ultimately brought his case to this Court.
The issue presented is whether the respondent’s action is time barred and, more particularly, whether state or federal law determines the timeliness of the action. That issue must be resolved under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq. (hereinafter “Lands Act”), which governs injuries occurring on fixed structures on the Outer Continental Shelf. When this lawsuit was initiated, there was a line of federal court decisions interpreting the Lands Act to make general admiralty law, including the equitable doctrine of laches, applicable to personal injury suits such as the respondent’s. The petitioner did not question the timeliness of the action as a matter of laches. While pretrial discovery proceedings were still under way, however, this Court announced its decision in Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U. S. 352. That decision entirely changed the complexion of this case. For it established that the Lands Act does not make admiralty law applicable to actions such as this one. Relying on Rodrigue, the District Court held that Louisiana’s one-year limitation on personal injury actions, rather than the admiralty doctrine of laches, must govern this case. It concluded, therefore, that the respondent's action was time barred and granted summary judgment for the petitioner.
On appeal, the respondent argued that Rodrigue should not be applied retroactively to bar actions filed before the date of its announcement. But the Court of Appeals declined to reach that question. Instead, it held that the interpretation of the Lands Act in Rodrigue does not compel application of the state statute of limitations or prevent application of the admiralty doctrine of laches. It concluded that the doctrine of laches should have been applied by the District Court and, therefore, reversed that court’s judgment and remanded the case for trial. 430 F. 2d 27. We granted certiorari to consider the Court of Appeals’ construction of the Lands Act and of Rodrigue. 402 U. S. 942. We hold that the Lands Act, as interpreted in Rodrigue, requires that the state statute of limitations be applied to personal injury actions. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, however, on the ground that Rodrigue should not be invoked to require application of the Louisiana time limitation retroactively to this case.
I
The Lands Act makes the Outer Continental Shelf, including fixed structures thereon, an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(1). The Act extends the laws of the United States to this area, 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(1), and provides that the laws of the adjacent State shall also apply “[t]o the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent” with applicable federal laws, 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(2). To the extent that a comprehensive body of federal law is applicable under § 1333 (a)(1), state law “inconsistent” with that law would be inapplicable under § 1333 (a)(2).
In Rodrigue, we clarified the scope of application of federal law and state law under § 1333 (a) (1) and § 1333 (a)(2). By rejecting the view that comprehensive admiralty law remedies apply under § 1333 (a)(1), we ^recognized that there exists a substantial “gap” in federal law. Thus, state law remedies are not “inconsistent” with applicable federal law. Accordingly, we held that, in order to provide a remedy for wrongful death, the “gap” must be filled with the applicable body of state law under § 1333 (a)(2).
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Rodrigue clearly establishes that the remedy for personal injury, as for wrongful death, cannot be derived from admiralty law but must be governed by the law of the adjacent State, Louisiana. But the court held that Louisiana’s time limitation on personal injury actions need not be applied with the substantive remedy. It supported this holding by reference to the terms of § 1333 (a) (2) that limit the application of state law under the Lands Act. The Louisiana time limitation, the Court of Appeals reasoned, is not “applicable” of its own force and is “inconsistent” with the admiralty doctrine of laches. The court held that, despite the holding in Rodrigue, the laches doctrine is applicable as a matter of federal common law. We must disagree.
The Court of Appeals did not suggest that state statutes of limitations are per se inapplicable under § 1333 (a)(2). Rather, it focused on the peculiar nature of the Louisiana time limitation on personal injury actions found in Art. 3536, La. Civ. Code Ann. Article 3536 provides that personal injury actions shall be “prescribed” by one year. The Court of Appeals attached much significance to the fact that Art. 3536 “prescribes,” rather than “perempts,” such actions. Under Louisiana law, “prescription,” unlike “peremption,” bars the remedy but does not formally extinguish the right to recovery. See Page v. Cameron Iron Works, 259 F. 2d 420, 422-424; Istre v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 226 So. 2d 779, 794-795 (La. App.); Succession of Pizzillo, 223 La. 328, 335, 65 So. 2d 783, 786. This characterization has importance under principles of the conflict of laws. It has been held, as a matter of Louisiana conflicts law, that mere “prescriptive” time limitations are not binding outside their own forum. See Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. C/B Mr. Kim, 345 F. 2d 45, 50; Kozan v. Comstock, 270 F. 2d 839, 841; Istre v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., supra, at 795. Reasoning from this principle of conflicts law, the Court of Appeals concluded that the “prescriptive” limitation is not “applicable” in a federal court adjudicating a claim under the Lands Act.
We hold, however, that the “prescriptive” nature of Art. 3536 does not undercut its applicability under the Lands Act. Under § 1333 (a) (2) of the Act, “[s]tate law bec[omes] federal law federally enforced.” Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, at 365. It was the intent of Congress, expressed in the Senate Committee Report, in the Conference Report, and on the floor of the Senate, that state laws be “adopted” or “enacted” as federal law. See id., at 357-358. Thus a federal court applying Louisiana law under § 1333 (a) (2) of the Lands Act is applying it as federal law — as the law of the federal forum. Since the federal court is not, then, applying the law of another forum in the usual sense, ordinary conflict of laws principles have no relevance. Article 3536 is “applicable” in federal court under the Lands Act just as it would be applicable in a Louisiana court.
The policies underlying the federal absorption of state law in the Lands Act make this result particularly obvious. As we pointed out in Rodrigue, Congress recognized that “ 'the Federal Code was never designed to be a complete body of law in and of itself’ ” and thus that a comprehensive body of state law was needed. Id., at 358, 361. Congress also recognized that the “special relationship between the men working on these artificial islands and the adjacent shore to which they commute” favored application of state law with which these men and their attorneys would be familiar. Id., at 365; see id., at 363. If Congress’ goal was to provide a comprehensive and familiar body of law, it would defeat that goal to apply only certain aspects of a state personal injury remedy in federal court. A state time limitation upon a remedy is coordinated with the substance of the remedy and is no less applicable under the Lands Act.
The application of Louisiana’s Art. 3536 is, of course, subject to the absence of “inconsistent” and applicable federal law. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Rodrigue forecloses direct applicability of the “inconsistent” laches doctrine through admiralty law. But, by applying laches as a matter of federal common law, it sought to reintroduce the doctrine through a back door. This approach subverts the congressional intent documented in Rodrigue, id., at 359-366, that admiralty doctrines should not apply under the Lands Act.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals’ approach amounts to an inappropriate creation of federal common law. Even when a federal statute creates a wholly federal right but specifies no particular statute of limitations to govern actions under the right, the general rule is to apply the state statute of limitations for analogous types of actions. See Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp., 383 U. S. 696; Cope v. Anderson, 331 U. S. 461; Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610; Note, Federal Statutes Without Limitations Provisions, 53 Col. L. Rev. 68 (1953). A special federal statute of limitations is created, as a matter of federal common law, only when the need for uniformity is particularly great or when the nature of the federal right demands a particular sort of statute of limitations. See Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392; McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 357 U. S. 221. But, under the Lands Act, there is not even such limited freedom to create a federal statute of limitations, for Congress specified that a comprehensive body of state law should be adopted by the federal courts in the absence of existing federal law. Congress specifically rejected national uniformity and specifically provided for the application of state remedies which demand state, not federal, statutes of limitation. Thus, Congress made clear provision for filling in the “gaps” in federal law; it did not intend that federal courts fill in those “gaps” themselves by creating new federal common law.
II
Although we hold that Louisiana’s one-year statute of limitations must be applied under the Lands Act as interpreted in Rodrigue, we do not blind ourselves to the fact that this is, in relevant respect, a pre-Rodrigue case. The respondent’s injury occurred more than three years before the announcement of our decision in Rodrigue. He instituted the present lawsuit more than one year before Rodrigue. Yet, if the Louisiana statute of limitations controls in this case, his action was time barred more than two years before Rodrigue. In these circumstances, we must consider the respondent’s argument that the state statute of limitations should be given nonretro-active application under Rodrigue.
In recent years, the nonretroactive application of judicial decisions has been most conspicuously considered in the area of the criminal process. E. g., Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667; Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797; Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618. But the problem is by no means limited to that area. The earliest instances of nonretro-activity in the decisions of this Court — more than a century ago — came in cases of nonconstitutional, noncriminal state law. E. g., Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294; Railroad Co. v. McClure, 10 Wall. 511. It was in a noncriminal case that we first held that a state court may apply its decisions prospectively. Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358. And, in the last few decades, we have recognized the doctrine of nonretroactivity outside the criminal area many times, in both constitutional and nonconstitutional cases. Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701; Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544; Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U. S. 481; Simpson v. Union Oil Co., 377 U. S. 13; England v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411; Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371.
In our cases dealing with the nonretroactivity question, we have generally considered three separate factors. First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, see, e. g., Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., supra, at 496, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, see, e. g., Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 572. Second, it has been stressed that "we must... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” Linkletter v. Walker, supra, at 629. Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the 'injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.” Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, at 706.
Upon consideration of each of these factors, we conclude that the Louisiana one-year statute of limitations should not be applied retroactively in the present case. Rodrigue was not only a case of first impression in this Court under the Lands Act, but it also effectively overruled a long line of decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that admiralty law, including the doctrine of laches, applies through the Lands Act. See, e. g., Pure Oil Co. v. Snipes, 293 F. 2d 60; Movible Offshore Co. v. Ousley, 346 F. 2d 870; Loffland Bros. Co. v. Roberts, 386 F. 2d 540. When the respondent was injured, for the next two years until he instituted his lawsuit, and for the ensuing year of pretrial proceedings, these Court of Appeals decisions represented the law governing his case. It cannot be assumed that he did or could foresee that this consistent interpretation of the Lands Act would be overturned. The most he could do was to rely on the law as it then was. “We should not indulge in the fiction that the law now announced has always been the law and, therefore, that those who did not avail themselves of it waived their rights.” Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, 26 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment).
To hold that the respondent’s lawsuit is retroactively time barred would be anomalous indeed. A primary purpose underlying the absorption of state law as federal law in the Lands Act was to aid injured employees by affording them comprehensive and familiar remedies. Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, at 361, 365. Yet retroactive application of the Louisiana statute of limitations to this case would deprive the respondent of any remedy whatsoever on the basis of superseding legal doctrine that was quite unforeseeable. To abruptly terminate this lawsuit that has proceeded through lengthy and, no doubt, costly discovery stages for a year would surely be inimical to the beneficent purpose of the Congress.
It would also produce the most “substantial inequitable results,” Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, at 706, to hold that the respondent “slept on his rights” at a time when he could not have known the time limitation that the law imposed upon him. In Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, we invoked the doctrine of nonretroactive application to protect property interests of “cities, bondholders, and others connected with municipal utilities”; and, in Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, we invoked the doctrine to protect elections held under possibly discriminatory voting laws. Certainly, the respondent’s potential redress for his allegedly serious injury— an injury that may significantly undercut his future earning power — is entitled to similar protection. As in England v. State Board of Medical Examiners, supra, nonretroactive application here simply preserves his right to a day in court.
Both a devotion to the underlying purpose of the Lands Act’s absorption of state law and a weighing of the equities requires nonretroactive application of the state statute of limitations here. Accordingly, although holding that the opinion of the Court of Appeals reflects a misapprehension of Rodrigue, we affirm its judgment remanding this case to the trial court.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U. S. 352, does not, with all respect, require reversal in this case. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals without reaching the question of the retroactivity of Rodrigue.
Rodrigue, like the present case, arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq. That Act created a federal cause of action for offshore injuries enforceable in the federal courts, but made state laws applicable. 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(2).
In Rodrigue, La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2315 (1970) was relevant, which provides in part: “The right to recover all other damages caused by an offense or quasi offense, if the injured person dies, shall survive for a period of one year from the death of the deceased....”
In the present case Art. 3536 of the Code is applicable and it reads: “The following actions are also prescribed by one year:
“That for injurious words, whether verbal or written, and that for damages caused by animals, or resulting from offenses or quasi offenses.”
The latter limitation is “prescriptive” only, i. e., that while the Louisiana remedy is barred, the right is not. Under Art. 3536, the limitation runs only to the remedy and would not be applicable in another forum applying the substantive right. Istre v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 226 So. 2d 779, 794-799 (La. App. 1969). Respondent, therefore, argues that the federal doctrine of laches is the only limitation upon his right of recovery and that it is inapplicable where, as here, there is no prejudice to the defendant and any delay in filing the lawsuit was reasonably excusable. See, e. g., Akers v. State Marine Lines, 344 F. 2d 217.
The Louisiana courts consider the distinction between peremptive and prescriptive limitations important; and by reason of the federal statute, making Louisiana law applicable, federal courts are bound by the distinction. Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1. As stated in Rodrigue the federal Act “supplemented gaps in the federal law with state law through the 'adoption of State law as the law of the United States.’ ” 396 U. S., at 357.
In Rodrigue — an action for wrongful death — the right is extinguished, if the action for recovery is not brought within a year of the death. Kenney v. Trinidad Corp., 349 F. 2d 832; Mejia v. United States, 152 F. 2d 686. Under Art. 3536 — which governs here — Louisiana law holds that it i's merely a “procedural restraint which bars the remedy, but does not extinguish the right.” Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. C/B Mr. Kim, 345 F. 2d 45, 50 (CA5 1965). See also Page v. Cameron Iron Works, 259 F. 2d 420, 422 (CA5 1958); Jackson v. Continental Southern Lines, 172 F. Supp. 809 (WD Ark. 1959); Succession of Pizzillo, 223 La. 328, 65 So. 2d 783 (1953); Devoe & Raynolds Co. v. Robinson, 109 So. 2d 226 (La. App. 1959).
A district court, sitting in diversity jurisdiction in Arkansas, applied these principles of Louisiana law and held — properly in my mind — that Art. 3536 did not bar an action filed more than one year after the injury complained of. Jackson v. Continental Southern Lines, supra. See also Page v. Cameron Iron Works, supra. That decision is in perfect harmony with long-established rules of conflict of laws. A different result should not obtain here where federal jurisdiction, 43 U. S. C. § 1333, flows from a head other than diversity.
Apart from traditional conflict of laws is the congressional mandate to apply state laws to these federal causes of action. If we are faithfully to apply the state law of Louisiana we would apply here not the Louisiana per-emption rule applied in Rodrigue but the Louisiana prescriptive rule applicable to the instant personal injury case.
Today’s decision conflicts with Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U. S. 648, where the District Court was enforcing in admiralty a state cause of action for wrongful death. Although procedural irregularities in the appointment of the administrator would have barred — under the state statute of limitations — an action in state court, we held that federal courts were free to formulate their own procedural rules. If we were to follow Levinson, we would not bind federal courts to state rules of procedure designed to have no application beyond the state forum for which they were created. Cf. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, 356 U. S. 525, 533-539; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183, 192; Atkins v. Schmutz Manufacturing Co., 435 F. 2d 527 (CA4 1970); Note, 71 Col. L. Rev. 865 (1971).
Today’s decision also conflicts with our decision in Richards v. United States, supra. There, the Federal Tort Claims Act referred us to the local law for a rule of decision, just as Rodrigue and the Lands Act do in the present case. We concluded that the Act “require[d] application of the whole law of the State where the act or omission occurred,” 369 U. S., at 11, including its conflict of laws decision. If we were to follow Richards and Rodrigue in the present case, we would apply Louisiana’s prescriptive rule as it has been construed by Louisiana courts and not use it to bar an action in a different forum.
For in that other forum — here the federal district court — Louisiana law allows the federal court, consistently with conflict of laws, to apply a different limitation than Louisiana would apply in her own courts.
In Rodrigue, we said:
“The purpose of the Lands Act was to define a body of law applicable to the seabed, the subsoil, and the fixed structures such as those in question here on the outer Continental Shelf. That this law was to be federal law of the United States, applying state law only as federal law and then only when not inconsistent with applicable federal law, is made clear by the language of the Act.” 395 U. S., at 355-356.
We then concluded: “It is evident from this that federal law is ‘exclusive’ in its regulation of this area, and that state law is adopted only as surrogate federal law.” Id., at 357.
Since the federal court is not a Louisiana forum, the Louisiana law of prescription permits enforcement of this claim after Louisiana’s one-year statute has run. Therefore, if we are to be faithful to the federal scheme we must apply Louisiana law; and Louisiana law would not apply Rodrigue in a personal injury case where the suit is not brought in a Louisiana forum.
The Court of Appeals, speaking through our leading admiralty authority, Judge Brown, so held and went on to rule that in harmony with Louisiana’s prescriptive rule this personal injury suit was not barred under the laches doctrine familiar to maritime law.
This is not a stale claim and its assertion after the one-year period ran was not prejudicial; no prejudice was indeed pleaded. Cf. Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392.
One who reads this record will be impressed with the grave injustice of applying the Louisiana one-year statute as if it were peremptive, rather than prescriptive. Death comes with a finality lacking in some personal injury cases; and the rigid rule applied in Rodrigue can do no injustice. But personal injuries are often lingering and one may not know for months whether he is partially or permanently crippled, whether he must be retrained for wholly different work, and so on. In this case it took some months after the injury for respondent (1) to realize that he could not return to his old work, and (2) to discover the kind of work he could do.
If we followed Louisiana law, as Congress directed, we would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reflecting as it does good law and a measure of justice not always allowable when the rigidity of Rodrigue governs a case.
See infra, at 107.
The decision of the District Court is unreported (ED La., Civil Action No. 68-19D).
The respondent has made the same argument to this Court.
The full text of § 1333 (a) (1) and § 1333 (a) (2) reads:
“(a) (1) The Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States are extended to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands and fixed structures which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing, and transporting resources therefrom, to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State: Provided, however, That mineral leases on the outer Continental Shelf shall be maintained or issued only under the provisions of this subchapter.
“(2) To the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with this subchapter or with other Federal laws and regulations of the Secretary now in effect or hereafter adopted, the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State as of August 7, 1953 are declared to be the law of the United States for that portion of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be within the area of the State if its boundaries were extended seaward to the outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf, and the President shall determine and publish in the Federal Register such projected lines extending seaward and defining each such area. All of such applicable laws shall be administered and enforced by the appropriate officers and courts of the United States. State taxation laws shall not apply to the outer Continental Shelf.”
This is not to imply that a federal court adjudicating a claim under state law as absorbed in the Lands Act must function as it would in a diversity case. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64; Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99; Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U. S. 648, 651. We hold only that the state statute of limitations is part of the law to be applied in federal court as it would be part of the law to be applied in a state court.
Here we are not dealing with mere “housekeeping rules” embodied in state law. Cf. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 473.
The Court of Appeals justified its creation of federal common law in this instance by suggesting that personal injury actions under the Lands Act are in a “quasi maritime area which is traditionally imbued with the laches doctrine and which presents a strong federal urge toward uniformity.” 430 F. 2d, at 32.
Contrary to the suggestion by Mr. Justice Douglas, our holding today is consonant with Levinson v. Deupree, supra, n. 5. Since Levinson involved a federal court’s obligation to adopt state procedural rules in an admiralty action, it has very limited relevance to the instant case, which involves an action under a statute which ousts admiralty law and specifically directs that state law shall be adopted as federal law. Moreover, Levinson held only that state “procedural niceties relating to amendments of pleadings” need not be applied by federal admiralty courts, and the opinion emphasized that it was not dealing with an important part of the state action, such as a statute of limitations. 345 U. S., at 651-652. As pointed out above, our holding today does not extend to such state “housekeeping rules.” See n. 6, supra.
Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, also referred to by Mr. Justice Douglas, held that, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal court must apply “the whole law of the State where the act or omission occurred.” Id., at 11. Insofar as Richards bears on the present case, it supports our holding that federal courts should not create interstitial federal common law when the Congress has directed that a whole body of state law shall apply.
These cases were decided in the era before Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, n. 5. The first case involving nonretroactive application of state law concerned interpretation of the Mississippi Constitution. Rowan v. Runnels, 5 How. 134.
We do not hold here that Rodrigue, in its entirety, must be applied nonretroactively. Rather, we hold.only that state statutes of limitations, applicable under Rodrigue’s interpretation of the Lands Act, should not be applied retroactively. Retroactive application of all state substantive remedies under Rodrigue would not work a comparable hardship or be so inconsistent with the purpose of the Lands Act.
Guillory v. Avoyelles R. Co., 104 La. 11, 15, 28 So. 899, 901 (1900):
“When a statute creates a right of action and stipulates the delay within which that right is to be executed, the delay thus fixed is not properly speaking one of prescription, but is one of peremption.
“Statutes of prescription simply bar the remedy. Statutes of per-emption destroy the cause of action itself. That is to say, after the limit of time expires the cause of action no longer exists; it is lost.”
G. Stumberg, Principles of Conflict of Laws 146-147 (3d ed. 1963):
“The traditional reaction in Conflict of Laws... has been that ordinarily limitation is procedural. This view was taken by the Dutch jurists, and where the question arises out of a general statute, it is the view generally accepted by Anglo-American courts. The result is that in the absence of a statute to the contrary in most jurisdictions, when the claim is based upon foreign facts, even though the foreign period of limitation has not run, the plaintiff may not recover if the time allowed for suit at the forum has expired. Conversely, if the foreign period has expired, suit may nevertheless be brought at the forum if the time specified there has not run.’’ (Footnotes omitted.)
Accord, Restatement of Conflict of Laws §§ 603-604 (1934); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 142, 143 (1971); 3 J. Beale, Conflict of Laws § 584.1 (1935); B. Currie, Conflict of Laws 232-234, 255 (1963); A. Ehrenzweig, Conflict of Laws 428-436 (1962); H. Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 267 (4th ed. 1964); Ailes, Limitation of Actions and the Conflict of Laws, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 474 (1933); Comment, The Statute of Limitations and the Conflict of Laws, 28 Yale L. J. 492 (1919).
While still sitting on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Mr. Justice Harlan said:
“In actions where the rights of the parties are grounded upon the law of jurisdictions other than the forum, it is a well-settled conflict-of-laws rule that the forum will apply the foreign substantive law, but will follow its own rules of procedure.” Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co., 220 F. 2d 152, 154 (CA2 1955).
Mr. Justice Harlan went on to hold that a Panamanian statute of limitations was not applicable where a Panamanian statutory right was being enforced under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal District Court.
The majority supports its limitation on actions by saying that “we are not dealing with mere ‘housekeeping rules’ embodied in state law. Cf. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 473.” Ante, at 103 n. 6. This conclusion, however, is directly contrary to the characterization given the prescriptive limitation by Louisiana courts:
“... It is conceded by the five defendants-appellees that had plaintiff filed this suit in the federal court, the doctrine of laches would apply. The cases cited by plaintiff... were filed in the federal forum and are distinguished on this basis.
“But plaintiff chose the State forum. Plaintiff may have preferred some procedural advantages afforded in the State court, such as: agreement of only nine of twelve jurors needed; ability to call under cross-examination any employee of a party as opposed to the federal rule wherein the right to call witnesses under cross-examination is limited to executive or top supervisory personnel; no procedural vehicle provided for directed verdict or judgment n. o. v. in State court; or shorter delay in State court between filing petition and trial. Having chosen the State forum, he is bound by State procedural rules. The argument that uniformity requires us to import the Federal procedural law of laches rather than use the Louisiana procedural law of prescription, is unacceptable. If we adopt the federal procedural rule in this instance, it would logically follow that more Louisiana procedural rules will, for the same reason, be abandoned in the
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Me. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion the Court.
This is a controversy between the Mountain-Pacific railroads and certain Midwestern railroads, involving the proper division between them of joint rates from through freight service in which they both participate. Dissatisfied with their share of existing divisions, the Midwestern carriers called upon the Interstate Commerce Commission’s statutory authority to determine that joint rate divisions “are or will be unjust, unreasonable, inequitable, or unduly preferential,” and to prescribe “just, reasonable, and equitable divisions” in their place. The Commission found that the existing divisions were unlawful, and established new divisions which, on the average, gave the Midwestern carriers a greater share of the joint rates. The District Court set aside the Commission’s order on the ground that certain of its findings were deficient. We noted probable jurisdiction, 383 U. S. 964, to consider important questions regarding the Commission’s powers and procedures raised by the District Court’s decision.
I.
There were originally three groups of railroads involved in the proceedings before the Commission: the Eastern, Midwestern, and Mountain-Pacific carriers. The Eastern railroads operate in the northeastern area of the United States extending south to the Ohio River and parts of Virginia and west to central Illinois. Midwestern Territory lies between Eastern Territory and the Rocky Mountains, and the rest of the United States to the west constitutes Mountain-Pacific Territory. The latter is subdivided into Transcontinental Territory — comprising the States bordering the Pacific, Nevada, Arizona, and parts of Idaho, Utah, and New Mexico — and Inter-mountain Territory. The railroads operating in Southern Territory, which includes the southeastern United. States, were not involved in the proceedings before the Commission.
Railroads customarily establish joint through rates for interterritorial freight service, and the divisions of these rates, fixed by the Commission or by agreement, determine what share of the joint tariffs each of the several participating carriers receives. See St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 136, 139-140, n. 2. In 1954 the Eastern carriers filed a complaint with the Commission seeking a greater share of the joint tariff on freight traffic east and west between Eastern Territory and Transcontinental Territory. Shortly thereafter, the Midwestern carriers also filed a complaint, requesting higher divisions on (1) their intermediate service on Eastern-Transcontinental traffic, (2) their service on freight traffic east and west between Midwestern Territory and Transcontinental Territory. Some of the Midwestern lines had long believed that the Mountain-Pacific carriers enjoyed an unduly high share of the joint tariffs for these categories of traffic. When joint rates for traffic to the western United States were first established in the 1870’s, rates were divided on the basis of the miles of carriage rendered by the participating railroads, but the Mountain-Pacific carriers enjoyed a 50% inflation in their mileage factor. In 1925, after the Commission had begun, but not yet completed, an investigation of the existing divisions, the Mountain-Pacific carriers agreed to modest increases in the Midwestern railroads' share of joint rates. The divisions between Mountain-Pacific and Midwestern carriers have remained unchanged since that time.
In the proceedings before the Commission, which consolidated the Eastern and the Midwestern complaints, the Mountain-Pacific railroads not only defended the existing divisions, but sought a 10% increase in their share. Regulatory commissions of States in Mountain-Pacific Territory also intervened. The consolidated proceedings involved rate divisions affecting about 300 railroads, which voluntarily aligned themselves into three groups— Eastern, Midwestern, and Mountain-Pacific — and submitted evidence and tried the case on this group basis. A great deal of time was consumed in compiling and introducing massive amounts of evidence — more than 800 exhibits and over 11,200 pages of testimony. The Hearing Examiners made a recommended report in 1960. After considering written briefs and oral arguments from the various groups of parties, the Commission issued its original report in March of 1963. The Commission found the existing divisions to be unlawful, and prescribed increased divisions for the Midwestern and Eastern carriers, effective July 1, 1963.
When exercising its statutory authority to establish “just and reasonable” divisions under § 15 (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act, the Commission is required to:
“[G]ive due consideration, among other things, to the efficiency with which the carriers concerned are operated, the amount of revenue required to pay their respective operating expenses, taxes, and a fair return on their railway property held for and used in the service of transportation, and the importance to the public of the transportation services of such carriers; and also whether any particular participating carrier is an originating, intermediate, or delivering line, and any other fact or circumstance which would ordinarily, without regard to the mileage haul, entitle one carrier to a greater or less proportion than another carrier of the joint rate, fare or charge.”
After reviewing the nature of the traffic involved and considering the special claims of the various groups, the Commission found that “none of the contending groups is more or less efficiently operated than another,” and that “there are no differences in the importance to the public attributable to the three contending groups of carriers.” Its decision thus turned on more direct financial considerations, to which the Commission devoted a substantial part of its lengthy report. Under Commission practice, these financial considerations are divided into “cost of service” and “revenue needs.” The former consists of the out-of-pocket expenses directly associated with a particular service, including operating costs, taxes, and a four percent return on the property involved. “Revenue needs” refers to broader requirements for funds in excess of out-of-pocket expenses, including funds for new investment.
In determining cost of service, the Commission relied upon a cost study prepared by the Mountain-Pacific railroads, but introduced certain modifications that produced different results. The Commission found that existing divisions on Eastern-Transcontinental traffic gave the Mountain-Pacific carriers revenues that exceeded their costs by 57%, while the Midwestern and Eastern railroads received only 43% and 22% more, respectively, than their costs for the service they contributed. On Midwestern-Transcontinental traffic, the Commission found that the divisions gave the Mountain-Pacific carriers revenues 71% above cost, while the Midwestern lines received only 39% above cost; on this traffic the Midwestern railroads bore 31.5% of the total cost but received only 27.1% of the total revenue.
In assessing comparative revenue needs, the Commission found, that the average rate of return for 1946-1958, based on net railway operating income from all services as a percentage of the value of invested property, was 3.40% for the Eastern roads, 3.49% for the Midwestern group, and 4.64% for the Mountain-Pacific carriers. The Commission also found that the Mountain-Pacific railroads had the most favorable record and trend in both freight volume and freight revenues, and the Eastern railroads the least favorable, with the Midwestern roads occupying an intermediate position. In response to the Mountain-Pacific carriers’ complaint that their net operating income from all services had not increased as fast as net investment in recent years, the Commission noted that this was primarily due to disproportionate passenger deficits that offset favorable income from freight services. The Commission also discounted the contention that the Mountain-Pacific carriers were entitled to greater revenues to provide funds for new investment, finding that the needs of the various carrier groups for such funds were not appreciably different. The claim of the Midwestern carriers that they had the most pressing need for revenues was also rejected by the Commission.
From all this evidence, the Commission concluded “that there should be increases in [the Eastern carriers’] divisions reflecting revenue need as well as cost.” While the very poor financial position and high revenue needs of the Eastern carriers were thus important elements in prescribing increases in their divisions, the Commission went on to find cost considerations the controlling factor with regard to the Midwestern divisions: “As between the [Mountain-Pacific railroads] and the [Midwestern] railroads the differences in earning power are less marked, but our consideration of the evidence bearing on cost of service previously discussed convinces us that the primary midwestern divisions as a whole are too low.”
In establishing higher divisions for the Eastern carriers, the Commission relied upon the existing percentages governing divisions of the various rates between well-defined subareas in Eastern Territory and points in Transcontinental Territory. The Commission simply increased the percentages that the Eastern carriers formerly received on this traffic. However, the Commission concluded that it could not follow this procedure with respect to Midwestern divisions on Eastern-Transcontinental and Midwestern-Transcontinental traffic. It found that Midwestern-Transcontinental subgroupings were not well-defined and were in some cases not properly related to distance. Thus it was not feasible to assemble rates from various Midwestern points to Transcontinental points into common groups and apply fixed percentage divisions to each group in order to determine the respective shares of the Midwestern and Mountain-Pacific carriers. Instead, the Commission resorted to a weighted mileage basis of apportionment, determined through the use of divisional scales. The Commission has frequently used such scales in the past, and their use in this case was suggested by both the Midwestern and Mountain-Pacific carriers. Under the system adopted, the mileage contributed by each carrier to the joint service is broken down into 50-mile blocks. The scale chosen assigns each block a number. A large number is assigned the first block, and a smaller number to successive 50-mile increments; this is designed to reflect terminal and standby costs incurred regardless of the length of carriage contributed. Each carrier then receives a share of the joint revenue in proportion to the sum of scale numbers corresponding to its mileage contribution. To determine the divisions between the Midwest-ern and Mountain-Pacific carriers, the Commission used a 29886 scale — so named because it was developed in another interterritorial divisions case bearing that docket number. This scale assigns a factor of 65 to the first 50-mile block of carriage and a factor of 12 to each successive 50-mile increment. The Commission decided that the Midwestern carriers’ shares would be determined by an unadjusted 29886 scale, but that the Mountain-Pacific carriers’ shares should be based on the same scale with the mileage factors inflated by 10% to reflect certain greater costs of carriage in the mountainous West. Thus, for their carriage, the Mountain-Pacific carriers would enjoy a factor of 72 for the first 50-mile block, and a factor of 13 for successive 50-mile increments. For any joint carriage, the Midwestern and Mountain-Pacific carriers would translate their mileage contributions into scale numbers, and divide the proceeds in proportion to the numbers so obtained. The divisions thus essentially reflect a mileage basis, with disproportionate weight assigned the first 50 miles of carriage and an overall inflation factor favoring the Mountain-Pacific carriers. The Commission found that the net effect of its revised scale would be to “produce moderate increases in some of the most important midwestern divisions.”
After entertaining petitions for reconsideration, the Commission adopted a supplemental report in late 1963. For the first time, a few carriers abandoned the three-group basis on which all the prior proceedings had been conducted. Requests for special treatment were made on behalf of one Mountain-Pacific road, the Denver & Rio Grande, and two Midwestern carriers, the Missouri-Kansas-Texas (Katy) and the St. Louis-San Francisco (Frisco), on the ground that the divisions prescribed by the Commission had an unduly harsh effect on them. The Commission considered and largely rejected these and other criticisms of its original decision, and issued a supplemental order substantially reaffirming its original order after making minor technical modifications.
Eleven of the Mountain-Pacific carriers brought an action in the District Court to enjoin and set aside the Commission’s orders and succeeded in obtaining preliminary injunctions. Other Mountain-Pacific carriers, the western state regulatory commissions, and the Katy and the Frisco intervened as plaintiffs, while the Eastern carriers and a group of Midwestern railroads intervened on the side of the Government and the Commission as defendants. In January 1965 the District Court handed down the decision setting aside the Commission’s orders. The court held that the findings made by the Commission with regard to the revenue need, cost of service, public importance, etc., of the Eastern, Midwestern, and Mountain-Pacific carriers were insufficient because they were made on a group basis. In the view of the District Court, the Interstate Commerce Act required the Commission to make such findings with respect to each of the 300 railroads involved, on an individual basis. The District Court further held that in a divisions case the Commission is obliged to determine, in precise dollar amount, the revenue needs of each individual railroad, and also the revenue effect on each individual railroad, again in precise dollar amount, of the new divisions that the Commission establishes. The District Court in conclusion stated:
"[T]hat to comply with... the Interstate Commerce and the Administrative Procedure Acts... the Commission is required to make affirmative findings which disclose that the requirements of Section 15 (6) have been met and the factors therein required have been determined and considered, not only as to the groups of roads involved but with respect to each carrier affected in said groups; that findings must be made as to the amount of revenue, in terms of dollars, required by the respective carriers affected in any new divisions prescribed, the financial effect of the Commission’s orders in terms of dollars as to the carriers and the extent to which the new divisions prescribed will produce the revenue found to be required...."
The Eastern carriers, the Midwestern defendants, and the Government and the Commission all appealed the decision of the District Court. Thereafter, all of the Eastern and some of the Midwestern carriers reached settlement agreements with the Mountain-Pacific carriers covering the rate divisions affecting them. We accordingly vacated the judgment of the District Court with respect to the divisions of the Eastern and the settling Midwestern railroads, and remanded the relevant portions of the appeals to the District Court with instructions to dismiss as moot. 383 U. S. 832, 384 U. S. 888. Thus, the principal dispute remaining concerns the divisions between the Mountain-Pacific carriers and the eight principal Midwestern roads that are appellants in No. 8.
II.
None of the appellees now defends the position, espoused by the District Court, that the Commission was required to make separate individual findings for each of the 300 railroads involved in the proceedings before it.
But the error in that position, which rejects over 40 years of consistent administrative practice, requires comment.
In its first decision involving rate divisions under § 15 (6), the New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184, the Court upheld the authority of the Commission to take evidence and make findings on a group basis. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Mr. Justice Brandéis noted that the “actual necessities of procedure and administration” required procedures on a group basis in ratemaking cases, and that a similar practice was appropriate in divisions cases. The complexity of the subject matter and the multiplicity of carriers typically involved in divisions cases were such that a wooden requirement of individual findings would make effective regulation all but impossible. The Court held that the Interstate Commerce Act permits the Commission to proceed on a group basis and to rely on “evidence which the Commission assumed was typical in character, and ample in quantity” to justify its findings, reasoning that:
“Obviously, Congress intended that a method should be pursued by which the task, which it imposed upon the Commission, could be performed.... To require specific evidence, and separate adjudication, in respect to each division of each rate of each carrier, would be tantamount to denying the possibility of granting relief. We must assume that Congress knew this....” 261 U. S., at 196-197.
Both the Court and the Commission have consistently adhered to this construction of the Act’s requirements, and its rejection by the District Court in this case was error.
The pragmatic justifications for the Commission’s group procedures are obvious. Even on a group basis, the Commission proceedings in this case required a voluminous record and were not completed until nearly 10 years after the complaints were filed. To demand individual evidence and findings for each of the 300 carriers in the Commission proceedings would so inflate the record and prolong administrative adjudication that the Commission’s regulatory authority would be paralyzed.
Nor do considerations of fairness require disregard of administrative necessities. The premise of group proceedings, as the New England Divisions Case explicitly recognized, is that evidence pertaining to a group is typical of its individual members. 261 U. S., at 196-199. See also Beaumont, S. L. & W. R. Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 74, 82-83. It has always been accepted that an individual carrier may challenge this premise and, on proper showing, receive independent consideration if its individual situation is so atypical that its inclusion in group consideration would be inappropriate. It is the Commission’s practice to accord independent treatment to an individual carrier when a proper request for special consideration is made. But no such requests were made during the hearings and presentation of evidence in this case. Instead, the individual carriers voluntarily aligned themselves into groups, presented evidence and tried the case on a group basis, and asked the Commission to prescribe new divisions on a group basis. In this situation, the Commission was not obliged on its own motion to demand evidence and make findings on an individual basis. Departure from the practicalities of group procedure is justified only when there is a real need for separate treatment of a given carrier; the individual carriers themselves, which have the closest understanding of their own situation and interests, are normally the appropriate parties to show that such need exists.
The Denver & Rio Grande, the Katy, and the Frisco did request independent consideration in petitions for reconsideration of the Commission’s original decision. Their claims will be discussed below in Part VI of this opinion, but it should be noted that at no point during the administrative hearings or the presentation of evidence did they raise any claim for separate treatment. Moreover, their contention basically is not that the group evidence or findings were unrepresentative, but rather that the divisions prescribed by the Commission have an unduly harsh impact on them. Even if it were assumed that the Commission’s- disposition of this contention was erroneous, that would be no ground for requiring the Commission to make individual findings for the rest of the 300 carriers involved.
III.
Among the errors that the District Court found in the Commission’s decision was its failure to state the revenue needs of each individual carrier in terms of precise dollar amount. While not defending the requirement of individual findings, the appellees do contend that the Commission was required to determine the revenue needs of the various carrier groups in precise dollar amount, and they also urge other errors in the Commission’s treatment of revenue needs. We believe, however, that in the case’s present posture these criticisms are largely misdirected.
In increasing the shares of the Eastern railroads the Commission did rely on revenue needs as well as costs, but it found costs alone the controlling factor in raising the divisions of the Midwestern carriers. In the conclusions in its original report, the Commission stated that there should be increases in the Eastern divisions “reflecting revenue need as well as cost,” but in the very next sentence it went on to say that as between the Midwestern and Mountain-Pacific roads, “differences in earning power are less marked, but our consideration of the evidence bearing on cost of service previously discussed convinces us that the primary midwestern divisions as a whole are too low.” Its reliance on costs alone in increasing the Midwestern shares is confirmed by the Commission’s supplemental report, in which it again rejected a request of the Midwestern carriers for even higher divisions based on their claim of pressing revenue needs: “It was our stated view that [increases in the Midwestern divisions] were supported by the evidence concerning cost of service, but that the proposal of the midwestern lines gave undue weight to their claimed revenue need.” Since revenue needs were important factors only with regard to the Eastern divisions, and those divisions are no longer in issue because the Eastern roads have settled with the Mountain-Pacific carriers, any errors committed by the Commission in its treatment of revenue needs are no longer relevant. But even assuming that the Commission did attach some limited significance to revenue needs in raising the Midwestern divisions, we cannot conclude that its treatment of revenue needs was legally inadequate. The Commission devoted over 25 pages of its reports to revenue needs. It discussed at length the proper basis for computing rates of return and found the rates of return for the various carrier groups; it also examined the record and trends in net railway operating income from all services, and from freight and passenger services considered separately.
The Commission placed considerable emphasis on rates of return in its discussion of comparative revenue needs. Following its established practice, it found that a value basis, rather than book cost, as urged by the Mountain-Pacific roads, was the proper method for calculating the investment base. The evidence disclosed that the Mountain-Pacific fines had enjoyed a 4.64% return, as opposed to 3.40% for the Eastern fines, and 3.49% for the Midwestern fines. The suggestion that these findings in terms of rate of return were insufficient because they did not express revenue needs in terms of absolute dollar amount is totally novel and unreasonable. This suggestion seems to stem from a misconception of the Commission’s function in divisions cases. Its task is not to transfer lump sums of cash from one carrier to another, but to “make divisions that colloquially may be said to be fair.” B. & O. R. Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 349, 357. The relative financial strength of the carriers involved is a key factor in this task, see the New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184, 189 — 192, and the use of comparative rates of return is an obviously appropriate basis for the exercise of administrative judgment. Rates of return are a familiar tool of analysis in the financial community. The Commission has long relied on this form of analysis in divisions cases, and in passing on the Commission’s performance in such cases, this Court has never suggested that ultimate findings of revenue need in terms of absolute dollar amount were required. Appellees are unable to suggest any clear regulatory purpose that would be served by such findings. We decline now to impose upon the Commission a rigid mechanical requirement that is without foundation in precedent, practice, or policy.
Appellees, especially the regulatory commissions, vigorously contend that reliance on rates of return showing the Mountain-Pacific carriers in a heavily favorable position was inappropriate because the Commission overlooked the Mountain-Pacific carriers’ disproportionate need for funds for new investment. It might be questioned whether forcing carriers in other parts of the country to accept divisions lower than those to which they would otherwise be entitled is a sensible means of raising funds for new investment in the Far West. But the Commission did not reach this issue because it found that the Mountain-Pacific carriers did not in fact have a greater need for investment funds than railroads elsewhere:
“We are unable to agree with the [Mountain-Pacific carriers] and [the regulatory commissions] that the public interest warrants increases in the divisions of the mountain-Pacific railroads in order to provide a source of investment funds required for enlarged facilities commensurate with industrial development in that region. The railroads in all sections of the country are faced with the continuing necessity of raising funds for additions and betterments and new equipment, and we cannot recognize any difference in the degree of this urgency among the territorial groups.”
The appellees have sought to convince us that this finding is factually incorrect, but we decline to invade the administrative province and second-guess the Commission on matters within its expert judgment. B. & O. R. Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 349, 359; Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. United States, 340 U. S. 216, 227-228.
The appellees also contend that the Commission erred in its treatment of passenger deficits. In discussing revenue needs, the Commission pointed out that since 1950-1952 the Mountain-Pacific carriers had enjoyed substantial increases in operating revenue from freight services, while the freight revenue of the Eastern carriers had declined. It also noted that the Midwestern carriers’ freight revenues had remained relatively constant, and concluded that these comparative trends were likely to continue. The Mountain-Pacific carriers, however, complained that, despite their favorable trend in freight revenues and large amounts of new investment that they had recently made, their rate of return from all services had declined. In reply, the Commission observed that the Mountain-Pacific carriers’ passenger deficits had increased substantially since 1950-1952 and had offset their impressive performance in freight revenues.
The Mountain-Pacific roads now argue that the Commission’s decision to increase the Midwestern divisions was based almost exclusively on its treatment of Mountain-Pacific passenger deficits. They further contend that this treatment was invalid on the grounds that it constituted unfair procedural surprise, that the statute does not permit the Commission to differentiate railroads’ performance as freight carriers and passenger carriers when it assesses revenue needs in a freight rate divisions case, and that the Commission erred in assuming that, because their statistical passenger deficits had increased, the Mountain-Pacific carriers were capable of making a real improvement in their overall performance by reducing passenger service.
We regard the assumption that the Commission attached great importance to Mountain-Pacific passenger deficits in raising the Midwestern divisions as fanciful. As we have already noted, those increases were based exclusively or almost entirely on cost considerations. To the extent the Commission may have relied on comparative revenue needs, passenger deficits were not a significant factor. The discussion of passenger deficits in the Commission’s original report occurred primarily in the context of comparing the revenue needs of the Mountain-Pacific carriers with those of the Eastern roads, when the Commission emphasized that the Eastern railroads had been much more successful in curbing losses on passenger service than the Mountain-Pacific carriers. Any error in the Commission’s treatment of passenger deficits prejudiced the Midwestern as well as the Mountain-Pacific carriers, for in rejecting a Midwestern revenue needs argument in its supplemental report, the Commission noted that the Midwestern carriers had also done a much poorer job than the Eastern carriers in halting the swell of passenger deficits. Furthermore, the Commission did not ignore the overall financial strength of the various groups of carriers, but found that the Mountain-Pacific carriers’ rate of return from all services was substantially higher than that of either the Midwestern or Eastern carriers.
The claim of unfair surprise is strained in light of the fact that the Commission has frequently differentiated passenger and freight revenues in freight rate division cases. While passenger deficits did not become an important issue in this case until the report of the Hearing Examiners was handed down, the Commission relied upon statistics which were matters of public record, and the Mountain-Pacific carriers had ample opportunity to debate the issue in their exceptions to the Hearing Examiners’ report and their petitions for reconsideration of the Commission’s original decision. And while the Commission has sometimes acted to offset passenger deficits in freight rate cases, the issues are quite different when, in a divisions case, it is argued that carriers in one part of the country should subsidize the passenger operations of carriers elsewhere.
If the Commission were to give controlling weight to passenger deficits in a divisions case, it might be appropriate to take more evidence on the issue and discuss it in greater depth than the Commission did here. But in light of the fact that, in this case, passenger deficits were of negligible relevance to the Commission’s decision to increase the Midwestern divisions, we find no errors in the Commission’s findings and procedure on this point that would justify setting aside its order.
IV.
Rejection of the appellees’ attacks on the Commission’s treatment of revenue needs does not exhaust their arsenal. For they argue that the Commission’s findings on costs, which were the basis of its decision to raise the Midwestern divisions, were also infected with serious error.
All are agreed that the relevant costs are those of the Eastern-Transcontinental and Midwestern-Transcontinental freight traffic to which the divisions apply. But throughout the proceedings there has been sharp dispute as to the proper method of ascertaining these costs. At the beginning of the administrative hearings, the Midwestern and Eastern carriers relied principally on the Commission’s standard Rail Form A, a formulation based on average freight data which, as the Commission noted, “has been widely used as an acceptable means of comparing relative transportation costs.” The Mountain-Pacific carriers took the position that Rail Form A, based on averages of all freight service, was not a proper yardstick for measuring the costs of the particular traffic involved in the contested divisions, which, they maintained, had certain distinctive characteristics. The Mountain-Pacific roads prepared their own cost system, based upon a study of this traffic. The Midwestern and Eastern lines responded with other material, and the Midwestern carriers conducted their own special study of line-haul services. Disputes over the applicability of Rail Form A and the various approaches urged by the parties occupied a large part of the administrative proceedings. As the Commission observed:
“The evidence pertaining to the cost studies of the [Mountain-Pacific carriers] and the midwestern lines was extensive. In addition to the detailed testimony of the cost analysts who planned the studies and supervised their compilation, evidence was presented by many other witnesses concerned with operating, statistical, engineering, and mathematical aspects of the projects. In criticism of the studies the [Eastern carriers] and the midwestern lines also introduced detailed evidence of the same general nature and considerable bulk.”
After carefully considering this evidence, the Commission decided to base its cost findings on the special cost study and analysis prepared by the Mountain-Pacific carriers. However, it made certain adjustments in the Mountain-Pacific analysis which, in the judgment of the Commission, more accurately reflected the true costs of the traffic involved.
The Commission substituted its own ratio for empty-car returns, derived from Rail Form A, for that devised by the Mountain-Pacific carriers. It summarized its reasons for this choice in its supplemental report:
“It is difficult to ascribe the empty movement of a car to a particular commodity or class of traffic because of the variety of the lading, and the fact that cars used occasionally for hauling transcontinental traffic may at other times serve widely different uses, including local movements within each territory.... The defendants urge that insufficient consideration was given to special cars.... They would be included in [Rail Form A] tending to increase the empty-return ratios in all territories. Here they accounted for only about 4 percent of the total movement....
“Many special studies of empty-return movement were undertaken in these proceedings, each showing a different result. The deficiencies in the [Mountain-Pacific carriers’] studies of general-purpose boxcar empty return... are so serious in our opinion as to render them without value. We adhere to our prior finding that the 7-day studies made under an order of the Commission and based on uniform instructions to all the railroads as to how the studies were to be made, afford a more reliable basis of comparison among territories. Moreover, on the basis of the evidence in this record, the 7-day studies provide appropriate comparative ratios to the traffic in issue.”
The Commission also disagreed with the Mountain-Pacific study’s treatment of the “constant cost” element of road costs — that which is unrelated to volume of traffic. It found the accounting methods used to distribute these costs in Rail Form A to be more accurate. The Mountain-Pacific roads claimed that this method unduly favored the Midwestern lines by improperly ascribing the maintenance costs of branch and light-density main lines to the cost of their transcontinental traffic. The Commission, however, found that the evidence showed:
“[T]hat the proportion of branch line mileage for each group is almost the same and the amount of traffic on branch lines is so small that some other factors cause the lower unit cost in mountain-Pacific territory. The principal factor is clearly the high density of traffic, 76 percent higher than the Midwest.
“Although the cost per mile may be somewhat higher in mountainous territory, this higher cost is shared by so many more tons of traffic that the cost per ton-mile is lower.
“It is the light density on the main lines in the Midwest which causes [their] higher costs. These lines are used by bridge traffic, and it is, therefore, quite correct to charge this bridge traffic with its proportionate share of maintaining the lines over which it moves.”
The Commission made certain adjustment in the basis for determining locomotive costs; the Mountain-Pacific carriers’ objections to this adjustment were directed at the Commission’s reliance on differences it found between engine districts in Eastern Territory and those elsewhere. Any error in this adjustment is thus relevant only to the Eastern divisions, which are no longer in issue. The Commission also substituted Rail Form A treatment of car service costs, after finding that the Mountain-Pacific study ignored actual territorial differences in this item. Again, this issue related only to the Eastern divisions. In ascertaining the cost attributable to equipment used in the service at issue, the Commission chose a 4% rate of return on investment, a figure traditionally employed by it for this purpose, rather than the 6% figure urged by the Mountain-Pacific carriers. And, in harmony with its treatment of revenue needs, the Commission chose its standard value basis to measure the investment involved, rather than the book cost used by the Mountain-Pacific study.
From the Mountain-Pacific cost study, as adjusted in these particulars, the Commission found that the Mountain-Pacific carriers enjoyed a much higher margin of revenue over costs than did the Midwestern carriers, and for this reason prescribed increases in the Midwestern divisions.
In the proceedings before the District Court, the Mountain-Paeific carriers generally attacked the adjustments made by the Commission in their cost study, claiming that their approach more accurately reflected the costs involved. They particularly maintained that the Commission should have forced the Eastern and Midwestern carriers to produce evidence on empty-car return ratios on the same basis that the Mountain-Pacific carriers had used in their cost study. The Midwestern carriers, however, had come forward with specific empty-return data, and the Commission also observed that:
“In the prehearing conference in the instant cases the advisability of instituting an overall general investigation was discussed but the [Mountain-Pacific carriers] opposed the suggestion, and the matter was dropped.... Nor do we see in the record any basis for assuming that the eastern and midwestern complainants withheld vital evidence merely because they had different conceptions of the nature and extent of facts to be developed.”
The Mountain-Pacific carriers also contended that certain factual premises on which the Commission based its allocation of road maintenance costs were erroneous, and that there was no foundation for the Commission’s choice of a value basis for investment rather than book cost.
The District Court did not directly deal with these contentions, stating rather cryptically that in light of its conclusions on the revenue needs issues, “it is unnecessary to discuss [the cost issues]. However, no inference is to be drawn that the court is of the opinion that the [cost issues], or any other numbered issues not discussed in this opinion, are of the nature it would be required to decide should they be raised at some future time.”
The appellees argue that since the District Court failed to pass on the cost issues, we are precluded from doing so. It is true that we have occasionally stated that it is not our general practice “to review an administrative record in the first instance.” United States v. Great Northern R. Co., 343 U. S. 562, 578; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 382 U. S. 154, 157. But we think that policy is not applicable on the facts of this case. The presentation and discussion of evidence on cost issues constituted a dominant part of the lengthy administrative hearings, and the issues were thoroughly explored and contested before the Commission. Its factual findings and treatment of accounting problems concerned matters relating entirely to the special and complex peculiarities of the railroad industry. Our previous description of the Commission’s disposition of these matters is sufficient to show that its conclusions had reasoned foundation and were within the area of its expert judgment. B. & O. R. Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 349, 359; New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284, 328, 335, 349. Thirteen years have elapsed since the complaints in this case were first filed. The appellees’ attacks on the legal validity of
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we primarily consider whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require federal prosecutors, before entering into a binding plea agreement with a criminal defendant, to disclose “impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a. We hold that the Constitution does not require that disclosure.
I
After immigration agents found 30 kilograms of marijuana in Angela Ruiz’s luggage, federal prosecutors offered her what is known in the Southern District of California as a “fast track” plea bargain. That bargain — standard in that district — asks a defendant to waive indictment, trial, and an appeal. In return, the Government agrees to recommend to the sentencing judge a two-level departure downward from the otherwise applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines sentence. In Ruiz’s case, a two-level departure downward would have shortened the ordinary Guidelines-specified 18-to-24-month sentencing range by 6 months, to 12-to-18 months. 241 F. 3d 1157, 1161 (2001).
The prosecutors’ proposed plea agreement contains a set of detailed terms. Among other things, it specifies that “any [known] information establishing the factual innocence of the defendant” “has been, turned over to the defendant,” and it acknowledges the Government’s “continuing duty to provide such information.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a-46a. At the same time it requires that the defendant “waiv[e] the right” to receive “impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses” as well as the right to receive information supporting any affirmative defense the defendant raises if the case goes to trial. Id., at 46a. Because Ruiz would not agree to this last-mentioned waiver, the prosecutors withdrew their bargaining offer. The Government then indicted Ruiz for unlawful drug possession. And despite the absence of any agreement, Ruiz ultimately pleaded guilty.
At sentencing, Ruiz asked the judge to grant her the same two-level downward departure that the Government would have recommended had she accepted the “fast track” agreement. The Government opposed her request, and the District Court denied it, imposing a standard Guideline sentence instead. 241 F. 3d, at 1161.
Relying on 18 U. S. C. § 3742, see infra, at 627, 628-629, Ruiz appealed her sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s sentencing determination. The Ninth Circuit pointed out that the Constitution requires prosecutors to make certain impeachment information available to a defendant before trial. 241 F. 3d, at 1166. It decided that this obligation entitles defendants to receive that same information before they enter into a plea agreement. Id., at 1164. The Ninth Circuit also decided that the Constitution prohibits defendants from waiving their right to that information. Id., at 1165-1166. And it held that the prosecutors’ standard “fast track” plea agreement was unlawful because it insisted upon that waiver. Id., at 1167. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case so that the District Court could decide any related factual disputes and determine an appropriate remedy. Id., at 1169.
The Government sought certiorari. It stressed what it considered serious adverse practical implications of the Ninth Circuit’s constitutional holding. And it added that the holding is unique among courts of appeals. Pet. for Cert. 8. We granted the Government’s petition. 534 U. S. 1074 (2002).
II
At the outset, we note that a question of statutory jurisdiction potentially blocks our consideration of the Ninth Circuit’s constitutional holding. The relevant statute says that a
“defendant may file a notice of appeal... for review ... if the sentence
“(1) was imposed in violation of law;
“(2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; or
“(3) is greater than [the Guideline] specified [sentence] .. .; or
“(4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable.” 18 U. S. C. § 3742(a).
Every Circuit has held that this statute does not authorize a defendant to appeal a sentence where the ground for appeal consists of a claim that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to depart. See, e. g., United States v. Conway, 81 F. 3d 15, 16 (CA1 1996); United States v. Lawal, 17 F. 3d 560, 562 (CA2 1994); United States v. Powell, 269 F. 3d 175, 179 (CA3 2001); United States v. Ivester, 75 F. 3d 182, 183 (CA4 1996); United States v. Cooper, 274 F. 3d 230, 248 (CA5 2001); United States v. Scott, 74 F. 3d 107, 112 (CA6 1996); United States v. Byrd, 263 F. 3d 705, 707 (CA7 2001); United States v. Mora-Higuera, 269 F. 3d 905, 913 (CA8 2001); United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 927 F. 2d 489, 490 (CA9 1991); United States v. Coddington, 118 F. 3d 1439, 1441 (CA10 1997); United States v. Calderon, 127 F. 3d 1314, 1342 (CA11 1997); In re Sealed Case No. 98-3116, 199 F. 3d 488, 491-492 (CADC 1999).
The statute does, however, authorize an appeal from a sentence that “was imposed in violation of law.” Two quite different theories might support appellate jurisdiction pursuant to that provision. First, as the Court of Appeals recognized, if the District Court’s sentencing decision rested on a mistaken belief that it lacked the legal power to grant a departure, the quoted provision would apply. 241 F. 3d, at 1162, n. 2. Our reading of the record, however, convinces us that the District Judge correctly understood that he had such discretion but decided not to exercise it. We therefore reject that basis for finding appellate jurisdiction. Second, if respondent’s constitutional claim, discussed in Part III, infra, were sound, her sentence would have been “imposed in violation of law.” Thus, if she had prevailed on the merits, her victory would also have confirmed the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
Although we ultimately conclude that respondent’s sentence was not “imposed in violation of law” and therefore that § 3742(a)(1) does not authorize an appeal in a case of this kind, it is familiar law that a federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. See United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 291 (1947). In order to make that determination, it was necessary for the Ninth Circuit to address the merits. We therefore hold that appellate jurisdiction was proper.
III
The constitutional question concerns a federal criminal defendant’s waiver of the right to receive from prosecutors exculpatory impeachment material — a right that the Constitution provides as part of its basic “fair trial” guarantee. See U. S. Const., Arndts. 5, 6. See also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 87 (1963) (Due process requires prosecutors to “avoi[d] ... an unfair trial” by making available “upon request” evidence “favorable to an accused . . . where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”); United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 112-113 (1976) (defense request unnecessary); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419, 435 (1995) (exculpatory evidence is evidence the suppression of which would “undermine confidence in the verdict”); Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, 154 (1972) (exculpatory evidence includes “evidence affecting” witness “credibility,” where the witness’ “reliability” is likely “determinative of guilt or innocence”).
When a defendant pleads guilty he or she, of course, forgoes not only a fair trial, but also other accompanying constitutional guarantees. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 243 (1969) (pleading guilty implicates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Sixth Amendment right to confront one’s accusers, and the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury). Given the seriousness of the matter, the Constitution insists, among other things, that the defendant enter a guilty plea that is “voluntary” and that the defendant must make related waivers “knowing[ly], intelligently], [and] with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970); see also Boykin, supra, at 242.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit in effect held that a guilty plea is not “voluntary” (and that the defendant could not, by pleading guilty, waive her right to a fair trial) unless the prosecutors first made the same disclosure of material impeachment information that the prosecutors would have had to make had the defendant insisted upon a trial. We must decide whether the Constitution requires that preguilty plea disclosure of impeachment information. We conclude that it does not.
First, impeachment information is special in relation to the fairness of a trial, not in respect to whether a plea is voluntary (“knowing,” “intelligent,” and “sufficient[ly] aware”). Of course, the more information the defendant has, the more aware he is of the likely consequences of a plea, waiver, or decision, and the wiser that decision will likely be. But the Constitution does not require the prosecutor to share all useful information with the defendant. Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U. S. 545, 559 (1977) (“There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case”). And the law ordinarily considers a waiver knowing, intelligent, and sufficiently aware if the defendant fully understands the nature of the right and how it would likely apply in general in the circumstances — even though the defendant may not know the specific detailed consequences of invoking it. A defendant, for example, may waive his right to remain silent, his right to a jury trial, or his right to counsel even if the defendant does not know the specific questions the authorities intend to ask, who will likely serve on the jury, or the particular lawyer the State might otherwise provide. Cf. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U. S. 564, 573-575 (1987) (Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination waived when defendant received standard Miranda warnings regarding the nature of the right but not told the specific interrogation questions to be asked).
It is particularly difficult to characterize impeachment information as critical information of which the defendant must always be aware prior to pleading guilty given the random way in which such information may, or may not, help a particular defendant. The degree of help that impeachment information can provide will depend upon the defendant’s own independent knowledge of the prosecution’s potential case — a matter that the Constitution does not require prosecutors to disclose.
Second, we have found no legal authority embodied either in this Court’s past cases or in cases from other circuits that provides significant support for the Ninth Circuit’s decision. To the contrary, this Court has found that the Constitution, in respect to a defendant’s awareness of relevant circumstances, does not require complete knowledge of the relevant circumstances, but permits a court to accept a guilty plea, with its accompanying waiver of various constitutional rights, despite various forms of misapprehension under which a defendant might labor. See Brady v. United States, 397 U. S., at 757 (defendant “misapprehended the quality of the State’s case”); ibid, (defendant misapprehended “the likely penalties”); ibid, (defendant failed to “anticipate” a change in the law regarding relevant “punishments”); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 770 (1970) (counsel “misjudged the admissibility” of a “confession”); United States v. Broce, 488 U. S. 563, 573 (1989) (counsel failed to point out a potential defense); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 267 (1973) (counsel failed to find a potential constitutional infirmity in grand jury proceedings). It is difficult to distinguish, in terms of importance, (1) a defendant’s ignorance of grounds for impeachment of potential witnesses at a possible future trial from (2) the varying forms of ignorance at issue in these cases.
Third, due process considerations, the very considerations that led this Court to find trial-related rights to exculpatory and impeachment information in Brady and Giglio, argue against the existence of the “right” that the Ninth Circuit found here. This Court has said that due process considerations include not only (1) the nature of the private interest at stake, but also (2) the value of the additional safeguard, and (8) the adverse impact of the requirement upon the Government’s interests. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 77 (1985). Here, as we have just pointed out, the added value of the Ninth Circuit’s “right” to a defendant is often limited, for it depends upon the defendant’s independent awareness of the details of the Government’s case. And in any case, as the proposed plea agreement at issue here specifies, the Government will provide “any information establishing the factual innocence of the defendant” regardless. That fact, along with other guilty-plea safeguards, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, diminishes the force of Ruiz’s concern that, in the absence of impeachment information, innocent individuals, accused of crimes, will plead guilty. Cf. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459, 465-467 (1969) (discussing Rule ll’s role in protecting a defendant’s constitutional rights).
At the same time, a constitutional obligation to provide impeachment information during plea bargaining, prior to entry of a guilty plea, could seriously interfere with the Government’s interest in securing those guilty pleas that are factually justified, desired by defendants, and help to secure the efficient administration of justice. The Ninth Circuit’s rule risks premature disclosure of Government witness information, which, the Government tells us, could “disrupt ongoing investigations” and expose prospective witnesses to serious harm. Brief for United States 25. Cf. Amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 92 (1975) (statement of John C. Keeney, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Div., Dept, of Justice) (opposing mandated witness disclosure three days before trial because of documented instances of witness intimidation). And the careful tailoring that characterizes most legal Government witness disclosure requirements suggests recognition by both Congress and the Federal Rules Committees that such concerns are valid. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 3432 (witness list disclosure required in capital cases three days before trial with exceptions); § 3500 (Government witness statements ordinarily subject to discovery only after testimony given); Fed. Rule Crim. Proe. 16(a)(2) (embodies limitations of 18 U. S. C. §3500). Compare 156 F. R. D. 460, 461-462 (1994) (congressional proposal to significantly broaden §3500) with 167 F. R. D. 221, 223, n. (judicial conference opposing congressional proposal).
Consequently, the Ninth Circuit’s requirement could force the Government to abandon its “general practice” of not “disclosing] to a defendant pleading guilty information that would reveal the identities of cooperating informants, undercover investigators, or other prospective witnesses.” Brief for United States 25. It could require the Government to devote substantially more resources to trial preparation prior to plea bargaining, thereby depriving the plea-bargaining process of its main resource-saving advantages. Or it could lead the Government instead to abandon its heavy reliance upon plea bargaining in a vast number — 90% or more — of federal criminal cases. We cannot say that the Constitution’s due process requirement demands so radical a change in the criminal justice process in order to achieve so comparatively small a constitutional benefit.
These considerations, taken together, lead us to conclude that the Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
In addition, we note that the “fast track” plea agreement requires a defendant to waive her right to receive information the Government has regarding any “affirmative defense” she raises at trial. App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a. We do not believe the Constitution here requires provision of this information to the defendant prior to plea bargaining — for most (though not all) of the reasons previously stated. That is to say, in the context of this agreement, the need for this information is more closely related to the fairness of a trial than to the voluntariness of the plea; the value in terms of the defendant’s added awareness of relevant circumstances is ordinarily limited; yet the added burden imposed upon the Government by requiring its provision well in advance of trial (often before trial preparation begins) can be serious, thereby significantly interfering with the administration of the plea-bargaining process.
For these reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
Reversed.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
In Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983), we held that a death sentence supported by multiple aggravating circumstances need not always be set aside if one aggravator is found to be invalid. Id., at 886-888. We noted that our holding did not apply in States in which the jury is instructed to weigh aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances in determining whether to impose the death penalty. Id., at 874, n. 12, 890. In this case, the Virginia Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit construed Zant as establishing a rule that in nonweighing States a death sentence may be upheld on the basis of one valid aggravating circumstance, regardless of the reasons for which another aggravating factor may have been found to be invalid. Because this interpretation of our holding in Zant is incorrect, we now grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari and vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Petitioner Tuggle was convicted of murder in Virginia state court. At his sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth presented unrebutted psychiatric testimony that petitioner demonstrated “ ‘a high probability of future dangerousness.’ ” Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 99, 107, 334 S. E. 2d 838, 844 (1985), cert. denied, Tuggle v. Virginia, 478 U. S. 1010 (1986). After deliberations, the jury found that the Commonwealth had established Virginia’s two statutory aggravating circumstances, “future dangerousness” and “vileness”; it exercised its discretion to sentence petitioner to death. 230 Va., at 108-109, 334 S. E. 2d, at 844-845.
Shortly after the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction and sentence, Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 493, 323 S. E. 2d 539 (1984), we held in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68 (1985), that when the prosecutor presents psychiatric evidence of an indigent defendant’s future dangerousness in a capital sentencing proceeding, due process requires that the State provide the defendant with the assistance of an independent psychiatrist. Id., at 83-84. Because petitioner had been denied such assistance, we vacated the State Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Ake. Tuggle v. Virginia, 471 U. S. 1096 (1985).
On remand, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated the future dangerousness aggravating circumstance because of the Ake error. See Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 230 Va., at 108-111, 334 S. E. 2d, at 844-846. The court nevertheless reaffirmed petitioner’s death sentence, reasoning that Zant permitted the sentence to survive on the basis of the vileness aggravator. 230 Va., at 110-111, 334 S. E. 2d, at 845-846. The Court of Appeals agreed with this analysis on federal habeas review, Tuggle v. Thompson, 57 F. 3d 1356, 1362-1363 (CA4 1995), as it had in the past. Quoting the Virginia Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals stated:
“ ‘When a jury makes separate findings of specific statutory aggravating circumstances, any of which could support a sentence of death, and one of the circumstances subsequently is invalidated, the remaining valid circumstance, or circumstances, will support the sentence.’” Id., at 1363 (quoting 230 Va., at 110, 334 S. E. 2d, at 845, and citing Zant, supra).
II
Our opinion in Zant stressed that the evidence offered to prove the invalid aggravator was “properly adduced at the sentencing hearing and was fully subject to explanation by the defendant.” 462 U. S., at 887. As we explained:
“[I]t is essential to keep in mind the sense in which [the stricken] aggravating circumstance is ‘invalid.’ . . . [T]he invalid aggravating circumstance found by the jury in this case was struck down ... because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that it fails to provide an adequate basis for distinguishing a murder case in which the death penalty may be imposed from those cases in which such a penalty may not be imposed. The underlying evidence is nevertheless fully admissible at the sentencing phase.” Id., at 885-886 (internal citations omitted).
Zant was thus predicated on the fact that even after elimination of the invalid aggravator, the death sentence rested on firm ground. Two unimpeachable aggravating factors remained and there was no claim that inadmissible evidence was before the jury during its sentencing deliberations or that the defendant had been precluded from adducing relevant mitigating evidence.
In this case, the record does not provide comparable support for petitioner’s death sentence. The Ake error prevented petitioner from developing his own psychiatric evidence to rebut the Commonwealth’s evidence and to enhance his defense in mitigation. As a result, the Commonwealth’s psychiatric evidence went unchallenged, which may have unfairly increased its persuasiveness in the eyes of the jury. We may assume, as the Virginia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals found, that petitioner’s psychiatric evidence would not have influenced the jury’s determination concerning vileness. Nevertheless, the absence of such evidence may well have affected the jury’s ultimate decision, based on all of the evidence before it, to sentence petitioner to death rather than life imprisonment.
Although our holding in Zant supports the conclusion that the invalidation of one aggravator does not necessarily require that a death sentence be set aside, that holding does not support the quite different proposition that the existence of a valid aggravator always excuses a constitutional error in the admission or exclusion of evidence. The latter circumstance is more akin to the situation in Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U. S. 578 (1988), in which we held that Zant does not apply to support a death sentence imposed by a jury that was allowed to consider materially inaccurate evidence, 486 U. S., at 590, than to Zant itself. Because the Court of Appeals misapplied Zant in this case, its judgment must be vacated.
Ill
Having found no need to remedy the Ake error in petitioner’s sentencing, the Virginia Supreme Court did not consider whether, or by what procedures, the sentence might be sustained or reimposed; and neither the state court nor the Court of Appeals addressed whether harmless-error analysis is applicable to this case. Because this Court customarily does not address such an issue in the first instance, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Virginia’s capital punishment statute involves a two-stage determination. The jury first decides whether the prosecutor has established one or both of the statutory aggravating factors. Va. Code Ann. §§19.2-264.4(C)-(D) (1995). If the jury finds neither aggravator satisfied, it must impose a sentence of life imprisonment. Ibid. If the jury finds one or both of the aggravators established, however, it has full discretion to impose either a death sentence or a sentence of life imprisonment. Ibid.
See Smith v. Procunier, 769 F. 2d 170, 173 (CA4 1985).
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The present controversy once again brings before the Court the troublesome question of where lies the line between permissible and federally preempted state regulation of union activities.
I.
Petitioners (“Hanna”) are four corporations whose integrated fleet of Great Lakes vessels carries cargo in interstate and foreign commerce and is operated by one of the four, the Hanna Mining Company. The respondent District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (“MEBA”) represented the licensed marine engineers in Hanna’s fleet under a collective bargaining agreement terminating on July 15,1962. According to Hanna, while negotiations for a new contract continued during August 1962, a majority of the marine engineers informed Hanna by written petitions that they did not wish to be represented by MEBA. Hanna then declined to negotiate further until MEBA’s majority status was established by a secret ballot. Without acquiescing in this proposal or questioning any of the employee signatures on the petitions, MEBA responded on September 12, 1962, by picketing one of Hanna’s ships unloading at a dock in Duluth, Minnesota, with signs giving the ship’s name, stating that Hanna unfairly refused to negotiate with MEBA, and indicating that no dispute existed with any other employer. Because of the continued picketing, dock workers refused day after day to unload the ship. From September 12 until shipping ended for the winter, MEBA similarly picketed Hanna ships at other Great Lakes ports, including Superior, Wisconsin.
Hanna turned first to the National Labor Relations Board. On September 12, it petitioned the Regional Director at Cleveland, Ohio, to hold a representation election among Hanna’s engineers to prove or disprove MEBA’s majority status. The petition was dismissed at the end of September on the stated ground that the engineers were “supervisors” under §2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act,' and automatically excluded from the Act’s definition of “employees” under § 2 (3), so election proceedings under § 9 were not warranted; giving the same reason, the Board in November declined to overturn this decision. As a second measure, Hanna on September 15, 1962, filed charges with the Regional Director in Minneapolis, Minnesota, alleging that MEBA had violated § 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act, by inducing work stoppages among dockers at Duluth through improper secondary pressure. In October, the Regional Director dismissed the charges and the General Counsel sustained the dismissal in December, stating that MEBA’s conduct at Duluth and at other sites investigated did not exceed the bounds of lawful picketing under the Board’s standards. Hanna’s third and last appeal to the Board came on September 27, 1962, when it filed charges with the Regional Director in Cleveland, Ohio, accusing MEBA of organizational or recognitional picketing improper under § 8 (b)(7) of the Act. The Regional Director dismissed the charge in October and in the next two months the General Counsel affirmed the dismissal because in seeking to represent “supervisors” rather than “employees” MEBA fell outside the section.
Winter brought an end to both shipping and picketing for several months but when the navigation season opened in the spring of 1963 MEBA pickets once more appeared. After picketing occurred at Superior, Wisconsin, Hanna filed suit on June 24, 1963, in a Wisconsin circuit court. The complaint and affidavits alleged that MEBA was picketing Hanna’s vessels at the docks of the Great Northern Railway Company at Superior in the same manner as the 1962 picketing and with the same improper aim of forcing its representation on unwilling engineers; Hanna stated that workers of other employers were refusing to render service to Hanna’s vessels and it prayed for injunctive relief against further picketing of the vessels and the docks where they berthed and against any other attempt of MEBA to impose representation on Hanna engineers. The Circuit Court dismissed the suit in July for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. In April 1964 the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision. 23 Wis. 2d 433,127 N. W. 2d 393. While agreeing that the picketing could be deemed illegal under Wisconsin law, that court held that the picketing arguably violated §§ 8 (b) (4) (B) and 8 (b) (7) of the federal labor Act and so fell within the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction marked out in San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236. In light of other language in Garmon the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the General Counsel’s dismissal of charges under §§ 8 (b)(4)(B) and 8 (b)(7) did not foreclose the possibility of a preempting violation, even assuming the 1963 picketing in Superior mirrored the 1962 picketing in Duluth. We invited the views of the United States, 379 U. S. 942, granted certiorari, 380 U. S. 941, and now reverse and remand.
I — I t — l
The ground rules for preemption in labor law, emerging from our Garmon decision, should first be briefly summarized: in general, a State may not regulate conduct arguably “protected by § 7, or prohibited by § 8” of the National Labor Relations Act, see 359 U. S., at 244-246; and the legislative purpose may further dictate that certain activity “neither protected nor prohibited” be deemed privileged against state regulation, cf. 359 U. S., at 245. For the reasons that follow, we believe the Board's decision that Hanna engineers are supervisors removes from this case most of the opportunities for preemption.
When in 1947 the National Labor Relations Act was amended to exclude supervisory workers from the critical definition of “employees,” § 2 (3), it followed that many provisions of the Act employing that pivotal term would cease to operate where supervisors were the focus of concern. Most obviously, § 7 no longer bestows upon supervisory employees the rights to engage in self-organization, collective bargaining, and other concerted activities under the umbrella of § 8 of the Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (1964 ed.). See Labor Board v. Budd Mfg. Co., 169 F. 2d 571. Accordingly, activity designed to secure organization or recognition of supervisors cannot be protected by § 7 of the Act, arguably or otherwise. Compare Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union, 362 U. S. 274, 279. Correspondingly, the situations in which that same activity can be prohibited by the Act, even arguably, are fewer than would be the case if employees were being organized or seeking recognition. There can be no breach of §8 (b)(7), curtailing organizational or recognitional picketing, because there cannot exist the forbidden objective of requiring representation of “employees” by the picketing organization. Nor could one even advance the argument unsuccessfully urged in Drivers Local Union that § 8 (b) (1)(A), 61 Stat. 141, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(1)(A) (1964 ed.), condemns the picketing as restraint or coercion of employees exercising their § 7 right not to organize or bargain collectively.
Even though such efforts to unionize supervisors are not protected by the Act, or in the respects immediately relevant prohibited by it, the question arises whether Congress nonetheless desired that in their peaceful facets these efforts remain free from state regulation as well as Board authority. Compare Teamsters Union v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252, 258-260. Arguing that the States are indeed powerless in this respect, MEBA pitches its case chiefly on the 1947 amendment of the “employee” definition and on the concurrent enactment of § 14 (a) of the Act, 61 Stat. 151, 29 U. S. C. § 164 (a) (1964 ed.), which provides in relevant part that “[n]othing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization . . . It is contended that the amendment and this section signify a federal policy of laissez faire toward supervisors ousting state as well as Board authority and, more particularly, that to allow the Wisconsin injunction would obliterate the opportunity for supervisor unions that Congress expressly reserved.
This broad argument fails utterly in light of the legislative history, for the Committee reports reveal that Congress’ propelling intention was to relieve employers from any compulsion under the Act and under state law to countenance or bargain with any union of supervisory employees. Whether the legislators fully realized that their method of achieving this result incidentally freed supervisors’ unions from certain limitations under the newly enacted § 8 (b) is not wholly clear, but certainly Congress made no considered decision generally to exclude state limitations on supervisory organizing. As to the portion of § 14 (a) quoted above, some legislative history suggests that it was not meant to immunize any conduct at all but only to make it “clear that the amendments to the act do not prohibit supervisors from joining unions . . . .” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 28; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 60 (“[T]he first part of this provision [§ 14 (a)] was included presumably out of an abundance of caution.”). However, even assuming that § 14 (a) itself intended also to make it clear that state law could not prohibit supervisors from joining unions, the section would have no application to the present facts; for picketing by a minority union to extract recognition by force of such pressures is decidedly not a sine qua non of collective bargaining, as indeed its limitation by § 8 (b)(7) in nonsupervisor situations attests.
The remaining question in this phase of the case is whether the supervisory status of Hanna's engineers has been settled “with unclouded legal significance,” Garmon, 359 U. S., at 246, so as to preclude arguable application of the Act in the respects discussed. We hold that the Board’s statement accompanying its refusal to order a representation election does resolve the question with the clarity necessary to avoid preemption. While MEBA does not contend that the Board erred in its determination, an abstract difficulty arises from the lack of a statutory channel for judicial review of such a Board decision. Compare Hotel Employees v. Leedom, 358 U. S. 99 (equity action to obtain election). However, the usual deference to Board expertise in applying statutory terms to particular facts assures that its decision would in any event be respected in a high percentage of instances, and so diminished a risk of interference with federal labor policy does not justify use of the preemption doctrine to thwart state regulation bound to be legitimate on this score in almost all cases.
III.
A further basis for preemption, urged by MEBA and adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is that the picketing at Superior exerted secondary pressure arguably violating § 8 (b)(4)(B). The argument appears to be that a state injunction banishing the pickets inevitably impinges upon the Board’s authority to regulate facets of the picketing that might exceed “primary” picketing and violate § 8 (b) (4) (B) — facets never specified by MEBA but presumably those that ignore the Board’s limitations on time, location, and manner of common situs picketing. See Sailors’ Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 N. L. R. B. 547. However, as will appear, no arguable violation exists if Hanna’s proof lives up to its allegations; further, even assuming a violation, federal interests normally justifying preemption are absent from this case.
Hanna’s claim that there is no arguable violation rests, of course, on the finding made by the Regional Director and the General Counsel in declining to issue a complaint under § 8 (b)(4)(B) with respect to MEBA’s 1962 picketing. The Wisconsin' Supreme Court refused to credit this finding because of this Court’s comment in Garmon that the “refusal of the General Counsel to file a charge” is one of those dispositions “which does not define the nature of the activity with unclouded legal significance.” 359 U. S., at 245-246. This language allows more than one interpretation, but we take it not to apply to those refusals of the General Counsel which are illuminated by explanations that do squarely define the nature of the activity. The General Counsel has statutory “final authority, on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investigation of charges and issuance of complaints,” § 3 (d) of the Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 139, 29 U. S. C. § 153 (d) (1964 ed.), and his pronouncements in this context are entitled to great weight. The usual inability of the charging party to contest the General Counsel’s adverse decision in the courts, see Hourihan v. Labor Board, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 316, 201 F. 2d 187, does to be sure create a slight risk if state courts may proceed on this basis, but in the context of this case we believe the risk is too minimal to deserve recognition.
Even taking the General Counsel’s ruling at face value, MEBA stresses that the § 8 (b)(4)(B) charge by Hanna concerned picketing in Duluth in September 1962 while the picketing before the Wisconsin court occurred at Superior in spring 1963. Yet Hanna accompanied the 1962 charge with information as to the 1962 picketing in several ports including Superior. The Regional Director is said to have conducted an investigation in Superior as well as in Duluth, and the General Counsel’s letter on the § 8 (b)(4)(B) charge appeared to state that activity at the sites other than Duluth also did not violate the Act. See n. 7, supra. And while some months intervened between the fall 1962 picketing at Superior and its resumption at that port in spring 1963, Hanna has offered to prove that the picketing remained the same in all significant respects including the picket signs employed, the location of the pickets, and the pickets’ general behavior. If this proof is furnished, the chance that the picketing sought to be enjoined conceals a § 8 (b) (4)(B) violation seems remote indeed.
Additionally, even if a §8 (b)(4)(B) violation were present, central interests served by the Garmon doctrine are not endangered by a state injunction when, in an instance such as this, the Board has established that the workers sought to be organized are outside the regime of the Act. Cf. Ineres S. S. Co. v. Maritime Workers, 372 U. S. 24. Most importantly, the Board’s decision on the supervisory question determines, as we have already shown, that none of the conduct is arguably protected nor does it fall in some middle range impliedly withdrawn from state control. Consequently, there is wholly absent the greatest threat against which the Garmon doctrine guards, a State’s prohibition of activity that the Act indicates must remain unhampered.
Nor is this a case in which the presence of arguably prohibited activity may permit the Board to afford complete protection to the legitimate interests advanced by the State. Since Hanna as the primary employer is present at the picketed situs, the primary picketing proviso of §8 (b)(4)(B) severely inhibits the Board’s use of that section to reach the volatile core of the conduct, the impact on secondary employers that follows from the mere presence of the pickets at a common situs. Section 8 (b) (7) which might provide full relief is rendered inapplicable by the supervisor ruling. Thus, so far as Garmon may proceed on the view that the opportunity belongs to the Board wherever it and the State offer duplicate relief, it has limited application to the present facts.
In concluding that the Act does not preempt the State’s authority to quench the picketing said to have occurred in this case, we do not retreat from Garmon, Rather, we consider that neither the terms nor the policies of that decision justify its extension to the present facts, an extension producing untoward results noted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself. 23 Wis. 2d 433, 446, 127 N. W. 2d 393, 399.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The remaining respondents are officers, agents, and representatives of MEBA, and what is said of it in this opinion applies equally to them.
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, § 2 (11), 61 Stat. 138, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (11) (1964 ed.), gives a functional definition of the term “supervisor.”
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, §2 (3), 61 Stat. 137, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3) (1964 ed.), provides in relevant part that the “term ‘employee’ . . . shall not include . . . any individual employed as a supervisor
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, § 9, 61 Stat. 143, 29 U. S. C. § 159 (1964 ed.), pertinently provides in subsection (c) that petitions may be entertained and elections ordered to determine “the representative defined in subsection (a) of this section”; and subsection (a) pertinently provides that “[Representatives designated or selected ... by the majority of the employees in a unit . . . shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit” for collective bargaining purposes.
In relevant part the Board’s letter stated that as the “appeal makes no affirmative claim that a majority of the 'employees’ as distinguished from 'supervisors’ are sought to be represented in an appropriate unit and as a unit of supervisors is otherwise inappropriate, no question concerning representation in an appropriate unit exists.” While this pronouncement could be clearer, the parties do not dispute that it affirms or refuses to disturb the Regional Director’s explicit finding.
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, §8 (b)(4)(B), 73 Stat. 542, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(4)(B) (1964 ed.), provides in relevant part that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents:
“ (4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to . . . transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services . . . where ... an object thereof is—
“(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease . . . handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless . . . certified .... Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing.”
The letter from the General Counsel's office stated in part: “[T]he evidence revealed that the picketing by MEBA at the common situs herein conformed to Moore Dry Dock standards . . . . Furthermore, MEBA's activity at other sites did not evince an unlawful object on the part of the Union inconsistent with the ostensibly primary object of the picketing at the situs of the dispute.”
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, §8 (b)(7), 73 Stat. 544, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b) (7) (1964 ed.), provides, excluding portions and exceptions not here relevant, that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to picket any employer with an object of forcing “an -employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization” as their bargaining agent unless such labor organization is certified or seeks certification.
A second, clarifying letter from the General Counsel’s office stated in part: “Our disposition of this case was predicated solelj' on our conclusion that the supervisory status of the licensed engineers precluded a finding that the Union’s picketing and other activity was for an object proscribed by Section 8 (b) (7) of the Act.”
See Vogt, Inc. v. International Brotherhood, 270 Wis. 321a, 74 N. W. 2d 749, aff’d sub nom. Teamsters Union v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U. S. 284.
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, § 7, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 157 (1964 eel.), provides that “employees” shall have the right to engage in, or in general to refrain from, the mentioned activities.
Summarizing the impact of the new measure on supervisory personnel, the Senate Report stated: “[T]he bill does not prevent anyone from organizing nor does it prohibit any employer from recognizing a union of foremen. It merely relieves employers who are subject to the national act free from any compulsion by this National Board or any local agency to accord to the front line of management the anomalous status of employees.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 5. See also H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 13-17.
By contrast, sometimes offensive conduct may be restrained by a state remedy that has no impact at all on related activity arguably within the Board’s exclusive province. See, e. g., Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U. S. 131, upholding a state injunction against violence but setting it aside so far as it reached peaceful picketing.
Aside from the §14 (a) line of argument already answered, we do not find at all apposite Teamsters Union v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252, holding a State powerless to award damages against a striking union for requesting a secondary employer to cease business with the struck employer. While in Morton preemption was premised on the fact that the secondary pressure did not come within the ban fixed by § 8 (b) (4) (B) and adopted by § 303 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 545, 29 U. S. C. § 187 (a) (1964 ed.), the conduct there occurred in the context of a peaceful economic strike by employees, a sphere in which the federal interest is especially pervasive. By contrast the present case, involving secondary pressure wielded to impose representation on unwilling supervisors, finds itself at that far comer of labor law where, as we have shown, federal occupation is at a minimum and state power at a peak.
Hattiesburg Unions v. Broome Co., 377 U. S. 126, cited to us by MEBA, may illustrate this concern. There, the union’s organizational picketing at a common situs was enjoined by the State because its objective violated state law. In urging that the picketing’s possible violation of § 8 (b) (4) (B) preempted state authority, the Solicitor General suggested that it may also have been “lawful picketing” outside the State’s reach so far as not prohibited by the section. Memorandum, p. 6, n. 7. See also Michelman, State Power To Govern Concerted Employee Activities, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 641, 652-653 (1961) (citations omitted): “[A] state generally may not enjoin conduct thought to be a federal unfair labor practice. The reason is that, despite the state court’s contrary belief, the conduct may, as a matter of federal law, be privileged.”
In Marine Engineers v. Interlake Co., 370 U. S. 173, we overturned a state ban on picketing arguably violating § 8 (b) (4) (B); and to the counterargument that the picketing group was not a “labor organization” subject to § 8 (b), we pointed out that this decision was for the Board. Unlike the present case, in Interlake the § 8 (b) (4)(B) remedy had not been tried; but quite apart from that consideration, had the Board held the union a “labor organization” and also held those being organized to be “employees” — another point not recently decided by the Board — complete relief against the picketing might well have been available under § 8 (b) (7). See 370 U. S., at 182-183.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required once again to interpret the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (OCCA), Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Section 1962(c) prohibits any person associated with an enterprise from conducting its affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. We granted certiorari to determine whether RICO requires proof that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose. We hold that RICO requires no such economic motive.
I
Petitioner National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW), is a national nonprofit organization that supports the legal availability of abortion; petitioners Delaware Women’s Health Organization, Inc. (DWHO), and Summit Women’s .Health Organization, Inc. (SWHO), are health care centers that perform abortions and other medical procedures. Respondents are a coalition of antiabortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), Joseph Scheidler and other individuals and organizations that oppose legal abortion, and a medical laboratory that formerly provided services to the two petitioner health care centers.
Petitioners sued respondents in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., and RICO’s §§ 1962(a), (c), and (d), as well as several pendent state-law claims stemming from the activities of antiabortion protesters at the clinics. According to respondent Scheidler’s congressional testimony, these protesters aim to shut down the clinics and persuade women not to have abortions. See, e. g., Abortion Clinic Violence, Oversight Hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., 55 (1987) (statement of Joseph M. Scheidler, Executive Director, Pro-Life Action League). Petitioners sought injunctive relief, along with treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. They later amended their complaint, and pursuant to local rules, filed a “RICO Case Statement” that further detailed the enterprise, the pattern of racketeering, the victims of the racketeering activity, and the participants involved.
The amended complaint alleged that respondents were members of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity including extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951. Section 1951(b)(2) defines extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” Petitioners alleged that respondents conspired to use threatened or actual force, violence, or fear to induce clinic employees, doctors, and patients to give up their jobs, give up their economic right to practice medicine, and give up their right to obtain medical services at the clinics. App. 66, Second Amended Complaint ¶ 97. Petitioners claimed that this conspiracy “has injured the business and/or property interests of the [petitioners].” Id., at 72, ¶ 104. According to the amended complaint, PLAN constitutes the alleged racketeering “enterprise” for purposes of § 1962(c). Id., at 72-73, ¶¶ 107-109.
The District Court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Citing Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127 (1961), it held that since the activities alleged “involve[d] political opponents, not commercial competitors, and political objectives, not marketplace goals,” the Sherman Act did not apply. 765 F. Supp. 937, 941 (ND Ill. 1991). It dismissed petitioners’ RICO claims under § 1962(a) because the “income” alleged by petitioners consisted of voluntary donations from persons opposed to abortion which “in no way were derived from the pattern of racketeering alleged in the complaint.” Ibid. - The District Court then concluded that petitioners failed to state a claim under § 1962(c) since “an economic motive requirement exists to the extent that some profit-generating purpose must be alleged in order to state a RICO claim.” Id., at 943. Finally, it dismissed petitioners’ RICO conspiracy claim under § 1962(d) since petitioners’ other RICO claims could not stand.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 968 F. 2d 612 (CA7 1992). As to the RICO counts, it agreed with the District Court that the voluntary contributions received by respondents did not constitute income derived from racketeering activities for purposes of § 1962(a). Id., at 625. It adopted the analysis of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Ivic, 700 F. 2d 51 (1983), which found an “economic motive” requirement implicit in the “enterprise” element of the offense. The Court of Appeals determined that “non-economic crimes committed in furtherance of non-economic motives are not within the ambit of RICO.” 968 F. 2d, at 629. Consequently, petitioners failed to state a claim under § 1962(c). The Court of Appeals also affirmed dismissal of the RICO conspiracy claim under § 1962(d).
We granted certiorari, 508 U. S. 971 (1993), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the putative economic motive requirement of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1962(c) and (d). Compare United States v. Ivic, supra, and United States v. Flynn, 852 F. 2d 1045, 1052 (CA8), (“For purposes of RICO, an enterprise must be directed toward an economic goal”), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 974 (1988), with Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle, 868 F. 2d 1342 (CA3) (because the predicate offense does not require economic motive, RICO requires no additional economic motive), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 901 (1989).
II
We first address the threshold question raised by respondents whether petitioners have standing to bring their claim. Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U. S. 534, 546-547 (1986). Respondents are correct that only DWHO and SWHO, and not NOW, have sued under RICO. Despite the fact that the clinics attempted to bring the RICO claim as class actions, DWHO and SWHO must themselves have standing. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 40, n. 20 (1976), citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 502 (1975). Respondents are wrong, however, in asserting that the complaint alleges no “injury” to DWHO and SWHO “fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984).
We have held that “[a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 561 (1992) (citations omitted). The District Court dismissed petitioners’ claim at the pleading stage pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so their complaint must be sustained if relief could be granted “under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 73 (1984). DWHO and SWHO alleged in their complaint that respondents conspired to use force to induce clinic staff and patients to stop working and obtain medical services elsewhere. App. 66, Second Amended Complaint ¶ 97. Petitioners claimed that this conspiracy “has injured the business and/or property interests of the [petitioners].” Id., at 72, ¶ 104. In addition, petitioners claimed that respondent Scheidler threatened DWHO’s clinic administrator with reprisals if she refused to quit her job at the clinic. Id., at 68, ¶ 98(g). Paragraphs 106 and 110 of petitioners’ complaint incorporate these allegations into the § 1962(c) claim. Id., at 72, 73. Nothing more is needed to confer standing on DWHO and SWHO at the pleading stage.
111
We turn to the question whether the racketeering enterprise or the racketeering predicate acts must be accompanied by an underlying economic motive. Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful “for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” Section 1961(1) defines “pattern of racketeering activity” to include conduct that is “chargeable” or “indictable” under a host of state and federal laws. RICO broadly defines “enterprise” in § 1961(4) to “includ[e] any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” Nowhere in either § 1962(c) or the RICO definitions in § 1961 is there any indication that an economic motive is required.
The phrase “any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce” comes the closest of any language in subsection (c) to suggesting a need for an economic motive. Arguably an enterprise engaged in interstate or foreign commerce would have a profit-seeking motive, but the language in § 1962(c) does not stop there; it includes enterprises whose activities “affect” interstate or foreign commerce. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 35 (1969) defines “affect” as “to have a detrimental influence on — used especially in the phrase affecting commerce.” An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.
The Court of Appeals thought that the use of the term “enterprise” in §§ 1962(a) and (b), where it is arguably more tied in with economic motivation, should be applied to restrict the breadth of use of that term in § 1962(e). 968 F. 2d, at 629. Respondents agree and point to our comment in Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 489 (1985), regarding the term “violation,” that “[w]e should not lightly infer that Congress intended the term [violation] to have wholly different meanings in neighboring subsections.”
We do not believe that the usage of the term “enterprise” in subsections (a) and (b) leads to the inference that an economic motive is required in subsection (c). The term “enterprise” in subsections (a) and (b) plays a different role in the structure of those subsections than it does in subsection (c). Section 1962(a) provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity ... to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” Correspondingly, § 1962(b) states that it “shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” The “enterprise” referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is thus something acquired through the use of illegal activities or by money obtained from illegal activities. The enterprise in these subsections is the victim of unlawful activity and may very well be a “profit-seeking” entity that represents a property interest and may be acquired. But the statutory language in subsections (a) and (b) does not mandate that the enterprise be a “profit-seeking” entity; it simply requires that the enterprise be an entity that was acquired through illegal activity or the money generated from illegal activity.
By contrast, the “enterprise” in subsection (c) connotes generally the vehicle through which the unlawful pattern of racketeering activity is committed, rather than the victim of that activity. Subsection (c) makes it unlawful for “any person employed by or associated with any enterprise ... to conduct or participate ... in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . . .” Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity. Nothing in subsections (a) and (b) directs us to a contrary conclusion.
The Court of Appeals also relied on the reasoning of United States v. Bagaric, 706 F. 2d 42 (CA2), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 840 (1983), to support its conclusion that subsection (c) requires an economic motive. In upholding the convictions, under RICO, of members of a political terrorist group, the Bagaric court relied in part on the congressional statement of findings which prefaces RICO and refers to the activities of groups that “ ‘drai[n] billions of dollars from America’s economy by unlawful conduct and the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption.’” 706 F. 2d, at 57, n. 13 (quoting QCCA, 84 Stat. 922). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that the sort of activity thus condemned required an economic motive.
We do not think this is so. Respondents and the two Courts of Appeals, we think, overlook the fact that predicate acts, such as the alleged extortion, may not benefit the protesters financially but still may drain money from the economy by harming businesses such as the clinics which are petitioners in this case.
We also think that the quoted statement of congressional findings is a rather thin reed upon which to base a requirement of economic motive neither expressed nor, we think, fairly implied in the operative sections of the Act. As we said in H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 248 (1989): “The occasion for Congress’ action was the perceived need to combat organized crime. But Congress for cogent reasons chose to enact a more general statute, one which, although it had organized crime as its focus, was not limited in application to organized crime.”
In United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576 (1981), we faced the analogous question whether “enterprise” as used in §1961(4) should be confined to “legitimate” enterprises. Looking to the statutory language, we found that “[t]here is no restriction upon the associations embraced by the definition: an enterprise includes any union or group of individuals associated in fact.” Id., at 580. Accordingly, we resolved that § 1961(4)’s definition of “enterprise” “appears to include both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises within its scope; it no more excludes criminal enterprises than it does legitimate ones.” Id., at 580-581. We noted that Congress could easily have narrowed the sweep of the term “enterprise” by inserting a single word, “legitimate.” Id., at 581. Instead, Congress did nothing to indicate that “enterprise” should exclude those entities whose sole purpose was criminal.
The parallel to the present case is apparent. Congress has not, either in the definitional section or in the operative language, required that an “enterprise” in § 1962(c) have an economic motive.
The Court of Appeals also found persuasive guidelines for RICO prosecutions issued by the Department of Justice in 1981. The guidelines provided that a RICO indictment should not charge an association as an enterprise, unless the association exists “‘for the purpose of maintaining operations directed toward an economic goal . . . .’” United States v. Ivic, 700 F. 2d, at 64, quoting U. S. Dept. of Justice, United States Attorneys’ Manual §9-110.360 (1984) (emphasis added). The Second Circuit believed these guidelines were entitled to deference under administrative law principles. See 700 F. 2d, at 64. Whatever may be the appropriate deference afforded to such internal rules, see, e. g., Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 152, 177 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), for our purposes we need note only that the Department of Justice amended its guidelines in 1984. The amended guidelines provide that an association-in-fact enterprise must be “directed toward an economic or other identifiable goal.” U. S. Dept. of Justice, United States Attorney’s Manual §9-110.360 (Mar. 9, 1984) (emphasis added).
Both parties rely on legislative history , to support their positions. We believe the statutory language is unambiguous and find in the parties’ submissions respecting legislative history no such “clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary” that would warrant a different construction. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U. S. 170, 177 (1993), citing United States v. Turkette, supra, at 580, quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980).
Respondents finally argue that the result here should be controlled by the rule of lenity in criminal cases. But the rule of lenity applies only when an ambiguity is present; “ fit is not used to beget one. . . . The rule comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers.”’ Turkette, supra, at 587-588, n. 10, quoting Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 596 (1961) (footnote omitted). We simply do not think there is an ambiguity here which would suffice to invoke the rule of lenity. “ ‘[T]he fact that RICO has been applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth.’” Sedima, 473 U. S., at 499 (quoting Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F. 2d 384, 398 (CA7 1984)).
We therefore hold that petitioners may maintain this action if respondents conducted the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The questions whether respondents committed the requisite predicate acts, and whether the commission of these acts fell into a pattern, are not before us. We hold only that RICO contains no economic motive requirement.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
The other respondents named in the complaint include the following: John Patrick Ryan, Randall A. Terry, Andrew Scholberg, Conrad Wojnar, Timothy Murphy, Monica Migliorino, Vital-Med Laboratories, Inc., Pro-Life Action League, Inc. (PLAL), Pro-Life Direct Action League, Inc. (PDAL), Operation Rescue, and Project Life.
The Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951(a), provides: “Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” Respondents contend that petitioners are unable to show that their actions violated the Hobbs Act. We do not reach that issue and express no opinion upon it.
NOW sought class certification for itself, its women members who use or may use the targeted health centers, and other women who use or may use the services of such centers. The District Court did not certify the class, apparently deferring its ruling until resolution of the motions to dismiss. All pending motions were dismissed as moot when the court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss. 765 F. Supp. 937, 945 (ND Ill. 1991).
Section 1961(1) provides: ‘“racketeering activity’ means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnaping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering)... (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a ease under title 11, fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any law of the United States ...
One commentator uses the terms “prize,” “instrument,” “victim,” and “perpetrator” to describe the four separate roles the enterprise may play in §1962. See Blakey, The RICO Civil Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev. 237, 307-325 (1982).
Several of the respondents and several amici argue that application of RICO to antiabortion protesters could chill legitimate expression protected by the First Amendment. However, the question presented for review asked simply whether the Court should create an unwritten requirement limiting RICO to cases where either the enterprise or racketeering activity has an overriding economic motive. None of the respondents made a constitutional argument as to the proper construction of RICO in the Court of Appeals, and their constitutional argument here is directed almost entirely to the nature of their activities, rather than to the construction of RICO. We therefore decline to address the First Amendment question argued by respondents and the amici.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants are beneficiaries of New York decedents’ estates who live in Romania. Their shares of these estates have not been distributed to them, but have been paid into court for their benefit under § 2218 of the New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. Section 2218 authorizes the surrogate to order an alien’s share of a New York estate paid into court when it appears that the alien “would not have the benefit or use or control of the money or other property” constituting the share.
In 1966, appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging what is now § 2218 on the grounds that it denied them due process and equal protection, that it unconstitutionally intruded upon the Federal Government’s conduct of foreign relations, and that it conflicted with federal regulations permitting the payment of federal funds to persons in Romania. Appellants prayed for both temporary and permanent injunctive relief against further operation of the statute, and therefore requested the impaneling of a three-judge court. A single district judge declined to request a three-judge court on the ground that the constitutional questions raised were frivolous, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. This Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in the light of Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429, decided the same day. 389 U. S. 581 (1968). On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the original order of the District Court, and remanded the case for consideration by a three-judge court. 391 F. 2d 586 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1968).
Appellants then moved for summary judgment, urging that § 2218 was unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, under the principles of Zschernig v. Miller, supra. In their motion they requested “the relief demanded in the complaint.” They accompanied their motion with an affidavit, largely consisting of a memorandum of law arguing that the application of § 2218 by the New York courts ran afoul of Zschernig.
Appellees, surrogates of several New York counties, opposed the motion for summary judgment and further requested that the action be dismissed. In their accompanying affidavit, they argued that § 2218 was constitutional on its face and that there was at least a triable issue of fact whether it was being constitutionally applied.
The District Court denied summary judgment, but did not dismiss the action. 299 F. Supp. 1389 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1968). In its opinion it held that §2218 was not unconstitutional on its face under Zschernig, and that the only reported post-Zschernig construction of the statute, Matter of Leikind, 22 N. Y. 2d 346, 239 N. E. 2d 550 (1968), app. docketed, No. 68, O. T. 1969, did not show unconstitutional application.
From the order denying summary judgment, appellants took an appeal to this Court, claiming that we had jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, which provides:
“Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.”
Appellees did not oppose jurisdiction, but rather filed a motion to affirm. We noted probable jurisdiction, 394 U. S. 996 (1969), and received briefs and heard argument confined to the merits. Further examination of the case since oral argument has for the first time raised the question of our jurisdiction, and we have concluded that we lack jurisdiction of the appeal.
A preliminary question is whether the District Court’s order denying summary judgment to a plaintiff who has requested injunctive relief is “an order . . . denying . . . an . . . injunction” within the meaning of § 1253. In construing the analogous provision giving the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders granting or denying injunctions, 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (a)(1), this Court has ruled that a denial of summary judgment is no.t an appealable order denying an injunction, at least where the denial is based upon the existence of a triable issue of fact. Switzerland Assn. v. Horne’s Market, 385 U. S. 23 (1966). However we need not decide whether the same treatment should be given to denials of summary judgment under § 1253, for we conclude that the only interlocutory orders that we have power to review under that provision are orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions. Since in our view the District Court here decided no question of preliminary-injunctive relief, we cannot review its order.
Section 1253, along with the other provisions concerning three-judge district courts, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281-2284 (a collectivity hereinafter referred to as the Three-Judge Court Act), derives from §266 of the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1162, which in turn derived from § 17 of the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 557. As originally enacted, the Three-Judge Court Act required that no interlocutory injunction restraining the operation of any state statute on constitutional grounds could be issued, except by a three-judge court, and provided that “[a]n appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order granting or denying . . . an interlocutory injunction in such case.” 36 Stat. 557. The Act grew out of the public furor over what was felt to be the abuse by federal district courts of their injunctive powers in cases involving state economic and social legislation. While broad and radical proposals were made to deal with the problem, including proposals to deprive the federal courts of all jurisdiction to enjoin state officers, Congress compromised on a provision that would deal with what was felt to be the worst abuse— the issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions against state statutes, either ex parte or merely upon affidavits, and subject to limited and ineffective appellate review. See Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 250 (1941); Hutcheson, A Case for Three Judges, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 795, 803-810 (1934); Note, The Three-Judge District Court and Appellate Review, 49 Va. L. Rev. 538, 539-543 (1963).
Until 1925, the Act required a three-judge court only on application for an interlocutory (or, as we would say, preliminary) injunction. In that year, the Act was amended to carry the three-judge requirement forward to the issuance of a permanent injunction, 43 Stat. 938, “in order to avoid the anomalous result of having a single judge review the decree of three judges at the final hearing.” Note, 49 Ya. L. Rev., supra, at 543. The provision governing appeal to this Court was correspondingly amended to allow direct appeal from “a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction . . . .” 43 Stat. 938.
Thus, as of 1925, the provisions of the Three-Judge Court Act relating to appeal to this Court, set out in the Judicial Code, as amended, read as follows:
“An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory injunction in such case. . . .” 36 Stat. 557.
“. . . and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction in such suit.” 43 Stat. 938. (Emphasis added.)
As clearly as language can, this language confined this Court’s review of three-judge court action to (1) final judgments granting or denying permanent injunctions, and (2) interlocutory orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions.
In 1948, the present Judicial Code was enacted, including § 1253 as it now stands. As the language now reads, the Court has appellate jurisdiction over any three-judge court order “granting or denying ... an interlocutory or permanent injunction.” On its face, this language is subject to the construction that interlocutory orders denying permanent as well as preliminary injunctions can be appealed to this Court. However, such a construction would involve *an expansion of this Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction over that granted by the clear language of the prior statute. The Reviser’s Note to § 1253 indicates no intent to make such a substantive change; indeed, it refers to the section as merely a consolidation of prior provisions in Title 28, themselves derived from the statute as adopted and amended by Congress.
This Court has more than once stated that its jurisdiction under the Three-Judge Court Act is to be narrowly construed since “any loose construction of the requirements of [the Act] would defeat the purposes of Congress ... to keep within narrow confines our appellate docket.” Phillips v. United States, supra, at 250. See Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 375 (1949); Moore v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 U. S. 317, 321 (1926). That canon of construction must be applied with redoubled vigor when the action sought to be reviewed here is an interlocutory order of a trial court. In the absence of clear and explicit authorization by Congress, piecemeal appellate review is not favored, Switzerland Assn. v. Horne’s Market, supra, at 24, and this Court above all others must limit its review of interlocutory orders. Hamilton Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers, 240 U. S. 251, 258 (1916). In light of these factors, and the history of the statute as set out above, we cannot but conclude that our jurisdiction over interlocutory orders under § 1253 is confined to orders granting or denying a preliminary injunction.
As we read the record, this is not such an order. Appellants did, in their original complaint, pray for preliminary as well as permanent injunctive relief. And in moving for summary judgment, they requested “the relief demanded in the complaint.” However, they took no practical step toward obtaining such relief. They filed no separate application for a preliminary injunction. In none of their papers, in the District Court or in this Court, have they urged the appropriateness of temporary relief. The District Court in its opinion in no way adverted to the possibility of such relief being granted. Indeed, in the nature of the case, preliminary injunctive relief could never have been a practical possibility. Appellants are seeking the release of funds held in court in New York to beneficiaries outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Any injunction granting relief of this sort must necessarily have been final in its effect, and could hardly have been awarded in the absence of a final determination on the merits in appellants’ favor. Since the order here in question is an interlocutory one, and is not an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction, we must dismiss the appeal from that order for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Section 2218 (Supp. 1969), formerly §269-a of the New York Surrogate’s Court Act, reads as follows:
“1. (a) Where it shall appear that an alien legatee, distributee or beneficiary is domiciled or resident within a country to which checks or warrants drawn against funds of the United States may not be transmitted by reason of any executive order, regulation or similar determination of the United States government or any department or agency thereof, the court shall direct that the money or property to which such alien would otherwise be entitled shall be paid into court for the benefit of said alien or the person or persons who thereafter may appear to be entitled thereto. The money or property so paid into court shall be paid out only upon order of the surrogate or pursuant to the order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“(b) Any assignment of a fund which is required to be deposited pursuant to the provisions of paragraph one (a) of this section shall not be effective to confer upon the assignee any greater right to the delivery of the fund than the assignor would otherwise enjoy.
“2. Where it shall appear that a beneficiary would not have the benefit or use or control of the money or other property due him or where other special circumstances make it desirable that such payment should be withheld the decree may direct that such money or property be paid into court for the benefit of the beneficiary or the person or persons who may thereafter appear entitled thereto. The money or property so paid into court shall be paid out only upon order of the court or pursuant to the order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“3. In any such proceeding where it is uncertain that an alien beneficiary or fiduciary not residing within the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or a territory or possession of the United States would have the benefit or use or control of the money or property due him the burden of proving that the alien beneficiary will receive the benefit or use or control of the money or property due him shall be upon him or the person claiming from, through or under him.”
The Second Circuit originally took the view that denial of summary judgment, where an injunction had been prayed for, was an appealable order denying an injunction under § 1292 (a)(1), Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 217 F. 2d 936 (1954) (L. Hand, J.; Frank, J., concurring; Clark, J., dissenting). This was contrary to the majority view that such orders were not appealable, a view best represented by Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Sobering Corp., 181 F. 2d 160 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1950). The Second Circuit, even before this Court’s decision in Switzerland Assn., supra, had reversed its position. Chappell & Co. v. Frankel, 367 F. 2d 197 (1966) (en banc). See also 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶56.21 [2], at 2791-2792 (2d ed. 1966).
In Switzerland Assn., supra, this Court left open the question whether an order denying summary judgment might be appealable as an order denying an injunction when the ground for the denial was other than the existence of a triable issue of fact.
The 1948 revision of the Judicial Code did make one substantive change in the Three-Judge Court Act; it eliminated the requirement, imposed by the 1925 amendment, that a three-judge court should be required to hear an application for a permanent injunction only where an application for a preliminary injunction had originally been made. Reviser’s Note, 28 U. S. C. §2281.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents, for the first time in this Court, issues relating to the availability of certain defenses to a prima facie violation of § 2 (e) of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526. The Federal Trade Commission has found that Simplicity Pattern Co., Inc., one of the Nation’s largest dress pattern manufacturers, discriminated in favor of its larger customers by furnishing to them services and facilities not accorded to competing. smaller customers on proportionally equal terms. The Commission held that neither the presence of “cost justification” nor the absence of competitive injury may constitute a defense to a § 2 (e) violation.
The Court of Appeals found that competition existed between the larger and smaller customers of Simplicity and, with one judge dissenting, held that an absence of competitive injury would not constitute a “justification” rebutting a prima facie showing of a § 2 (e) violation. Through a different majority, however, it remanded the case on the “cost justification” defense under § 2 (b), holding that Simplicity might rebut the prima facie case by showing that the discriminations in services and facilities were justified by differences in Simplicity’s costs in dealing with the two classes of customers. 103 U. S. App. D. C. 373, 258 F. 2d 673. The Commission, in No. 406, and Simplicity, in No. 447, filed cross-petitions for certiorari which we consider together. We granted both petitions because of the fundamental significance of these issues .in the application of an important Act of Congress. 358 U. S. 897. We have concluded that, given competition between the two classes of customers, neither absence of competitive injury nor the presence of “cost justification” defeats enforcement of the provisions of § 2 (e) of the Act. The action of the Commission in issuing the cease-and-desist order is, therefore,' affirmed.
Simplicity manufactures and sells tissue patterns which are used in the home for making women’s and children’s wearing apparel. Its volume of pattern sales, in terms of sales units, is greater than that resulting from the combined effort of all other major producers. The patterns are sold to some 12,300 retailers, with 17,200 outlets. For present purposes, these customers can be divided roughly into two categories. One, consisting largely of department and variety stores, comprises only 18% of the total number of customers, but accounts for 70% of the total sales volume. The remaining 82% of the customers are small stores whose primary business is the sale of yard-good fabrics.
About 600 different patterns are made available to Simplicity’s customers. New patterns are added at the rate of 40 per month, while three times annually the obsolete designs are discontinued so as to maintain the number of designs at a relatively constant level.. The different designs are displayed in a catalogue which is changed monthly in order to reflect the changes in available designs. The patterns themselves are stored and displayed in steel cabinets. The catalogues and storage cabinets are both furnished by Simplicity.
The variety stores handle and sell a multitude of relatively low-priced articles. Each article, including dress patterns, is sold for the purpose of returning a profit and would be dropped if it failed to do so. The fabric stores, on the other hand, are primarily interested in selling yard goods; they handle patterns at no profit or even at a loss as an accommodation to their fabric customers and for the purpose of stimulating fabric sales. These differences in motive are reflected in the manner in which each type of store handles its patterns. The variety stores devote the minimum amount of display space consistent with adequate merchandising — consisting usually of nothing more than a place on the counter for the catalogues, with the patterns themselves stored underneath the counter in the steel cabinets furnished by Simplicity. In contrast, the fabric stores usually provide tables and chairs where the customers may peruse the catalogues in comfort and at their leisure.
The retail prices of Simplicity patterns are uniform at 250, 350, or 500. Similarly, Simplicity charges a uniform price, to all its customers, of 60% of the retail price. However, in the furnishing of certain services and facilities Simplicity does not follow this uniformity. It furnishes patterns to the variety stores on- a consignment basis, requiring payment only as and when patterns are sold — thus affording them an investment-free inventory. The fabric stores are required to pay cash for their patterns in regular course. In addition, the cabinets and the catalogues are furnished to variety stores free while the fabric stores are charged therefor, the catalogues averaging from $2 to $3 each. Finally, all transportation costs in connection with, its business with variety stores are paid by Simplicity but none is paid on fabric-store transactions.
The free services and facilities thus furnished variety store chains are substantial in value. As to four variety store chains, the catalogues which Simplicity furnished free in 1954 were valued at $128,904; the cabinets furnished free which those stores had on hand at the end of 1954 were valued at over $500,000; and their inventory of Simplicity’s patterns at the end of 1954 was valued, at more than $1,775,000, each of these values being based tin Simplicity’s usual sales price. . Simplicity’s president testified that it would cost over $2,000,000 annually to give its other customers the free transportation, free, catalogues, and free cabinets furnished to variety stores.
Simplicity does not dispute these findings. Assuming that the existence of competition between purchasers is a necessary element in a § 2 (e) prosecution, it insists that no real competition in patterns exists between the variety and the fabric stores. It also contends that even if competition is present its conduct may be justified by a showing that no competitive injury resulted or, alternatively, that the discriminations are not unlawful if it could be shown that the differential treatment was only reflec.tive of the differences in its costs in dealing with the two types of customers.
1. Existence <Df Competition.
The unanimous conclusion of the Examiner, the Commission, and the Court of Appeals on this point was, as stated by the Court of. Appeals, that the variety and fabric stores, “operating in the same cities and in the same shopping area, often side by side, were competitors, purchasing from Simplicity at the same price and then at like prices retailing the identical product to substantially the same segment of the public.” 103 U. S. App. D. C., at 377, 258 F. 2d, at 677. Simplicity argues that “motivation” controls and that since the variety store sells for a profit and the fabric store for accommodation that the competition is minuscule. But the existence of competition does not depend on such motives. Regardless of the necessity the fabric stores find in the handling of patterns it does not remove their incentive to sell those on hand, especially when cash is tied up in keeping patterns on the shelves. The discriminatory terms under which they are obliged to handle them increase their losses. Furthermore, Simplicity not only takes advantage of the captive nature of the fabric stores in not granting them these advantages but compounds the damage by creating a sales outlet in the variety-stores through the granting of these substantial incentives to engage in the pattern business. Without such partial subsidization the variety stores might not. enter into the pattern trade at all.
Nor does it follow that the failure here to show specific injury to competition in patterns is inconsistent with a finding that competition in fact exists. It may be, as Simplicity argues, that the sale of patterns is minuscule in the over-all business of a variety store, but the same is true of thousands of other items. While the giving of discriminatory concessions to a variety store on any one isolated item might cause no injury to competition with a-fabric store in its over-all operation, that fact does not render nonexistent the actual competition between them in patterns. It remains, and, because' of the discriminatory concessions, causes further losses to the fabric store. As this Court said in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 49 (1948),
“There are many articles in a grocery store that, considered separately, are comparatively small parts of a merchant’s stock. Congress intended to protect a merchant from competitive injury attributable to discriminatory prices on any or all goods sold in interstate commerce, whether the particular goods constitúted a major or minor portion of his stock. Since a grocery store consists of many comparatively small articles, there is no possible way effectively to protect a grocer .from discriminatory prices except by applying the prohibitions Qf the Act to each individual article in the store.”
2.' Application of the Justification Defenses of § 2 (b).
Simplicity contends that an absence of competitive injury constitutes a defense under the justification provisions of § 2 (b) and further that it should have been permitted, under that subsection, to dispel its discrimination in services and facilities by a showing of lower costs in its transactions with the variety stores. We agree with the Commission that the language of the Act, when considered in its entirety, will not support this construction.
Section 2 (á) makes unlawful price discriminations
“where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevént competition
This price discrimination provision is hedged with qualifications. An exception is made for price differentials “which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery.” Care was taken that price changes are not outlawed. where made in response to changing market conditions. Finally, § 2 (a) codifies the rule of United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U. S. 300 (1919), protecting the right of a persQn in commerce to select his “own customers in bopa fide transactions and not in restraint of trade.”
Subsections (c), (d), and (e), on the other hand, unqualifiedly make unlawful certain business practices other than price discriminations. Subsection (c) applies to the payment or receipt of commissions or brokerage allowances “except for services rendered.” Subsection (d) prohibits the payment by a seller to a customer for any services or facilities furnished by the latter, unless “such payment ... is available on proportionally equal terms to all other [competing] customers.” Subsection (e), which as noted is the provision applicable in this case, makes it unlawful for a seller
“to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commodity bought for resale . . .• by . . . furnishing . . . any services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.”
In terms, the proscriptions of these three subsections are absolute. Unlike § 2 (a), none of them requires, as proof of a prima facie violation, a showing that the illicit practice has had an injurious or destructive effect on com-' petition. Similarly, none has any built-in defensive matter, as does § 2 (a). Simplicity’s contentions boil down to an argument that the exculpatory provisions which Congress has made expressly applicable only to price discriminations are somehow included as “justifications” for discriminations in services or facilities by § 2 (b), which provides that
“Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the.burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor.” (Emphasis added.)
We hold that the key word “justification” can be read no more broadly than to allow rebuttal of the respective offenses in one of the ways expressly made available by Congress. Thus; a discrimination in prices may be rebutted-by a showing under any of the § 2 (a) provisos, or under the § 2 (b) proviso — all of.which by their terms apply to price discriminations. On the other hand, the only escape Congress has provided for discriminations in services or. facilities is the permission to meet competition as found in the § 2 (b) proviso. We cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted.
Simplicity’s arguments to the contrary are based essentially on the ground that it would be “bad law and bad economics” to make discriminations' unlawful even where they may be accounted for by cost differentials or where there is no competitive injury. Entirely aside from the fact that this Court is not in a position to review the economic wisdom of Congress, we cannot say that the legislative decision to treat price and other discriminations differently is without a rational basis. In allowing a “cost justification” for price discriminations and not for others, Congress could very well have felt .that sellers would be forced to confine their discriminatory practices to price differentials, where they could be more readily detected and where it would be much easier to make accurate comparisons with any alleged cost savings. Biddle Purchasing Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 96 F. 2d 687, 692 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1938). And, with respect to the absence of competitive injury requirements, it suffices to say that the antitrust laws are not strangers to the policy of nipping potentially destructive practices before they reach full bloom. Cf. Klor’s, Inc., v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U. S. 207 (1959).
Our conclusions are further confirmed by the historical setting of the Robinson-Patman amendments to § 2 of the Clayton Act. As originally worded in 1914 (38 Stat. 730), § 2 applied only to price discriminations, and then only where the effect of such discrimination was “to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in. any line of commerce.” Furthermore, a proviso excepted price discriminations based on “differences in the . . . quantity of the commodity sold,” regardless of whether the differences in quantity resulted in corresponding cost differentials.
A lengthy investigation conducted in the 1930’s by the Federal Trade Commission disclosed that several large chain buyers were effectively avoiding § 2 by taking advantage of gaps in its coverage. Because of their'enormous purchasing power, these chains were able to exact price concessions, based on differences in quantity, which far exceeded any related cost savings to the seller. Consequently, the seller was forced to raise prices even further on smaller quantity lots in order to cover the concessions made to the large purchasers. Comparable competitive advantages were obtained by the large purchasers in several ways other than direct price concessions. Rebates were induced for “brokerage fees,” even though no brokerage services had been performed. “Advertising allowances” were paid by the sellers tó the large buyers in return for certain promotional services undertaken by the latter. Some sellers furnished special services or facilities to the chain buyers. Lacking the purchasing power to demand comparable advantages; the small independent stores were at a hbpeless competitive disadvantage.
The Robinson-Patman amendments were enacted to eliminate these inequities. The exception to price discriminations based on quantitative differences was limited to those making “only due allowance for differences in . . . cost.” As noted above, false brokerage- allow-_ anees and the paying for or furnishing of nonproportional services or facilities were banned outright. The. portion of § 2 (b) preceding the proviso, on which Simplicity relies, was inserted in the House bill for the sole purpose of laying down “directions with reference to procedure including a statement with respect to burden of proof.” It was clearly not intended. to have any independent substantive weight of its own.
We hold, therefore, that neither “cost-justification” nor an absence of competitive injury may constitute “justification” of a prima facie § 2 (e) violation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals must accordingly he reversed insofar as it set aside and remanded the Commission’s order and affirmed as to the remainder.
It is so ordered.
The complaint was in two counts, the first being under the Federal Trade Commission .Act. This count was dismissed. The second count, which is the only one before us, involves certain subsections of § 2 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 13. For ready reference we quote § 2 in its entirety:
“(a) That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition Or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in'the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation, and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities,, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof- unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce;, and -the foregoing shall then not be construed to-permit differentials- based on differences in quantities greater than those so fixe.d and established: And provided further, That nothing-herein contained shall prevent persons .engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce From - selecting their own customers inbona fide, transactions and not in .restraint of trade; And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods; obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned.
“ (b) Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing that his lower-price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser o-r purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor.
“(c) That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to pay or grant, or to receive or accept, anything' of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, except for services rendered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods, wares, or merchandise, either to the other party to such transaction or to an agent, representative, or other intermediary therein where such intermediary is acting in fact for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of any party tu such transaction other than the person by whom such compensation is so granted or paid.
“(d) That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce to pay or contract for the payment of anything of value to or for the benefit of a customer of such person in the course of such com-' merce as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the processing, handling, sale, or offering, for sale of any products or commodities manufactured, sold, or offered for sale by such person, •unless such, payment or consideration, is available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the distribution of such products or commodities.
“(e) That it shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commodity bought for resale, with or without processing, by contracting to furnish or furnishing, or by contributing to thé furnishing of, any services- or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.
“(f) That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.”
Judge Washington dissented on the “cost-justification” issue, while Judge Burger was in dissent on the competitive injury question.
In dollar volume, Simplicity’s percentage-of-industry total is somewhat lower, due to the fact that its prices are among the lowest in the industry.
It should be noted that Simplicity has apparently acted entirely in good faith. While the services and facilities described in the body of the opinion are admittedly furnished free only to- the variety ■stores, Simplicity asserts that other services ánd facilities are furnished only to the smaller customers. These claimed services include: A staff of 12 young- ladies travels throughout the. country giving fashion shows and sewing demonstrations in schools,.-L-H Clubs and' the like. These demonstrations- are' coordinated through the local-fabric stores to assist the latter in pushing sales both of patterns and of fabric's. Large promotional posters, portraying fabrics and fashion trends, are furnished monthly to the fabric stores. “Flyers,” or brochures, designed, printed and distributed by Simplicity solely for the small merchant, tell him (in the words of Simplicity’s president) “what the proper sources of supply, are in'New York, what the trends are, how to trim his wiiidows, how to run certain aspects of his department and a great deal of other material.” A monthly publication called the “Simplicity Pattern Book” is sold through fabric stores at an annual loss to Simplicity of over $100,000. The publication is designed to “glamorize and dramatize for the consumer and for the merchant the textiles and trends throughout the country.”
These services and facilities are apparently available to the variety stores, but are not used by them because of their method of doing business. Thus, Simplicity claims that the fabric stores receive services and facilities, valued by Simplicity at more than $1,000,000 annually, which in fact if not in law are not used by the - variety stores. The parties did not explore, before the • Commission, the possibility that this tailoring of services and facilities to meet the different needs of two classes of customers in fact constituted “proportionally equal terms.” And, of course, this point was not raised in the Court of Appeals or in this Court. We note in passing, however, that the Commission has indicated a willingness to give a relatively broad scope to the-standard of proportional equality under §§ 2 (d) and 2 (e). See Lever Brothers Co., 50 F. T. C. 494, 512 (1953). (“[§ 2 (d)] does not prohibit a seller from paying for services of various types.” A “plan providing payment for promotional services and facilities . . . must be honest in its purpose and fair and reasonable in its application.”) See also Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., 50 F. T. C. 513 (1953); Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 50 F. T. C. 525 (1953); Report of the Attorney General’s National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws 189-190 (1955). Since the issue is not properly before us, we of course do not pass on it.
Simplicity -argues that the Examiner “affirmatively found an absence of competitive injury.” This view was apparently adopted by the Court of Appeals. 103 U. S. App. D. C., at 378, 258 F. 2d, at 678. We do not so read the record, however. What the Examiner said was that “there is no showing of competitive injury.” (Emphasis added.)
Subsection (f) is a corollary to §2 (a), making it unlawful “knowingly to induce or receive” a price discrimination barred by the latter. See Automatic Canteen Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 346 U. S. 61 (1953).
Simplicity .concedes this, in effect, but argues that it should be allowed under §2 (b) to “justify” the §2 (e) violation by making an affirmative showing of absence of competitive injury.
In allowing a showing of “cost-justification” under §2 (b), the Court of Appeals negated any inference that it was thereby importing “§ 2 (a) criteria as matters of defense to a Section 2 (e) charge.” Rather, it held that “the justification to be shown under the first clause of § 2 (b) as to a § 2 (e) charge of discrimination in ‘facilities furnished’ to various customers, [would] depend upon the facts in a particular case.” 103 U. S. App. D. C., at 381, 258 F. 2d, at 681. (Italics in the original.) On this theory, the limits of the justification-which could be shown would be established by litigation, on a case-to-case basis.
See Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 340 U. S. 231 (1951).
The Courts of Appeals, prior to this case, had uniformly rejected the argument that § 2 (e) violations were subject to a cost-justification defense or required a showing of adverse effect on competition. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 156 F. 2d 132 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1946) (competitive injury); Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 144 F. 2d 211, 219 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1944), aff’d on other grounds 324 U. S. 726 (competitive injury); Southgate Brokerage Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 150 F. 2d 607, 610 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1945) (dictum as to competitive injury); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 106 F. 2d 667 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1939) (dictum as to cost-justification); Oliver Bros., Inc., v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 102 F. 2d 763, 767 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1939) (dictum as to competitive injury). It does not appear that any Court of Appeals had previously been asked to decide whether an absence of competitive injury could constitute a “justification” under § 2 (b).
Compare the Report of the Attorney General’s National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws (1955). The Committee recognized that as of that date subsections (c), (d) and (e) had been uniformly interpreted ’ as not requiring a showing of competitive injury, and as not allowing a cost-justification defense. Pp. 187-193. It expressed disagreement with the desirability of-this result, in view of what it deemed the “broader antitrust objectives,” and recommended that § 2 (c) be changed by legislation and § 2 (d) and (e) by “interpretive reform.”. P. 193.
During congressional debates on the bill, there were continual references to the subsection (c), (d) and (e) practices as “secret” discriminations. See, e. g., 80 Cong. Rec. 8126, 8127, 8132, 8135, 8137, 8226.
Compare Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1 (1958); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150 (1940), which contain examples of per se violations under the Sherman Act. It is not without significance that earlier versions of both the House and Senate bills would have outlawed even price discriminations without regard to their effect upon competition. H. R. 8442, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. 3154, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
This language was retained in § 2 (a) under the Robinson-Patman Act amendment, and .the following was added, “or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.”
Final Report on the Chain-Store Investigation, S. Doc. No. 4, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
H. R. Rep. No. 2287, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 16.
As reported out of Committee, the equivalent of § 2 (b) (which was § 2 (e) in the House bill) applied only to price discriminations. During the floor debate, Congressman McLaughlin introduced an amendment which would add “or services or facilities furnished” at appropriate places in the subsection. He said, “Mr. Chairman, this is a committee' amendment agreed to unanimously by : the committee.- ... It simply allows a..seller to meet not only competition in price of other competitors\but also competition in services and facilities furnished.” 80 Cong. Rec. 8225. The amendment was adopted without further comineiit. Throughout the debate, what reference there, was to this subsection (other than to .the proviso) was to the effect that it was a “procedural” or “burden of proof” provision. See, e. g., 80 Cong. Rec. 8110, 9414, 9418. Congressman Patman, referring to it as a “burden of proof” provision, said “Let me analyze that for you. What does that mean? It means exactly the rule.of law today. It is a restatement of existing law. So far as I am concerned you can strike it out.- It makes no difference.” 80 Cong. Rec. 8231. This statement, coming from one of the authors of the bill; makes it clear beyond peradventure that the provision in question was not intended to operate as .a source of substantive defenses. See also Automatic Canteen Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, supra, 346 U. S., at 78.
The history of the Senate bill is not helpful. As reported out of .Committee,-it contained neither a provision comparable to § 2 (b) nor one comparable to § 2 (e). S. Rep. No. 1502, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. A provision identical to § 2 (b) was adopted as a floor amendment at a time when the bill did not in terms even- cover the furnishing of services and facilities. 80 Cong. Rec. 6435-6436. The short debate on the amendment is not enlightening.
While both of these questions have been presented to us in terms of the “justification” clause of §2(b), we are equally convinced that the competitive injury and cost-differential clauses of § 2 (a) cannot be read directly, into § 2 (e). Elizabeth Arden, Inc., v. Federal Trade Comm’n, supra, note 10; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, supra, note 10; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, supra, note 10. It is true that, in reference to the cost-differential clause, we have said, “Time and again there was recognition in Congress of a-freedom to adopt and pass on to buyers the benefits of more economical processes.” Automatic Canteen Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, supra, 346 U. S., at 72. But the contexts of the statements referred to show that- the benefits Were to. be made available in price differentials or not at all. See, e. g., 80 Cong. Rec. 8106-8107, 8111-8112, 8114, 8127-8128, 8137, 9415; H. R. Rep. No. 2287, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. See also notes 12 and 13, supra.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Kansas imposes a tax on the receipt of motor fuel by fuel distributors within its boundaries. Kansas applies that tax to motor fuel received by non-Indian fuel distributors who subsequently deliver that fuel to a gas station owned by, and located on, the Reservation of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (Nation). The Nation maintains that this application of the Kansas motor fuel tax is an impermissible affront to its sovereignty. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the application of the Kansas tax to fuel received by a non-Indian distributor, but subsequently delivered to the Nation, was invalid under the interest-balancing test set forth in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136 (1980). But the Bracker interest-balancing test applies only where “a State asserts authority over the conduct of non-Indians engaging in activity on the reservation.” Id., at 144. It does not apply where, as here, a state tax is imposed on a non-Indian and arises as a result of a transaction that occurs off the reservation. Accordingly, we reverse.
I
The Nation is a federally recognized Indian Tribe whose reservation is on United States trust land in Jackson County, Kansas. The Nation owns and operates a casino on its reservation. In order to accommodate casino patrons and other reservation-related traffic, the Nation constructed, and now owns and operates, a gas station on its reservation next to the casino. Seventy-three percent of the station’s fuel sales are made to casino patrons, while 11 percent of the station’s fuel sales are made to persons who live or work on the reservation. The Nation purchases fuel for its gas station from non-Indian distributors located off its reservation. Those distributors pay a state fuel tax on their initial receipt of motor fuel, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-3408 (2003 Cum. Supp.), and pass along the cost of that tax to their customers, including the Nation.
The Nation sells its fuel within 2 cents per gallon of the prevailing market price. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Richards, 379 F. 3d 979, 982 (CA10 2004). It does so notwithstanding the distributor’s decision to pass along the cost of the State’s fuel tax to the Nation, and the Nation’s decision to impose its own tax on the station’s fuel sales in the amount of 16 cents per gallon of gasoline and 18 cents per gallon of diesel (increased to 20 cents for gasoline and 22 cents for diesel in January 2003). Ibid. The Nation’s fuel tax generates approximately $300,000 annually, funds that the Nation uses for “‘constructing and maintaining roads, bridges and rights-of-way located on or near the Reservation,’ ” including the access road between the state-funded highway and the casino. Ibid.
The Nation brought an action in Federal District Court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief from the State’s collection of motor fuel tax from distributors who deliver fuel to the reservation. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. Applying the Bracker interest-balancing test, it determined that the balance of state, federal, and tribal interests tilted in favor of the State. The court reached this determination because “it is undisputed that the legal incidence of the tax is directed off-reservation at the fuel distributors,” Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Richards, 241 F. Supp. 2d 1295, 1311 (Kan. 2003), and because the ultimate purchasers of the fuel, non-Indian casino patrons, receive the bulk of their governmental services from the State, id., at 1309. The court held that the State’s tax did not interfere with the Nation’s right of self-government, adding that “a tribe cannot oust a state from any power to tax on-reservation purchases by nonmembers of the tribe by simply imposing its own tax on the transactions or by otherwise earning its revenues from the tribal business.” Id., at 1311.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 379 F. 3d 979 (2004). It determined that, under Bracket, the balance of state, federal, and tribal interests favored the Tribe. The Tenth Circuit reasoned that the Nation’s fuel revenues were “derived from value generated primarily on its reservation,” 379 F. 3d, at 984 — namely, the creation of a new fuel market by virtue of the presence of the casino — and that the Nation’s interests in taxing this reservation-created value to raise revenue for reservation infrastructure outweighed the State’s “general interest in raising revenues,” id., at 986. We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 1186 (2005), and now reverse.
II
Although we granted certiorari to determine whether Kansas may tax a non-Indian distributor’s off-reservation receipt of fuel without being subject to the Bracket interest-balancing test, Pet. for Cert, i, the Nation maintains that Kansas’ “tax is imposed not on the off-reservation receipt of fuel, but on its on-reservation sale and delivery,” Brief for Respondent 11 (emphasis in original). As the Nation recognizes, under our Indian tax immunity cases, the “who” and the “where” of the challenged tax have significant consequences. We have determined that “[t]he initial and frequently dispositive question in Indian tax cases... is who bears the legal incidence of [the] tax,” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U. S. 450, 458 (1995) (emphasis added), and that the States are categorically barred from placing the legal incidence of an excise tax “on a tribe or on tribal members for sales made inside Indian country” without congressional authorization, id., at 459 (emphasis added). We have further determined that, even when a State imposes the legal incidence of its tax on a non-Indian seller, the tax may nonetheless be pre-empted if. the transaction giving rise to tax liability occurs on the reservation and the imposition of the tax fails to satisfy the Bracker interest-balancing test. See 448 U. S. 136 (holding that state taxes imposed on on-reservation logging and hauling operations by non-Indian contractor are invalid under the interest-balancing test); cf. Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 448 U. S. 160 (1980) (holding that the Indian trader statutes pre-empted Arizona’s tax on a non-Indian seller’s on-reservation sales).
The Nation maintains that it is entitled to prevail under the categorical bar articulated in Chickasaw because “[t]he fairest reading of the statute is that the legal incidence of the tax actually falls on the Tribe [on the reservation].” Brief for Respondent 17, n. 5. The Nation alternatively maintains it is entitled to prevail even if the legal incidence of the tax is on the non-Indian distributor because, according to the Nation, the tax arises out of a distributor’s on-reservation transaction with the Tribe and is therefore subject to the Bracker balancing test. Brief for Respondent 15. We address the “who” and the “where” of Kansas’ motor fuel tax in turn.
A
Kansas law specifies that “the incidence of [the motor fuel] tax is imposed on the distributor of the first receipt of the motor fuel.” Kan. Stat. Ann. §79-3408(c) (2003 Cum. Supp.). We have suggested that such “dispositive language” from the state legislature is determinative of who bears the legal incidence of a state excise tax. Chickasaw, supra, at 461. But even if the state legislature had not employed such “dispositive language,” thereby requiring us instead to look to a “fair interpretation of the taxing statute as written and applied,” California Bd. of Equalization v. Chemehuevi Tribe, 474 U. S. 9,11 (1985) (per curiam), we would nonetheless conclude that the legal incidence of the tax is on the distributor.
Kansas law makes clear that it is the distributor, rather than the retailer, that is liable to pay the motor fuel tax. Section 79-3410(a) (1997) provides, in relevant part, that “[e]very distributor... shall compute and shall pay to the director... the amount of [motor fuel] taxes due to the state.” While the distributors are “entitled” to pass along the cost of the tax to downstream purchasers, see § 79-3409 (2003 Cum. Supp.), they are not required to do so. In sum, the legal incidence of the Kansas motor fuel tax is on the distributor. The lower courts reached the same conclusion. 379 F. 3d, at 982 (“The Kansas legislature structured the tax so that its legal incidence is placed on non-Indian distributors”); 241 F. Supp. 2d, at 1311 (“[I]t is undisputed that the legal incidence of the tax is directed off-reservation at the fuel distributors”); see also Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v. Pierce, 213 F. 3d 566, 578 (CA10 2000) (“[T]he legal incidence of the [Kansas] tax law as presently written falls on the fuel distributors rather than on the Tribes”); Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Kline, 297 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1294 (Kan. 2004) (“Under the Kansas statutory scheme, the legal incidence of the state’s fuel tax falls on the ‘distributor of first receipt’ of such fuel”); Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v. LaFaver, 31 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1307 (Kan. 1998) (“[T]he statutes are extremely clear in providing that the tax in question is imposed upon the distributor”). And the Kansas Department of Revenue, the state agency charged with administering the motor fuel tax, has concluded likewise. See Letter from David J. Heinemann, Office of Administrative Appeals, to Mark A. Burghart, Written Final Determination in Request for Informal Conference for Reconsideration of Agency Action, Davies Oil Co., Inc., Docket No. 01-970 (Jan. 3,2002) (hereinafter Kansas Dept, of Revenue Letter) (“The legal incidence of the Kansas fuel tax rests with Davies, the distributor, who is up-stream from Nation, the retailer”).
The United States, as amicus, contends that this conclusion is foreclosed by the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Kaul v. State Dept, of Revenue, 266 Kan. 464, 970 P. 2d 60 (1998). The United States reads Kaul as holding that the legal incidence of Kansas’ motor fuel tax rests on the Indian retailers, rather than on the non-Indian distributors. And, under the United States’ view, so long as the Kansas Supreme Court’s “ ‘definitive determination as to the operating incidence’ ” of its fuel tax is “ ‘consistent with the statute’s reasonable interpretation,’” it should be “‘deemed conclusive.’” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10 (quoting Gurley v. Rhoden, 421 U. S. 200, 208 (1975)).
We disagree with the United States’ interpretation of Kaul. In Kaul, two members of the Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma sought to enjoin the enforcement of Kansas’ fuel tax on fuel delivered to their gas station located on the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas’ Reservation. The Kansas Supreme Court determined that the station owners had standing to challenge the tax because the statute provided that the distributor was entitled to “ ‘charge and collect such tax... as a part of the selling price.’” Kaul, supra, at 474, 970 P. 2d, at 67 (quoting Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-3409 (1995); emphasis deleted). The court determined that the station owners were not entitled to an injunction, however, because they were not members of a Kansas tribe and thus there had “been no showing by Retailers that payment of fuel tax to Kansas interferes with the self-government of a Kansas tribe or a Kansas tribal member.” 266 Kan., at 477, 970 P. 2d, at 69. The court then noted that “the legal incidence of the tax on motor fuel rests on non-tribal members and does not affect the Potawatomi Indian reservation within the state of Kansas.” Ibid.
Kaul does not foreclose our determination that the distributor bears the legal incidence of the Kansas motor fuel tax. As an initial matter, it is unclear whether the court’s reference to “nontribal members” is a reference to the non-tribal-member retailers or the non-tribal-member distributors. At the very least, Kaul's imprecise language cannot be characterized as a definitive determination. Moreover, the 1998 amendments to the Kansas fuel provisions, including the amendment to § 79-3408(c) that provides that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distributor,” were not applied in Kaul. Id., at 473, 970 P. 2d, at 66 (identifying provisions that were repealed in 1998 as being “in effect during the period relevant to this case”); id., at 474, 970 P. 2d, at 67 (noting that a “critical statute” to its holding was the 1995 version of § 79-3409, which was amended in 1998). Accordingly, Kaul did not speak authoritatively on the provisions before us today.
B
The Nation maintains that we must apply the Bracker interest-balancing test, irrespective of the identity of the taxpayer (i. e., the party bearing the legal incidence), because the Kansas fiiel tax arises as a result of the on-reservation sale and delivery of the motor fuel. See Brief for Respondent 15. Notably, however, the Nation presented a starkly different interpretation of the statute in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, arguing that “[t]he balancing test is appropriate even though the legal incidence of the tax is imposed on the Nation’s non-Indian distributor and is triggered by the distributor’s receipt of fuel outside the reservation.” Appellant’s Reply Brief in No. 03-3218 (CA10), p. 3 (emphasis added); see also 241 F. Supp. 2d, at 1311 (District Court observing that “it is undisputed that the legal incidence of the tax is directed off-reservation at the fuel distributors”). A “fair interpretation of the taxing statute as written and applied,” Chemehuevi Tribe, 474 U. S., at 11, confirms that the Nation's interpretation of the statute before the Court of Appeals was correct.
As written, the Kansas fuel tax provisions state that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distributor of the first receipt of the motor fuel and such taxes shall be paid but once. Such tax shall be computed on all motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels received by each distributor, manufacturer or importer in this state and paid in the manner provided for herein....” Kan. Stat. Ann. §79-3408(c) (2003 Cum. Supp.). Under this provision, the distributor who initially receives the motor fuel is liable for payment of the fuel tax, and the distributor’s tax liability is determined by calculating the amount of fuel received by the distributor.
Section 79-3410(a) (1997) confirms that it is the distributor’s off-reservation receipt of the motor fuel, and not any subsequent event, that establishes tax liability. That section provides:
“[E]very distributor, manufacturer, importer, exporter or retailer of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels, on or before the 25th day of each month, shall render to the director... a report certified to be true and correct showing the number of gallons of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels received by such distributor, manufacturer, importer, exporter or retailer during the preceding calendar month.... Every distributor, manufacturer or importer within the time herein fixed for the rendering of such reports, shall compute and shall pay to the director at the director’s office the amount of taxes due to the state on all motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels received by such distributor, manufacturer or importer during the preceding calendar month.”
Thus, Kansas law expressly provides that a distributor’s monthly tax obligations are determined by the amount of fuel received by the distributor during the preceding month. See Kline, 297 F. Supp. 2d, at 1294 (“The distributor must compute and remit the tax each month for the fuel received by the distributor in the State of Kansas”).
The Nation disagrees. It contends that what is taxed is not the distributors’ (off-reservation) receipt of the fuel, but rather the distributors’ use, sale, or delivery of the motor fuel — in this case, the distributors’ (on-reservation) sale or delivery to the Nation. The Nation grounds support for this proposition in § 79-3408(a) (2003 Cum. Supp.). That section provides that “[a] tax... is hereby imposed on the use, sale or delivery of all motor vehicle fuels or special fuels which are used, sold or delivered in this state for any purpose whatsoever.” But this section cannot be read in isolation. If it were, it would permit Kansas to tax the same fuel multiple times — namely, every time fuel is sold, delivered, or used. Section 79-3408(a) must be read in conjunction with subsection (c), which specifies that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distributor of the first receipt of the motor fuel and such taxes shall be paid but once.” (Emphasis added.) The identity of the single, taxable event is revealed in the very next sentence of subsection (c), which provides that “[s]uch tax shall be computed on all... fuels received by each distributor.” (Emphasis added.) In short, the “use, sale or delivery” that triggers tax liability is the sale or delivery of the fiiel to the distributor. The Kansas Department of Revenue has issued a final determination reaching the same conclusion. See Kansas Dept, of Revenue Letter (“[Pjursuant to the Kansas Motor Fuel Tax Act... the state fuel tax was imposed on Davies, a distributor, when Davies first received the fuel at its business, a site located off of Nation’s reservation” (emphasis added)).
The Nation claims further support for its interpretation of the statute in §79-3408(d) (2003 Cum. Supp.). Section 79-3408(d) permits distributors to obtain deductions from the Kansas motor fuel tax for certain postreceipt transactions, such as sale or delivery of fuel for export from the State and sale or delivery of fuel to the United States. §§ 79-3408(d)(1)-(2). The Nation argues that these exemptions make it impossible for a distributor to calculate its “ultimate tax liability” without knowing “whether, where, and to whom the fuel is ultimately sold or delivered.” Brief for Respondent 15. The Nation infers from these provisions that the taxable event is actually the distributors’ postre-ceipt delivery of fuel to retailers such as the Nation, rather than the distributors’ initial receipt of the fuel.
The Nation’s theory suffers from a number of conceptual defects. First, under Kansas law, a distributor must pay the tax even for fuel that sits in its inventory — fuel that is not (or at least has not yet been) used, sold, or delivered by the distributor. But the Nation’s interpretation presumes that the tax is owed only on a distributor’s postreeeipt use, sale, or delivery of fuel. As this interpretation cannot be reconciled with the manner in which the Kansas motor fuel tax is actually applied, it must be rejected. Second, the availability of tax deductions does not change the nature of the taxable event, here the distributor’s receipt of the fuel. By analogy, an individual federal income taxpayer may reduce his tax liability by paying home mortgage interest. But that entitlement does not render the taxable event anything other than the receipt of income by the taxpayer. See 26 U.S.C. §1 (2000 ed. and Supp. II), § 163(h) (2000 ed.); cf. North American Oil Consol, v. Burnet, 286 U. S. 417, 424 (1982) (federal income tax liability arises when “a taxpayer... has received income”).
Finally, the Nation contends that its interpretation of the statute is supported by Kan. Stat. Ann. §79-3417 (1997), which permits a refund — in certain circumstances — for destroyed fuel. However, the Nation’s interpretation is actually foreclosed by that section. Section 79-3417 entitles a distributor to a “refund from the state of the amount of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels tax paid on any... fuels of 100 gallons or more in quantity, which are lost or destroyed at any one time while such distributor is the owner thereof,” provided the distributor supplies the required notification and documentation to the State. This section illustrates that a distributor pays taxes for fuel in its possession that it has not delivered or sold, and is only entitled to the refund described in this section for tax it has already paid on fuel that is subsequently destroyed. While this section does not specify the event that gives rise to the distributor’s tax liability, it forecloses the Nation’s contention that such liability does not arise until fuel is sold or delivered to a nonexempt entity.
III
Although Kansas’ fuel tax is imposed on non-Indian distributors based upon those distributors’ off-reservation receipt of motor fuel, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the tax was nevertheless still subject to the interest-balancing test this Court set forth in Bracker, 448 U. S. 136. As Bracker itself explained, however, we formulated the balancing test to address the “difficult questio[n]” that arises when “a State asserts authority over the conduct of non-Indians engaging in activity on the reservation” Id., at 144-145 (emphasis added). The Bracker interest-balancing test has never been applied where, as here, the State asserts its taxing authority over non-Indians off the reservation. And although we have never addressed this precise issue, our Indian tax immunity cases counsel against such an application.
A
We have applied the balancing test articulated in Bracker only where “the legal incidence of the tax fell on a nontribal entity engaged in a transaction with tribes or tribal members,” Arizona Dept, of Revenue v. Blaze Constr. Co., 526 U. S. 32, 37 (1999), on the reservation. See Bracker, supra (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on on-reservation logging and hauling operations by non-Indian contractor); Department of Taxation and Finance of N. Y. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., 512 U. S. 61 (1994) (various taxes imposed on non-Indian purchasers of goods retailed on-reservation); Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989) (state severance tax imposed on non-Indian lessee’s on-reservation production of oil and gas); Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832 (1982) (state gross receipts tax imposed on private contractor’s proceeds from the construction of a school on the reservation); Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134 (1980) (cigarette and sales taxes imposed on on-reservation purchases by nonmembers); Central Machinery Co., 448 U. S. 160 (tax imposed on on-reservation sale of farm machinery to Tribe). Similarly, the cases identified in Bracker as supportive of the balancing test were exclusively concerned with the on-reservation conduct of non-Indians. See Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685 (1965) (gross proceeds tax imposed on non-Indian retailer on Navajo Indian Reservation); Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264 (1898) (state property tax imposed on cattle owned by non-Indian lessees of tribal land); Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959) (holding the state courts lacked jurisdiction over dispute between non-Indian, on-reservation retailer and Indian debtors).
Limiting the interest-balancing test exclusively to on-reservation transactions between a nontribal entity and a tribe or tribal member is consistent with our unique Indian tax immunity jurisprudence. We have explained that this jurisprudence relies “heavily on the doctrine of tribal sovereignty... which historically gave state law ‘no role to play’ within a tribe’s territorial boundaries.” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U. S. 114, 123-124 (1993) (quoting McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 168 (1973)). We have further explained that the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, which has a “significant geographical component,” Bracker, supra, at 151, requires us to “revers[e]” the “‘general rule’” that ‘“exemptions from tax laws should... be clearly expressed.’ ” Sac and Fox, supra, at 124 (quoting McClanahan, supra, at 176). And we have determined that the geographical component of tribal sovereignty “ ‘provide[s] a backdrop against which the applicable treaties and federal statutes must be read.’” Sac and Fox, supra, at 124 (quoting McClanahan, supra, at 172). Indeed, the particularized inquiry we set forth in Bracker relied specifically on that backdrop. See 448 U. S., at 144-145 (noting that where “a State asserts authority over the conduct of non-Indians engaging in activity on the reservation... we have examined the language of the relevant federal treaties and statutes in terms of both the broad policies that underlie them and the notions of sovereignty that have developed from historical traditions of tribal independence” (emphasis added)).
We have taken an altogether different course, by contrast, when a State asserts its taxing authority outside of Indian country. Without applying the interest-balancing test, we have permitted the taxation of the gross receipts of an off-reservation, Indian-owned ski resort, Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145 (1973), and the taxation of income earned by Indians working on reservation but living off reservation, Chickasaw, 515 U. S. 450. In these cases, we have concluded that “[a]bsent express federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to nondiscriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State.” Mescalero Apache, supra, at 148-149; Chickasaw, supra, at 465 (quoting Mescalero Apache, supra, at 148-149). If a State may apply a nondiscriminatory tax to Indians who have gone beyond the boundaries of the reservation, then it follows that it may apply a nondiscriminatory tax where, as here, the tax is imposed on non-Indians as a result of an off-reservation transaction. In these circumstances, the interest-balancing test set forth in Bracker is inapplicable. Cf. Blaze Constr., 526 U. S., at 37 (declining to apply the Bracker interest-balancing test “where a State seeks to tax a transaction [on reservation] between the Federal Government and its non-Indian private contractor”).
The application of the interest-balancing test to the Kansas motor fuel tax is not only inconsistent with the special geographic sovereignty concerns that gave rise to that test, but also with our efforts to establish “bright-line standard[s]” in the context of tax administration. 526 U. S., at 37 (“The need to avoid litigation and to ensure efficient tax administration counsels in favor of a bright-line standard for taxation of federal contracts, regardless of whether the contracted-for activity takes place on Indian reservations”); cf. Chickasaw, supra, at 460 (noting that the legal incidence test “ *provide[s] a reasonably bright-line standard’ ”); County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U. S. 251, 267-268 (1992). Indeed, we have recognized that the Bracker interest-balancing test “only cloud[s]” our efforts to establish such standards. Blaze Constr., supra, at 37. Under the Nation’s view, however, any off-reservation tax imposed on the manufacture or sale of any good imported by the Nation or one of its members would be subject to interest balancing. Such an expansion of the application of the Bracker test is not supported by our cases.
Nor is the Nation entitled to interest balancing by virtue of its claim that the Kansas motor fuel tax interferes with its own motor fuel tax. As an initial matter, this is ultimately a complaint about the downstream economic consequences of the Kansas tax. As the owner of the station, the. Nation will keep every dollar it collects above its operating costs. Given that the Nation sells gas at prevailing market rates, its decision to impose a tax should have no effect on its net revenues from the operation of the station; it should not matter whether those revenues are labeled “profits” or “tax proceeds.” The Nation merely seeks to increase those revenues by purchasing untaxed fuel. But the Nation cannot invalidate the Kansas tax by complaining about a decrease in revenues. See Colville, 447 U. S., at 156 (“Washington does not infringe the right of reservation Indians to'make their own laws and be ruled by them,’ Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959), merely because the result of imposing its taxes will be to deprive the Tribes of revenues which they currently are receiving”). Nor would our analysis change if we accorded legal significance to the Nation’s decision to label a portion of the station’s revenues as tax proceeds. See id., at 184, n. 9 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part, concur-ing in result in part, and dissenting in part) (“When two sovereigns have legitimate authority to tax the same transaction, exercise of that authority by one sovereign does not oust the jurisdiction of the other. If it were otherwise, we would not be obligated to pay federal as well as state taxes on our income or gasoline purchases. Economic burdens on the competing sovereign... do not alter the concurrent nature of the taxing authority”)-
B
Finally, the Nation contends that the Kansas motor fuel tax is invalid notwithstanding the inapplicability of the interest-balancing test, because it “exempts from taxation fuel sold or delivered to all other sovereigns,” and is therefore impermissibly discriminatory. Brief for Respondent 17-20 (emphasis deleted); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 79-3408(d)(1)-(2) (2003 Cum. Supp.). But the Nation is not similarly situated to the sovereigns exempted from the Kansas fuel tax. While Kansas uses the proceeds from its fuel tax to pay for a significant portion of the costs of maintaining the roads and bridges on the Nation’s reservation, including the main highway used by the Nation’s casino patrons, Kansas offers no such services to the several States or the Federal Government. Moreover, to the extent Kansas fuel retailers bear the cost of the fuel tax, that burden falls equally upon all retailers within the State regardless of whether those retailers are located on an Indian reservation. Accordingly, the Kansas motor fuel tax is not impermissibly discriminatory.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Kansas motor fuel tax is a nondiscriminatory tax imposed on an off-reservation transaction between non-Indians. Accordingly, the tax is valid and poses no affront to the Nation’s sovereignty. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The Kansas Legislature recently amended the fuel tax statute. 2005 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 46. The text of the sections to which we refer remains the same, although the subsection numbers have changed. For consistency, our subsection references are to the 2003 version applied by the lower courts and cited by the parties.
The record does not clearly establish whether the distributor passed along the cost of the tax to the Nation’s gas station. At oral argument, petitioner acknowledged that the record was unclear, but represented that the distributor was in fact passing along the cost of the tax to the Nation.
This understanding of the application of the Kansas fuel tax is confirmed by the form that fuel distributors are required to fill out each month pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-3410 (1997). See Kansas Form MF-52, available at http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/mf52.pdf (as visited Nov. 21, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). The form instructs distributors to enter in line 1 “the total net gallons of gasoline, gasohol and special fuel received or imported” during the preceding month. Id., at 2. The distributors may then “[e]nter the deductions that apply to your business” in lines 2(a)-to-(e) for the preceding month. Those deductions include “[n]et gallons of fuel exported from Kansas,” “[n]et gallons of fuel sold to the U. S. Government,” “[n)et gallons of fuel sold for aviation purposes,” and “[n]et gallons of dyed diesel fuel received for the month,” the very deductions described in §79-3408(d), ibid, (emphasis in original). The distributor’s tax liability is then calculated by subtracting the total deductions from the total fuel received, and applying the 2.5 percent handling allowance to the difference. Thus, the event that generates a distributor’s tax liability is its receipt of fuel. And the distributor must pay tax on that fuel even if it is not subsequently delivered or sold. While a distributor may decrease its tax liability by engaging in transactions that entitle it to deductions, such as by selling or delivering fuel to an exempt entity like the United States, its tax liability is unaffected by sales or deliveries to nonexempt entities like the Nation.
Indeed, the dissent acknowledges that tax is owed on fuel a distributor receives and holds in inventory — and thus implicitly concedes that the distributors’ off-reservation receipt of motor fuel is the event that gives rise to tax liability. See post, at 120 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). While the dissent contends that such tax is ultimately “effectively offset” by a subsequent delivery of the inventoried fuel, ibid., the dissent does not explain the meaning of this opaque contention. A distributor’s subsequent delivery of fuel to the Nation or any other fuel retailer in Kansas has no effect on tax that it has already paid in a preceding month. Indeed, the distributor does not report delivery to retailers on its monthly tax return. See Kansas Form MF-52. And a distributor must pay the tax even if the fuel is never delivered.
Our recent discussion in Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U. S. 450 (1995), regarding the application of the interest-balancing test to motor fuel taxes is not to the contrary. In Chickasaw, we noted in dicta that, “if the legal incidence of the tax rests on non-Indians, no categorical bar prevents enforcement of the tax
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
Appellee’s draft Board rejected his claim to classification as a conscientious objector and classified him I-A. His appeals within the Selective Service System were unsuccessful. After he was ordered to report for induction he brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to have his induction enjoined and to have the rejection of his claim to conscientious objector classification declared improper on the grounds that it had no basis in fact, that the Board had misapplied the statutory definition of conscientious objector, and that the members of the Board were improperly motivated by hostility and bias against those who claim to be conscientious objectors. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction preventing appellee’s induction until after a determination of his claim on the merits.
In entering the preliminary injunction, the District Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear appellee’s claim despite § 10 (b) (3) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U. S. C. App. § 460 (b)(3) (1964 ed., Supp. Ill), which provides:
“No judicial review shall be made of the classification or processing of any registrant by local boards, appeal boards, or the President, except as a defense to a criminal prosecution instituted under section 12 of this title, after the registrant has responded either affirmatively or negatively to an order to report for induction, or for civilian work in the case of a registrant determined to be opposed to participation in war in any form: Provided, That such review shall go to the question of the jurisdiction herein reserved to local boards, appeal boards, and the President only when there is no basis in fact for the classification assigned to such registrant.”
Acknowledging that this statute if applicable would prevent pre-induction review of appellee’s classification, the District Court held that, so applied, § 10 (b) (3) was unconstitutional because to provide for judicial consideration of the lawfulness of the Board’s action only as a defense to a criminal prosecution would require that appellee pursue a “tortuous judicial adventure” so beset by “hazards” and “penalties” as to result “in no review at all.” The Government has appealed under 28 U. S. C. § 1252 which allows direct appeal to this Court of “an interlocutory or final judgment, decree or order of any court of the United States . . . holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in any civil action ... to which the United States ... or any officer . . . thereof ... is a party.”
This Court has today, after full consideration, decided Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd., ante, p. 233. Because the result here is dictated by the principles enunciated in that case, it is appropriate to decide this case summarily, reversing the District Court.
In Oestereich the delinquency procedure by which the registrant was reclassified was without statutory basis and in conflict with petitioner’s rights explicitly established by the statute and not dependent upon an act of judgment by the Board. Oestereich, as a divinity student, was by statute unconditionally entitled to exemption. Here, by contrast, there is no doubt of the Board’s statutory authority to take action which appellee challenges, and that action inescapably involves a determination of fact and an exercise of judgment. By statute, classification as a conscientious objector is expressly conditioned on the registrant’s claim being “sustained by the local board.” 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (j) (1964 ed., Supp. III).
Here the Board has exercised its statutory discretion to pass on a particular request for classification, “evaluating evidence and . . . determining whether a claimed exemption is deserved.” Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd., supra, at 238. A Local Board must make such a decision in respect of each of the many classification claims presented to it. To allow pre-induction judicial review of such determinations would be to permit precisely the kind of “litigious interruptions of procedures to provide necessary military manpower” (113 Cong. Rec. 15426 (report by Senator Russell on Conference Committee action)) which Congress sought to prevent when it enacted §10 (b)(3).
We find no constitutional objection to Congress’ thus requiring that assertion of a conscientious objector’s claims such as those advanced by appellee be deferred until after induction, if that is the course he chooses, whereupon habeas corpus would be an available remedy, or until defense of the criminal prosecution which would follow should he press his objections to his classification to the point of refusing to submit to induction. Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114 (1946); Falbo v. United States, 320 U. S. 549 (1944).
The motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The decision of the District Court is reversed, and the case remanded for issuance of an order dissolving the preliminary injunction and dismissing the action.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Rio Mimbres rises in the southwestern highlands of New Mexico and flows generally southward, finally disappearing in a desert sink just north of the Mexican border. The river originates in the upper reaches of the Gila National Forest, but during its course it winds more than 50 miles past privately owned lands and provides substantial water for both irrigation and mining. In 1970, a stream adjudication was begun by the State of New Mexico to determine the exact rights of each user to water from the Rio Mimbres. In this adjudication the United States claimed reserved water rights for use in the Gila National Forest. The State District Court held that the United States, in setting aside the Gila National Forest from other public lands, reserved the use of such water “as may be necessary for the purposes for which [the land was] withdrawn,” but that these purposes did not include recreation, aesthetics, wildlife preservation, or cattle grazing. The United States appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 90 N. M. 410, 564 P. 2d 615 (1977). We granted certiorari to consider whether the Supreme Court of New Mexico had applied the correct principles of federal law in determining petitioner’s reserved rights in the Mimbres. 434 U. S. 1008. We now affirm.
The question posed in this case — what quantity of water, if any, the United States reserved out of the Rio Mimbres when it set aside the Gila National Forest in 1899 — is a question of implied intent and not power. In California v. United States, ante, at 653-663, we had occasion to discuss the respective authority of Federal and State Governments over waters in the Western States. The Court has previously concluded that whatever powers the States acquired over their waters as a result of congressional Acts and admission into the Union, however, Congress did not intend thereby to relinquish its authority to reserve unappropriated water in the future for use on appurtenant lands withdrawn from the public domain for specific federal purposes. Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 577 (1908); Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546, 597-598 (1963); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U. S. 128, 143-146 (1976).
Recognition of Congress’ power to reserve water for land which is itself set apart from the public domain, however, does not answer the question of the amount of water which has been reserved or the purposes for which the water may be used. Substantial portions of the public domain have been withdrawn and reserved by the United States for use as Indian reservations, forest reserves, national parks, and national monuments. And water is frequently necessary to achieve the purposes for which these reservations are made. But Congress has seldom expressly reserved water for use on these withdrawn lands. If water were abundant, Congress’ silence would pose no problem. In the arid parts of the West, however, claims to water for use on federal reservations inescapably vie with other public and private claims for the limited quantities to be found in the rivers and streams. This competition is compounded by the sheer quantity of reserved lands in the Western States, which lands form brightly colored swaths across the maps of these States.
The Court has previously concluded that Congress, in giving the President the power to reserve portions of the federal domain for specific federal purposes, impliedly authorized him to reserve "appurtenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation.” Cappaert, supra, at 138 (emphasis added). See Arizona v. California, supra, at 595-601; United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S. 520, 522-523 (1971); Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 805 (1976). While many of the contours of what has come to be called the “implied-reservation-of-water doctrine” remain unspecified, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that Congress reserved “only that amount of water necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation, no more.” Cappaert, supra, at 141. See Arizona v. California, supra, at 600-601; District Court for Eagle County, supra, at 523. Each time this Court has applied the “implied-reservation-of-water doctrine,” it has carefully examined both the asserted water right and the specific purposes for which the land was reserved, and concluded that without the water the purposes of the reservation would be entirely defeated.
This careful examination is required both because the reservation is implied, rather than expressed, and because of the history of congressional intent in the field of federal-state jurisdiction with respect to allocation of water. Where Congress has expressly addressed the question of whether federal entities must abide by state water law, it has almost invariably deferred to the state law. See California v. United States, ante, at 653-670, 678-679. Where water is necessary to fulfill the very purposes for which a federal reservation was created, it is reasonable to conclude, even in the face of Congress’ express deference to state water law in other areas, that the United States intended to reserve the necessary water. Where water is only valuable for a secondary use of the reservation, however, there arises the contrary inference that Congress intended, consistent with its other views, that the United States would acquire water in the same manner as any other public or private appropriator.
Congress indeed has appropriated funds for the acquisition under state law of water to be used on federal reservations. Thus, in the National Park Service Act of Aug. 7, 1946, 60 Stat. 885, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 17j — 2 (1976 ed.), Congress authorized appropriations for the “ [investigation and establishment of water rights in accordance with local custom, laws, and decisions of courts, including the acquisition of water rights or of lands or interests in lands or rights-of-way for use and protection of water rights necessary or beneficial in the administration and public use of the national parks and monuments.” (Emphasis added.) The agencies responsible for administering the federal reservations have also recognized Congress' intent to acquire under state law any water not essential to the specific purposes of the reservation.
The State District Court referred the issues in this case to a Special Master, who found that the United States was diverting 6.9 acre-feet per annum of water for domestic-residential use, 6.5 acre-feet for road-water use, 3.23 acre-feet for domestic-recreational use, and.10 acre-foot for “wildlife” purposes. The Special Master also found that specified amounts of water were being used in the Gila National Forest for stockwatering and that an “instream flow” of six cubic feet per second was being “used” for the purposes of fish preservation. The Special Master apparently believed that all of these uses fell within the reservation doctrine, and also concluded that the United States might have reserved rights for future water needs, ordering it to submit a report on future requirements within one year of his decision.
The District Court of Luna County disagreed with many of the Special Master’s legal conclusions, but agreed with the Special Master that the Government should prepare within one year a report covering any future water requirements that might support a claim of reserved right in the waters of the Rio Mimbres. The District Court concluded that the United States had not established a reserved right to a minimum instream flow for any of the purposes for which the Gila National Forest was established, and that any water rights arising from cattle grazing by permittees on the forest should be adjudicated “to the permittee under the law of prior appropriation and not to the United States.”
The United States appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. The United States contended that it was entitled to a minimum instream flow for “aesthetic, environmental, recreational and 'fish’ purposes.” 90 N. M., at 412, 564 P. 2d, at 617. The Supreme Court of New Mexico concluded that, at least before the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 215, 16 U. S. C. § 528 et seq. (1976 ed.), national forests could only be created “to insure favorable conditions of water flow and to furnish a continuous supply of timber” and not for the purposes upon which the United States was now basing its asserted reserved rights in a minimum instream flow. 90 N. M., at 412-413, 564 P. 2d, at 617-619. The United States also argued that it was entitled to a reserved right for stockwatering purposes. The State Supreme Court again disagreed, holding that stockwatering was not a purpose for which the national forests were created. Id., at 414, 564 P. 2d, at 619.
II
A
The quantification of reserved water rights for the national forests is of critical importance to the West, where, as noted earlier, water is scarce and where more than 50% of the available water either originates in or flows through national forests. When, as in the case of the Rio Mimbres, a river is fully appropriated, federal reserved water rights will frequently require a gallon-for-gallon reduction in the amount of water available for water-needy state and private appropriators. This reality has not escaped the attention of Congress and must be weighed in determining what, if any, water Congress reserved for use in the national forests.
The United States contends that Congress intended to reserve minimum instream flows for aesthetic, recreational, and fish-preservation purposes. An examination of the limited purposes for which Congress authorized the creation of national forests, however, provides no support for this claim. In the mid and late 1800’s, many of the forestó on the public domain were ravaged and the fear arose that the forest lands might soon disappear, leaving the United States with a shortage both of timber and of watersheds with which to encourage stream flows while preventing floods. It was in answer to these fears that in 1891 Congress authorized the President to “set apart and reserve, in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations.” Creative Act of Mar. 3, 1891, § 24, 26 Stat. 1103, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 471 (repealed 1976).
The Creative Act of 1891 unfortunately did not solve the forest problems of the expanding Nation. To the dismay of the conservationists, the new national forests were not adequately attended and regulated; fires and indiscriminate timber cutting continued their toll. To the anguish of Western settlers, reservations were frequently made indiscriminately. President Cleveland, in particular, responded to pleas of conservationists for greater protective measures by reserving some 21 million acres of “generally settled” forest land on February 22, 1897. President Cleveland’s action drew immediate and strong protest from Western Congressmen who felt that the “hasty and ill considered” reservation might prove disastrous to the settlers living on or near these lands.
Congress’ answer to these continuing problems was threefold. It suspended the President’s Executive Order of February 22, 1897; it carefully defined the purposes for which national forests could in the future be reserved; and it provided a charter for forest management and economic uses within the forests. Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 34, 16 U. S. C. §473 et seg. (1976 ed.). In particular, Congress provided:
“No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of [the Creative Act of 1891], to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes.” 30 Stat. 35, as codified, 16 U. S. C. § 475 (1976 ed.) (emphasis added).
The legislative debates surrounding the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and its predecessor bills demonstrate that Congress intended national forests to be reserved for only two purposes — “[t]o conserve the water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the people.” 30 Cong. Rec. 967 (1897) (Cong. McRae). See United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 515 (1911). National forests were not to be reserved for aesthetic, environmental, recreational, or wildlife-preservation purposes.
“The objects for which the forest reservations should be made are the protection of the forest growth against destruction by fire and ax, and preservation of forest conditions upon which water conditions and water flow are dependent. The purpose, therefore, of this bill is to maintain favorable forest conditions, without excluding the use of these reservations for other purposes. They are not parks set aside for nonuse, but have been established for economic reasons.” 30 Cong. Rec. 966 (1897) (Cong. McRae).
Administrative regulations at the turn of the century confirmed that national forests were to be reserved for only these two limited purposes.
Any doubt as to the relatively narrow purposes for which national forests were to be reserved is removed by comparing the broader language Congress used to authorize the establishment of national parks. In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service and provided that the
“fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations... is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same... unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” National Park Service Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 535, § 1, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1 (1976 ed.).
When it was Congress’ intent to maintain minimum instream flows within the confines of a national forest, it expressly so directed, as it did in the case of the Lake Superior National Forest:
“In order to preserve the shore lines, rapids, waterfalls, beaches and other natural features of the region in an unmodified state of nature, no further alteration of the natural water level of any lake or stream... shall be authorized.” 16 U. S. C. § 577b' (1976 ed.).
National park legislation is not the only instructive comparison. In the Act of Mar. 10, 19S4, 48 Stat. 400, 16 U. S. C. § 694 (1976 ed.), Congress authorized the establishment within individual national forests of fish and game sanctuaries, but only with the consent of the state legislatures. The Act specifically provided:
“For the purpose of providing breeding places for game birds, game animals, and fish on lands and waters in the national forests not chiefly suitable for agriculture, the President of the United States is authorized, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce and with the approval of the State legislatures of the respective States in which said national forests are situated, to establish by public proclamation certain specified and limited areas within said forests as fish and game sanctuaries or refuges which shall be devoted to the increase of game birds, game animals, and fish of all kinds naturally adapted thereto.” (Emphasis added.)
If, as the dissent contends, post, at 722, Congress in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 authorized the reservation of forests to “improve and protect” fish and wildlife, the 1984 Act would have been unnecessary. Nor is the dissent's position consistent with Congress' concern in 1934 that fish and wildlife preserves only be created “with the approval of the State legislatures.”
As the dissent notes, in creating what would ultimately become Yosemite National Park, Congress in 1890 explicitly instructed the Secretary of the Interior to provide against the wanton destruction of fish and game inside the forest and against their taking “for the purposes of merchandise or profit.” -Act of Oct. 1, 1890, § 2, 26 Stat. 651. Congress also instructed the Secretary to protect all “the natural curiosities, or wonders within such reservation,... in their natural condition.” By comparison, Congress in the 1897 Organic Act expressed no concern for the preservation of fish and wildlife within national forests generally, Nor is such a concern found in any of the comments made during the legislative debate on the 1897 Act. Cf. also H. It. 119, 54th Cong., 1st Sess., 28 Cong. Ree. 6410 (1896).
B
Not only is the Government’s claim that Congress intended to reserve water for recreation and wildlife preservation inconsistent with Congress’- failure to recognize these goals as purposes of the national forests, it would defeat the very purpose for which Congress did create the national forest system.
“[F] orests exert a most important regulating influence upon the flow of rivers, reducing floods and increasing the water supply in the low stages. The importance of their conservation on the mountainous watersheds which collect the scanty supply for the arid regions of North America can hardly be overstated. With the natural regimen of the streams replaced by destructive floods in the spring, and by dry beds in the months when the irrigating flow is most needed, the irrigation of wide areas now proposed will be impossible, and regions now supporting prosperous communities will become depopulated.” S. Doc. No. 105, 55th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1897).
The water that would be “insured” by preservation of the forest was to “be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes, under the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder.” Organic Administration Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 36, 16 U. S. C. § 481 (1976 ed.). As this provision and its legislative history-evidence, Congress authorized the national forest system principally as a means of enhancing the quantity of water that would be available to the settlers of the arid West. The Government, however, would have us now believe that Congress intended to partially defeat this goal by reserving significant amounts of water for purposes quite inconsistent with this goal.
C
In 1960, Congress passed the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 215, 16 U. S. C. § 528 et seq. (1976 ed.), which provides:
“It is the policy of Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The purposes of sections 528 to 531 of this title are declared to be supplemental to, but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established as set forth in the [Organic Administration Act of 1897.]”
The Supreme Court of New Mexico concluded that this Act did not give rise to any reserved rights not previously authorized in the Organic Administration Act of 1897. “The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 does not have a retroactive effect nor can it broaden the purposes for which the Gila National Forest was established under the Organic Act of 1897.” 90 N. M., at 413, 564 P. 2d, at 618. While we conclude that the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 was intended to broaden the purposes for which national forests had previously been administered, we agree that Congress did not intend to thereby expand the reserved rights of the United States.
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 establishes the purposes for which the national forests “are established and shall be administered.” (Emphasis added.) The Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to administer all forests, including those previously established, on a multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. H.. R. 10572, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1960). In the administration of the national forests, therefore, Congress intended the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 to broaden the benefits accruing from all reserved national forests.
The House Report accompanying the 1960 legislation, however, indicates that recreation, range, and “fish” purposes are “to be supplemental to, but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established” in the Organic Administration Act of 1897.
“The addition of the sentence to follow the first sentence in section 1 is to make it clear that the declaration of congressional policy that the national forests are established and shall be administered for the purposes enumerated is supplemental to, but is not in derogation of, the purposes of improving and protecting the forest or for securing favorable conditions of water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber as set out in the cited provision of the act of June 4, 1897. Thus, in any establishment of a national forest a purpose set out in the 1897 act must be present but there may also exist one or more of the additional purposes listed in the bill. In other words, a national forest could not be established just for the purpose of outdoor recreation, range, or wildlife and fish purposes, but such purposes could be a reason for the establishment of the forest if there also were one or more of the purposes of improving and protecting the forest, securing favorable conditions of water flows, or to furnish a continuous supply of timber as set out in the 1897 act.” H. R. Rep. No. 1551, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1960).
As discussed earlier, the “reserved rights doctrine” is a doctrine built on implication and is an exception to Congress’ explicit deference to state water law in other areas. Without legislative history to the contrary, we are led to conclude that Congress did not intend in enacting the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 to reserve water for the secondary purposes there established. A reservation of additional water could mean a substantial loss in the amount of water available for irrigation and domestic use, thereby defeating Congress’ principal purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flow. Congress intended the national forests to be administered for broader purposes after 1960 but there is no indication that it believed the new purposes to be so crucial as to require a reservation of additional water. By reaffirming the primacy of a favorable water flow, it indicated the opposite intent.
Ill
What we have said also answers the Government’s contention that Congress intended to reserve water from the Rio Mimbres for stockwatering purposes. The United States issues permits to private cattle owners to graze their stock on the Gila National Forest and provides for stockwatering at various locations along the Rio Mimbres. The United States contends that, since Congress clearly foresaw stockwatering on national forests, reserved rights must be recognized for this purpose. The New Mexico courts disagreed and held that any stock-watering rights must be allocated under state law to individual stockwaterers. We agree.
While Congress intended the national forests to be put to a variety of uses, including stockwatering, not inconsistent with the two principal purposes of the forests, stockwatering was not itself a direct purpose of reserving the land. If stock-watering could not take place in the Gila National Forest, Congress’ purposes in reserving the land would not be defeated. Congress, of course, did intend to secure favorable water flows, and one of the uses to which the enhanced water supply was intended to be placed was probably stockwatering. But Congress intended the water supply from the Rio Mimbres to be allocated among private appropriators under state law. 16 U. S. C. §481 (1976 ed.). There is no indication in the legislative histories of any of the forest Acts that Congress foresaw any need for the Forest Service to allocate water for stockwatering purposes, a task to which state law was well suited.
IY
Congress intended that water would be reserved only where necessary to preserve the timber or to secure favorable water flows for private and public uses under state law. This intent is revealed in the purposes for which the national forest system was created and Congress’ principled deference to state water law in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and other legislation. The decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico is faithful to this congressional intent and is therefore
Affirmed.
The suit was initially filed in 1966 as a private action by the Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. to enjoin alleged illegal diversions from the Rio Mimbres. In 1970, the State of New Mexico, pursuant to New Mexico Stat. Ann. §75-4-4 (1953), filed a complaint-in-intervention seeking a general adjudication of water rights in the Rio Mimbres and its tributaries. Under 43 U. S. C. § 666 (a), “[c]onsent is given to> join the United States as a defendant in any suit... for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source,” including the reserved rights of the United States. See United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S. 520 (1971); United States v. District Court for Water Div. No. 5, 401 U. S. 527 (1971).
See also Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U. S. 604 (1978).
The percentage of federally owned land (excluding Indian reservations and other trust properties) in the Western States ranges from 29.5% of the land in the State of Washington to 86.5% of the land in the State of Nevada, an average of about 46%. Of the land in the State of New Mexico, 33.6% is federally owned. General Services Administration, Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World as of June 30, 1974, pp. 17, 34, and App. 1, table 4. Because federal reservations are normally found in the uplands of the Western States rather than the flatlands, the percentage of water flow originating in or flowing through the reservations is even more impressive. More than 60% of the average annual water yield in the 11 Western States is from federal reservations. The percentages of average annual water yield range from a low of 56% in the Columbia-North Pacific water-resource region to a high of 96% in the Upper Colorado region. In the Rio Grande water-resource region, where the Rio Mimbres lies, 77% of the average runoff originates on federal reservations. C. Wheatley, C. Corker, T. Stetson, & D. Reed, Study of the Development, Management and Use of Water Resources on the Public Lands 402-406, and table 4 (1969).
In Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564 (1908), the Court was faced with two questions. First, whether Congress, when it created the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation by treaty, impliedly guaranteed the Indians a reasonable quantity of water. And second, whether Congress repealed this reservation of water when it admitted Montana to the Union one year later “upon an equal footing with the original States.” In answering the first question, the Court emphasized that the reservation was formed to change the Indians’ “nomadic and uncivilized” habits and to make them into “a pastoral and civilized people.” Id., at 576. Without water to irrigate the lands, however, the Fort Belknap Reservation would be “practically valueless” and “civilized communities could not be established thereon.” Ibid. The purpose of the Reservation would thus be “impair[ed] or defeat[ed].” Id., at 577. In answering the second question, the Court concluded that “it would be extreme to believe that within a year Congress destroyed the reservation and took from the Indians the consideration of their grant, leaving them a barren waste — took from them the means of continuing their old habits, yet did not leave them the power to change to new ones.” Ibid.
In Arizona v. California, the Court only had reason to discuss the Master’s finding that the United States had reserved water for use on Arizona Indian reservations. Arizona argued that there was “a lack of evidence showing that the United States in establishing the reservations intended to reserve water for them.” 373 U. S., at 598. The Court disagreed:
“It is impossible to believe that when Congress created the great Colorado River Indian Reservation and when the Executive Department of this Nation created the other reservations they were unaware that most of the lands were of the desert kind — hot, scorching sands — and that water from the river would be essential to the life of the Indian people and to the animals they hunted and the crops they raised.” Id., at 598-599.
The Court also pointed to congressional debate that indicated that Congress had intended to reserve the water for the reservations. Id., at 599.
In Cappaert, Congress had given the President the power to reserve “objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government.” American Antiquities Preservation Act, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U. S. C. § 431 et seq. (1976 ed.). Pursuant to this power, the President had reserved Devil’s Hole as a national monument. Devil’s Hole, according to the Presidential Proclamation, is “ ‘a unique subsurface remnant of the prehistoric chain of lakes which in Pleistocene times formed the Death Valley Lake System’ it also contains “ ‘a peculiar race of desert fish, and zoologists have demonstrated that this race of fish, which is found nowhere else in the world, evolved only after the gradual drying up of the Death Valley Lake System isolated this fish population from the original ancestral stock that in Pleistocene times was common to the entire region.’ ” 426 U. S., at 132. As the Court concluded, the pool was reserved specifically to preserve its scientific interest, principal of which was the Devil’s Hole pupfish. Without a certain quantity of water, these fish would not be able to spawn and would die. This quantity of water was therefore impliedly reserved when the monument was proclaimed. Id., at 141. The Court, however, went on to note that the pool “need only be preserved, consistent with the intention expressed in the Proclamation, to the extent necessary to preserve its scientific interest.... The District Court thus tailored its injunction, very appropriately, to minimal need, curtailing pumping only to the extent necessary to preserve an adequate water level at Devil’s Hole, thus implementing the stated objectives of the Proclamation.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
See Hearings on S. 1275 before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 302-310 (1964) (App. B, supplementary material submitted by Sen. Kuchel), listing 37 statutes in which Congress has expressly recognized the importance of deferring to state water law, from the Mining Act of 1866, § 9, 14 Stat. 253, to the Act of Aug. 28, 1958, § 202, 72 Stat. 1059, stating Congress’ policy to “recognize and protect the rights and interests of the State of Texas in determining the development of the watersheds of the rivers... and its interests and rights in water utilization and control.”
See also the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 737, 16 U. S. C. § 526 (1976 ed.), authorizing the appropriation of funds “for the investigation and establishment of water rights, including the purchase thereof or of lands or interests in land or rights-of-way for use and protection of water rights necessary or beneficial in connection with the administration and public use of the national forests.”
Before this Court’s decisions in FPC v. Oregon, 349 U. S. 435 (1955) and Arizona v. California, recognizing reserved rights outside of Indian reservations, the Forest Service apparently believed that all of its water had to be obtained under state law. “Bights to the use of water for National Forest purposes will be obtained in accordance with State law.” Forest Service Manual (1936). While the Forest Service has apparently modified its policy since those decisions, their Service Manual still indicates a policy of deferring to state water law wherever possible. “The right of the States to appropriate and otherwise control the use of water is recognized, and the policy of the Forest Service is to abide by applicable State laws and regulations relating to water use. When water is needed by the Forest Service either for development of programs, improvements, or other uses, action will be taken promptly to acquire necessary water rights....” Forest Service Handbook §2514 (Feb. 1960). “The rights to use water for national forest purposes will be obtained in accordance with State law. This policy is based on the act of June 4, 1897 (16 U. S. C. [§] 481).” Forest Service Manual §2514.1 (Jan. 1960).
The District Court of Luna County, in its finding of facts, did not list any current water use for “wildlife” purposes. App. 226-227. The United States apparently did not object to this deletion in state court nor does it challenge the deletion in its brief before this Court.
Wheatley, Corker, Stetson & Reed, supra n. 3, at 211.
J. Ise, The United States Forest Policy 62-118 (1972).
Id., at 120-122.
Id., at 129. President Cleveland’s action more than doubled the acreage of then-existing United States forest reserves. Cf. id., at 120.
Id., at 130-139. Western Congressmen had objected since 1891 to what they viewed to be frequently indiscriminate creation of federal forest reserves. Id., at 129-130. A major complaint of the Western Congressmen was that rampant reserving of forest lands by the United States might leave “no opportunity there for further enlargement of civilization by the establishment of agriculture or mining.” 30 Cong. Rec. 1281 (1897) (Sen. Cannon).
The Government notes that the Act forbids the establishment of national forests except “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber,” and argues from this wording that “improvement” and “protection” of the forests form a third and separate purpose of the national forest system. A close examination of the language of the Act, however, reveals that Congress only intended national forests to be established for two purposes. Forests would be created only “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries,” or, in other words, “for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber.”
This reading of the Act is confirmed by its legislative history. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress intended national forests to be established for three purposes,
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Breyer
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III, an opinion with respect to Parts I, II, and V, in which Justice Stevens, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Sou-TER join, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and VI, in which Justice Stevens and Justice Souter join.
These cases present First Amendment challenges to three statutory provisions that seek to regulate the broadcasting of “patently offensive” sex-related material on cable television. Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Act or Act), 106 Stat. 1486, §§ 10(a), 10(b), and 10(c), 47 U. S. C. §§ 532(h), 532(j), and note following § 531. The provisions apply to programs broadcast over cable on what are known as “leased access channels” and “public, educational, or governmental channels.” Two of the provisions essentially permit a cable system operator to prohibit the broadcasting of “programming” that the “operator reasonably believes describes or depicts sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner.” 1992 Act, § 10(a); see § 10(c). See also In re Implementation of Section 10 of the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Indecent Programming and Other Types of Materials on Cable Access Channels, First Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 998 (1993) (First Report and Order); In re Implementation of Section 10 of the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of1992, Indecent Programming and Other Types of Materials on Cable Access Channels, Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 2638 (1993) (Second Report and Order). The remaining provision requires cable system operators to segregate certain “patently offensive” programming, to place it on a single channel, and to block that channel from viewer access unless the viewer requests access in advance and in writing. 1992 Act, § 10(b); 47 CFR § 76.701(g) (1995).
We conclude that the first provision — which permits the operator to decide whether or not to broadcast such programs on leased access channels — is consistent with the First Amendment. The second provision, which requires leased channel operators to segregate and to block that programming, and the third provision, applicable to public, educational, and governmental channels, violate the First Amendment, for they are not appropriately tailored to achieve the basic, legitimate objective of protecting children from exposure to “patently offensive” material.
I
Cable operators typically own a physical cable network used to convey programming over several dozen cable channels into subscribers’ houses. Program sources vary from channel to channel. Most channels carry programming produced by independent firms, including “many national and regional cable programming networks that have emerged in recent years,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 629 (1994), as well as some programming that the system operator itself (or an operator affiliate) may provide. Other channels may simply retransmit through cable the signals of over-the-air broadcast stations. Ibid. Certain special channels here at issue, called “leased channels” and “public, educational, or governmental channels,” carry programs provided by those to whom the law gives special cable system access rights.
A “leased channel” is a channel that federal law requires a cable system operator to reserve for commercial lease by unaffiliated third parties. About 10 to 15 percent of a cable system’s channels would typically fall into this category. See 47 U. S. C. § 532(b). “[P]ublic, educational, or governmental channels” (which we shall call “public access” channels) are channels that, over the years, local governments have required cable system operators to set aside for public, educational, or governmental purposes as part of the consideration an operator gives in return for permission to install cables under city streets and to use public rights-of-way. See § 531; see also H. R. Rep. No. 98-934, p. 30 (1984) (authorizing local authorities to require creation of public access channels). Between 1984 and 1992, federal law (as had much pre-1984 state law, in respect to public access channels) prohibited cable system operators from exercising any editorial control over the content of any program broadcast over either leased or public access channels. See 47 U. S. C. §§ 531(e) (public access), 532(c)(2) (leased access).
In 1992, in an effort to control sexually explicit programming conveyed over access channels, Congress enacted the three provisions before us. The first two provisions relate to leased channels. The first says:
“This subsection shall permit a cable operator to enforce prospectively a written and published policy of prohibiting programming that the cable operator reasonably believes describes or depicts sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards.” 1992 Act, § 10(a)(2), 106 Stat. 1486.
The second provision, applicable only to leased channels, requires cable operators to segregate and to block similar programming if they decide to permit, rather than to prohibit, its broadcast. The provision tells the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to promulgate regulations that will (a) require “programmers to inform cable operators if the program[ming] would be indecent as defined by Commission regulations”; (b) require “cable operators to place” such material “on a single channel”; and (e) require “cable operators to block such single channel unless the subscriber requests access to such channel in writing.” 1992 Act, § 10(b)(1). The Commission issued regulations defining the material at issue in terms virtually identical to those we have already set forth, namely, as descriptions or depictions of “sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner” as measured by the cable viewing community. First Report and Order ¶ ¶ 33-38, at 1003-1004. The regulations require the cable operators to place this material on a single channel and to block it (say, by scrambling). They also require the system operator to provide access to the blocked channel “within 30 days” of a subscriber’s written request for access and to reblock it within 30 days of a subscriber’s request to do so. 47 CFR § 76.701(c) (1995).
The third provision is similar to the first provision, but applies only to public access channels. The relevant statutory section instructs the FCC to promulgate regulations that will
“enable a cable operator of a cable system to prohibit the use, on such system, of any channel capacity of any public, educational, or governmental access facility for any programming which contains obscene material, sexually explicit conduct, or material soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct.” 1992 Act, § 10(c), 106 Stat. 1486.
The FCC, carrying out this statutory instruction, promulgated regulations defining “sexually explicit” in language almost identical to that in the statute’s leased channel provision, namely, as descriptions or depictions of “sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner” as measured by the cable viewing community. See 47 CFR §76.702 (1995) (incorporating definition from § 76.701(g)).
The upshot is, as we said at the beginning, that the federal law before us (the statute as implemented through regulations) now permits cable operators either to allow or to forbid the transmission of “patently offensive” sex-related materials over both leased and public access channels, and requires those operators, at a minimum, to segregate and to block transmission of that same material on leased channels.
Petitioners, claiming that the three statutory provisions, as implemented by the Commission regulations, violate the First Amendment, sought judicial review of the Commission’s First Report and Order and its Second Report and Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A panel of that Circuit agreed with petitioners that the provisions violated the First Amendment. Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 10 F. 3d 812 (1993). The entire Court of Appeals, however, heard the case en banc and reached the opposite conclusion. It held that all three statutory provisions (as implemented) were consistent with the First Amendment. Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (1995). Four of the eleven en banc appeals court judges dissented. Two of the dissenting judges concluded that all three provisions violated the First Amendment. Two others thought that either one, or two, but not all three of the provisions, violated the First Amendment. We granted certiorari to review the en banc court’s First Amendment determinations.
II
We turn initially to the provision that 'permits cable system operators to prohibit “patently offensive” (or “indecent”) programming transmitted over leased access channels. 1992 Act, § 10(a). The Court of Appeals held that this provision did not violate the First Amendment because the First Amendment prohibits only “Congress” (and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, a “State”), not private individuals, from “abridging the freedom of speech.” Although the court said that it found no “state action,” 56 F. 3d, at 113, it could not have meant that phrase literally, for, of course, petitioners attack (as “abridging]... speech”) a congressional statute — which, by definition, is an Act of “Congress.” More likely, the court viewed this statute’s “permissive” provisions as not themselves restricting speech, but, rather, as simply reaffirming the authority to pick and choose programming that a private entity, say, a private broadcaster, would have had in the absence of intervention by any federal, or local, governmental entity.
We recognize that the First Amendment, the terms of which apply to governmental action, ordinarily does not itself throw into constitutional doubt the decisions of private citizens to permit, or to restrict, speech — and this is so ordinarily even where those decisions take place within the framework of a regulatory regime such as broadcasting. Were that not so, courts might have to face the difficult, and potentially restrictive, practical task of deciding which, among any number of private parties involved in providing a program (for example, networks, station owners, program editors, and program producers), is the “speaker” whose rights may not be abridged, and who is the speech-restricting “censor.” Furthermore, as this Court has held, the editorial function itself is an aspect of “speech,” see Turner, 512 U. S., at 636, and a court’s decision that a private party, say, the station owner, is a “censor,” could itself interfere with that private “censor’s” freedom to speak as an editor. Thus, not surprisingly, this Court’s First Amendment broadcasting cases have dealt with governmental efforts to restrict, not governmental efforts to provide or to maintain, a broadcaster’s freedom to pick and to choose programming. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94 (1973) (striking restrictions on broadcaster’s ability to refuse to carry political advertising); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969) (upholding restrictions on editorial authority); FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364 (1984) (striking restrictions); cf. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530 (1980) (striking ban on political speech by public utility using its billing envelopes as a broadcast medium); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y, 447 U. S. 557 (1980) (striking restriction on public utility advertising).
Nonetheless, petitioners, while conceding that this is ordinarily so, point to circumstances that, in their view, make the analogy with private broadcasters inapposite and make these cases special ones, warranting a different constitutional result. As a practical matter, they say, cable system operators have considerably more power to “censor” program viewing than do broadcasters, for individual communities typically have only one cable system, linking broadcasters and other program providers with each community’s many subscribers. See Turner, supra, at 633 (only one cable system in most communities; nationally more than 60% of homes subscribe to cable, which then becomes the primary or sole source of video programming in the overwhelming majority of these homes). Moreover, concern about system operators’ exercise of this considerable power originally led government— local and federal — to insist that operators provide leased and public access channels free of operator editorial control. H. R. Rep. No. 98-934, at 30-31. To permit system operators to supervise programming on leased access channels will create the very private-censorship risk that this anticensorship effort sought to avoid. At the same time, petitioners add, cable systems have two relevant special characteristics. They are unusually involved with government, for they depend upon government permission and government facilities (streets, rights-of-way) to string the cable necessary for their services. And in respect to leased channels, their speech interests are relatively weak because they act less like editors, such as newspapers or television broadcasters, than like common carriers, such as telephone companies.
Under these circumstances, petitioners conclude, Congress’ “permissive” law, in actuality, will “abridge” their free speech. And this Court should treat that law as a con-gressionally imposed, content-based, restriction unredeemed as a properly tailored effort to serve a “compelling interest.” See Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 118 (1991); Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 126 (1989). They further analogize the provisions to constitutionally forbidden content-based restrictions upon speech taking place in “public forums” such as public streets, parks, or buildings dedicated to open speech and communication. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802 (1985); Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983); see also H. R. Rep. No. 98-934, supra, at 30 (identifying public access channels as the electronic equivalent of a “speaker’s soap box”). And, finally, petitioners say that the legal standard the law contains (the “patently offensive” standard) is unconstitutionally vague. See, e. g., Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U. S. 676 (1968) (rejecting censorship ordinance as vague, even though it was intended to protect children).
Like petitioners, Justices Kennedy and Thomas would have us decide these cases simply by transferring and applying literally categorical standards this Court has developed in other contexts. For Justice Kennedy, leased access channels are like a common carrier, cablecast is a protected medium, strict scrutiny applies, § 10(a) fails this test, and, therefore, § 10(a) is invalid. Post, at 796-801,806-807. For Justice Thomas, the case is simple because the cable operator who owns the system over which access channels are broadcast, like a bookstore owner with respect to what it displays on the shelves, has a predominant First Amendment interest. Post, at 816-817, 822-824. Both categorical approaches suffer from the same flaws: They import law developed in very different contexts into a new and changing environment, and they lack the flexibility necessary to allow government to respond to very serious practical problems without sacrificing the free exchange of ideas the First Amendment is designed to protect.
The history of this Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence, however, is one of continual development, as the Constitution’s general command that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” has been applied to new circumstances requiring different adaptations of prior principles and precedents. The essence of that protection is that Congress may not regulate speech except in cases of extraordinary need and with the exercise of a degree of care that we have not elsewhere required. See, e. g., Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 51-52 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 627-628 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 639 (1943); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 418-420 (1989). At the same time, our cases have not left Congress or the States powerless to address the most serious problems. See, e. g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978).
Over the years, this Court has restated and refined these basic First Amendment principles, adopting them more particularly to the balance of competing interests and the special circumstances of each field of application. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) (allowing criticism of public officials to be regulated by civil libel only if the plaintiff shows actual malice); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974) (allowing greater regulation of speech harming individuals who are not public officials, but still requiring a negligence standard); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969) (employing highly flexible standard in response to the scarcity problem unique to over-the-air broadcast); Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 231-232 (1987) (requiring “compelling state interest” and a “narrowly drawn” means in context of differential taxation of media); Sable, supra, at 126, 131 (applying “compelling interest,” “least restrictive means,” and “narrowly tailored” requirements to indecent telephone communications); Turner, 512 U. S., at 641 (using “heightened scrutiny” to address content-neutral regulations of cable system broadcasts); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 447 U. S., at 566 (restriction on commercial speech cannot be “more extensive than is necessary” to serve a “substantial” government interest).
This tradition teaches that the First Amendment embodies an overarching commitment to protect speech from government regulation through close judicial scrutiny, thereby enforcing the Constitution’s constraints, but without imposing judicial formulas so rigid that they become a strait jacket that disables government from responding to serious problems. This Court, in different contexts, has consistently held that government may directly regulate speech to address extraordinary problems, where its regulations are appropriately tailored to resolve those problems without imposing an unnecessarily great restriction on speech. Justices Kennedy and Thomas would have us further declare which, among the many applications of the general approach that this Court has developed over the years, we are applying here. But no definitive choice among competing analogies (broadcast, common carrier, bookstore) allows us to declare a rigid single standard, good for now and for all future media and purposes. That is not to say that we reject all the more specific formulations of the standard — they appropriately cover the vast majority of cases involving government regulation of speech. Rather, aware as we are of the changes taking place in the law, the technology, and the industrial structure related to telecommunications, see, e. g., Telecommunications Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 56; S. Rep. No. 104-23 (1995); H. R. Rep. No. 104-204 (1995), we believe it unwise and unnecessary definitively to pick one analogy or one specific set of words now. See Columbia Broadcasting, 412 U. S., at 102 (“The problems of regulation are rendered more difficult because the broadcast industry is dynamic in terms of technological change; solutions adequate a decade ago are not necessarily so now, and those acceptable today may well be outmoded 10 years hence”); Pacifica, supra, at 748 (“We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems”). We therefore think it premature to answer the broad questions that Justices Kennedy and Thomas raise in their efforts to find a definitive analogy, deciding, for example, the extent to which private property can be designated a public forum, compare post, at 791-793, 794 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part), with post, at 826-829 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); whether public access channels are a public forum, post, at 791-792 (opinion of Kennedy, J.); whether the Government’s viewpoint neutral decision to limit a public forum is subject to the same scrutiny as a selective exclusion from a pre-existing public forum, post, at 799-803 (opinion of Kennedy, J.); whether exclusion from common carriage must for all purposes be treated like exclusion from a public forum, post, at 797-798 (opinion of Kennedy, J.); and whether the interests of the owners of communications media always subordinate the interests of all other users of a medium, post, at 816-817 (opinion of Thomas, J.).
Rather than decide these issues, we can decide these cases more narrowly, by closely scrutinizing § 10(a) to assure that it properly addresses an extremely important problem, without imposing, in light of the relevant interests, an unnecessarily great restriction on speech. The importance of the interest at stake here — protecting children from exposure to patently offensive depictions of sex; the accommodation of the interests of programmers in maintaining access channels and of cable operators in editing the contents of their channels; the similarity of the problem and its solution to those at issue in Pacifica; and the flexibility inherent in an approach that permits private cable operators to make editorial decisions, lead us to conclude that § 10(a) is a sufficiently tailored response to an extraordinarily important problem.
First, the provision before us comes accompanied with an extremely important justification, one that this Court has often found compelling — the need to protect children from exposure to patently offensive sex-related material. Sable Communications, 492 U. S., at 126; Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 639-640 (1968); New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 756-757 (1982).
Second, the provision arises in a very particular context— congressional permission for cable operators to regulate programming that, but for a previous Act of Congress, would have had no path of access to cable channels free of an operator’s control. The First Amendment interests involved are therefore complex, and require a balance between those interests served by the access requirements themselves (increasing the availability of avenues of expression to programmers who otherwise would not have them), H. R. Rep. No. 98-934, at 31-36, and the disadvantage to the First Amendment interests of cable operators and other programmers (those to whom the cable operator would have assigned the channels devoted to access). See Turner, 512 U. S., at 635-637.
Third, the problem Congress addressed here is remarkably similar to the problem addressed by the FCC in Pacifica, and the balance Congress struck is commensurate with the balance we approved there. In Pacifica this Court considered a governmental ban of a radio broadcast of “indecent” materials, defined in part, like the provisions before us, to include
“ ‘language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.’ ” 438 U. S., at 732 (quoting 56 F. C. C. 2d 94, 98 (1975)).
The Court found this ban constitutionally permissible primarily because “broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children” and children were likely listeners to the program there at issue — an afternoon radio broadcast. 438 U. S., at 749-750. In addition, the Court wrote, “the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans,” id., at 748, “[p]atently offensive, indecent material... confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home,” generally without sufficient prior warning to allow the recipient to avert his or her eyes or ears, ibid.; and “[a]dults who feel the need may purchase tapes and records or go to theaters and nightclubs” to hear similar performances, id., at 750, n. 28.
All these factors are present here. Cable television broadcasting, including access channel broadcasting, is as “accessible to children” as over-the-air broadcasting, if not more so. See Heeter, Greenberg, Baldwin, Paugh, Srig-ley, & Atkin, Parental Influences on Viewing Style, in Cable-viewing 140 (C. Heeter & B. Greenberg eds. 1988) (children spend more time watching television and view more channels than do their parents, whether their household subscribes to cable or receives television over the air). Cable television systems, including access channels, “have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.” Pacifica, supra, at 748. See Jost, The Future of Television, 4 The CQ Researcher 1131, 1146 (Dec. 23, 1994) (63% of American homes subscribe to cable); Greenberg, Heeter, D’Alessio, & Sipes, Cable and Noncable Viewing Style Comparisons, in Cableviewing, supra, at 207 (cable households spend more of their day, on average, watching television, and will watch more channels, than households without cable service). “Patently offensive” material from these stations can “confron[t] the citizen” in the “privacy of the home,” Pa-cifica, supra, at 748, with little or no prior warning. Cable-viewing, supra, at 217-218 (while cable subscribers tend to use guides more than do broadcast viewers, there was no difference among these groups in the amount of viewing that was planned, and, in fact, cable subscribers tended to sample more channels before settling on a program, thereby making them more, not less, susceptible to random exposure to unwanted materials). There is nothing to stop “adults who feel the need” from finding similar programming elsewhere, say, on tape or in theaters. In fact, the power of cable systems to control home program viewing is not absolute. Over-the-air broadcasting and direct broadcast satellites already provide alternative ways for programmers to reach the home and are likely to do so to a greater extent in the near future. See generally Telecommunications Act of 1996, §201, 110 Stat. 107 (advanced television services), §205 (direct broadcast satellite), § 302 (video programming by telephone companies), and §304 (availability of navigation devices to enhance multichannel programming); L. Johnson, Toward Competition in Cable Television (1994).
Fourth, the permissive nature of § 10(a) means that it likely restricts speech less than, not more than, the ban at issue in Pacifica. The provision removes a restriction as to some speakers — namely, cable operators. See supra, at 743. Moreover, although the provision does create a risk that a program will not appear, that risk is not the same as the certainty that accompanies a governmental ban. In fact, a glance at the programming that cable operators allow on their own (nonaccess) channels suggests that this distinction is not theoretical, but real. See App. 393 (regular channel broadcast of Playboy and “Real Sex” programming). Finally, the provision’s permissive nature brings with it a flexibility that allows cable operators, for example, not to ban broadcasts, but, say, to rearrange broadcast times, better to fit the desires of adult audiences while lessening the risks of harm to children. See First Report and Order ¶ 31, at 1003 (interpreting the Act’s provisions to allow cable operators broad discretion over what to do with offensive materials). In all these respects, the permissive nature of the approach taken by Congress renders this measure appropriate as a means of achieving the underlying purpose of protecting children.
Of course, cable system operators may not always rearrange or reschedule patently offensive programming. Sometimes, as petitioners fear, they may ban the programming instead. But the same may be said of Pacifica’s ban. In practice, the FCC’s daytime broadcast ban could have become a total ban, depending upon how private operators (programmers, station owners, networks) responded to it. They would have had to decide whether to reschedule the daytime show for nighttime broadcast in light of comparative audience demand and a host of other practical factors that similarly would determine the practical outcomes of the provisions before us. The upshot, in both cases, must be uncertainty as to practical consequences — of the governmental ban in the one case and of the permission in the other. That common uncertainty makes it difficult to say the provision here is, in any respect, more restrictive than the order in Pacifica. At the same time, in the respects we discussed, the provision is significantly less restrictive.
The existence of this complex balance of interests persuades us that the permissive nature of the provision, coupled with its viewpoint-neutral application, is a constitutionally permissible way to protect children from the type of sexual material that concerned Congress, while accommodating both the First Amendment interests served by the access requirements and those served in restoring to cable operators a degree of the editorial control that Congress removed in 1984.
Our basic disagreement with Justice Kennedy is narrow. Like him, we believe that we must scrutinize § 10(a) with the greatest care. Like Justices Kennedy and Thomas, we believe that the interest of protecting children that § 10(a) purports to serve is compelling. But we part company with Justice Kennedy on two issues. First, Justice Kennedy’s focus on categorical analysis forces him to disregard the cable system operators’ interests. Post, at 805-806. We, on the other hand, recognize that in the context of cable broadcast that involves an access requirement (here, its partial removal), and unlike in most cases where we have explicitly required “narrow tailoring,” the expressive interests of cable operators do play a legitimate role. Cf. Turner, 512 U. S., at 636-637. While we cannot agree with Justice Thomas that everything turns on the rights of the cable owner, see post, at 823-824, we also cannot agree with Justice Kennedy that we must ignore the expressive interests of cable operators altogether. Second, Justice Kennedy’s application of a very strict “narrow tailoring” test depends upon an analogy with a category (“the public forum cases”), which has been distilled over time from the similarities of many cases. Rather than seeking an analogy to a category of cases, however, we have looked to the cases themselves. And, as we have said, we found that Pacifica provides the closest analogy and lends considerable support to our conclusion.
Petitioners and Justice Kennedy, see post, at 797-798, 803-804, argue that the opposite result is required by two other cases: Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989), a case in which this Court found unconstitutional a statute that banned “indecent” telephone messages, and Turner, in which this Court stated that cable broadcast receives full First Amendment protection. See 512 U. S., at 637-641. The ban at issue in Sable, however, was not only a total governmentally imposed ban on a category of communications, but also involved a communications medium, telephone service, that was significantly less likely to expose children to the banned material, was less intrusive, and allowed for significantly more control over what comes into the home than either broadcasting or the cable transmission system before us. See 492 U. S., at 128. The Court’s distinction in Turner, furthermore, between cable and broadcast television, relied on the inapplicability of the spectrum scarcity problem to cable. See 512 U. S., at 637-641. While that distinction was relevant in Turner to the justification for structural regulations at issue there (the “must carry” rules), it has little to do with a case that involves the effects of television viewing on children. Those effects are the result of how parents and children view television programming, and how pervasive and intrusive that programming is. In that respect, cable and broadcast television differ little, if at all. See supra, at 744-745. Justice Kennedy would have us decide that all common carriage exclusions are subject to the highest scrutiny, see post, at 796-799, and then decide these cases on the basis of categories that provide imprecise analogies rather than on the basis of a more contextual assessment, consistent with our First Amendment tradition, of assessing whether Congress carefully and appropriately addressed a serious problem.
Petitioners also rely on this Court’s “public forum” cases. They point to Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S., at 45, a case in which this Court said that “public forums” are “places” that the government “has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity,” or which “by long tradition... have been devoted to assembly and debate.” Ibid. See also Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S., at 801 (assuming public forums may include “private property dedicated to public use”). They add that the Government cannot “enforce a content-based exclusion” from a public forum unless “necessary to serve a compelling state interest” and “narrowly drawn.” Perry, supra, at 45. They further argue that the statute’s permissive provisions unjustifiably exclude material, on the basis of content, from the “public forum” that the Government has created in the form of access channels. Justice Kennedy adds by analogy that the decision to exclude certain content from common carriage is similarly subject to strict scrutiny, and here does not satisfy that standard of review. See post, at 796-799, 805-807.
For three reasons, however, it is unnecessary, indeed, unwise, for us definitively to decide whether or how to apply the public forum doctrine to leased access channels. First, while it may be that content-based exclusions from the right to use common carriers could violate the First Amendment, see post, at 796-800 (opinion of Kennedy, J.), it is not at all clear that the public forum doctrine should be imported wholesale into the area of common carriage regulation. As discussed above, we are wary of the notion that a partial analogy in one context, for which we have developed doctrines, can compel a full range of decisions in such a new and changing area. See supra, at 739-
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court setting aside and annulling a decision and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, 397 F. Supp. 607 (WD Ky. 1975).
In 1973, the railroads in southern territory, which lies south of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi, proposed new tariffs changing the method of calculating the through rates on vegetable oil, cake or meal, and related articles, which were subject to transit privileges at various points where animal, fish, and poultry feed using these ingredients was made and transshipped. Certain large feed manufacturers protested. The Commission found that the net effect of the new tariffs would be to increase the through rates on the articles involved and that the railroads had “not presented probative evidence in justification” of the new tariffs. Based on the testimony and evidence presented by the protestante the Commission found “strong support on this record for concluding that these shippers will divert a considerable portion of their feed traffic, from railroad to trucks, with the establishment of the proposed rule.” The result, the Commission found, would be “a net loss of revenue to the [railroads] despite the assessment of the higher rates and charges and thus will be self-defeating.” The Commission concluded that the railroads had not met their burden of proof that the proposed tariffs were just and reasonable under § 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §15(7), and required that the railroads cancel the schedule. 346 I. C. C. 579, 587-588 (1973).
The District Court set aside and annulled the Commission order for want of substantial evidence to support it. The District Court considered the shippers’ evidence mere conjecture and self-serving and could not accept the Commission’s conclusion that the railroads would lose revenue from the new tariffs. It also thought it “un-controverted” that “the railroads have incurred a loss of revenue from the transportation of meal,” and therefore “clearly established that if there should be a diversion of meal traffic as predicted by the shippers, the carriers would actually be in a better financial position than at present.” 397 F. Supp., at 610.
We reverse the judgment of the District Court. Con-cededly, there was detailed evidence with respect to the anticipated traffic diversion which the Commission credited and thought strongly supported its conclusion. The District Court exceeded its function in reweighing the testimony, which is primarily the task of the Commission. Alton R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 15, 23-24 (1942); Illinois C. R. Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 385 U. S. 57, 69 (1966). On the record before it, the District Court also erred in differing with the Commission and agreeing with the railroads with respect to the impact of the new tariffs on railroad revenue. The court relied on evidence which showed only that under the old rates the railroads sustained a loss on feed outbound from the transit points and which, as a railroad witness testified, Comm’n Tr. 28-29, did not relate to the net gain or loss on inbound meal shipments or on the through movement when both legs were considered together.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petition for certiorari filed by the United States in this criminal case presented a single question: whether evidence suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search .and seizure may nevertheless be used to impeach a defendant's false trial testimony, given in response to proper cross-examination, where the evidence does not squarely contradict the defendant's testimony on direct examination. We issued the writ, 444 U. S. 962 (1979).
I
Respondent was convicted of importing, conspiring to import, and intentionally possessing a controlled substance, cocaine. According to the evidence at his trial, Havens and John McLeroth, both attorneys from Ft. Wayne, Ind., boarded a flight from Lima, Peru, to Miami, Fla. In Miami, a customs officer searched McLeroth and found cocaine sewed into makeshift pockets in a T-shirt he was wearing under his outer clothing. McLeroth implicated respondent, who had previously cleared customs and who was then arrested. His luggage was seized and searched without a warrant. The officers found no drugs but seized a T-shirt from which pieces had been cut that matched the pieces that had been sewn to McLeroth’s T-shirt. The T-shirt and other evidence seized in the course of the search were suppressed on motion prior to trial.
Both men were charged in a three-count indictment, but McLeroth pleaded guilty to one count and testified against Havens. Among other things, he asserted that Havens had supplied him with the altered T-shirt and had sewed the makeshift pockets shut. Havens took the stand in his own defense and denied involvement in smuggling cocaine. His direct testimony included the following:
“Q. And you heard Mr. McLeroth testify earlier as to something to the effect that this material was taped or draped around his body and so on, you heard that testimony?
“A. Yes, I did.
“Q. Did you ever engage in that kind of activity with Mr. McLeroth and Augusto or Mr. McLeroth and anyone else on that fourth visit to Lima, Peru?
“A. I did not.” App. 34.
On cross-examination, Havens testified as follows:
“Q. Now, on direct examination, sir, you testified that on the fourth trip you had absolutely nothing to do with the wrapping of any bandages or tee shirts or anything involving Mr. McLeroth; is that correct?
“A. I don’t — I said I had nothing to do with any wrapping or bandages or anything, yes. I had nothing to do with anything with McLeroth in connection with this cocaine matter.
“Q. And your testimony is that you had nothing to do with the sewing of the cotton swatches to make pockets on that tee shirt?
“A. Absolutely not.
“Q. Sir, when you came through Customs, the Miami International Airport, on October 2, 1977, did you have in your suitcase Size 38-40 medium tee shirts?” Id., at 35.
An objection to the latter question was overruled and questioning continued:
“Q. On that day, sir, did you have in your luggage a Size 38-40 medium man’s tee shirt with swatches of clothing missing from the tail of that tee shirt?
“A. Not to my knowledge.
“Q. Mr. Havens, I’m going to hand you what is Government’s Exhibit 9 for. identification and ask you if this tee shirt was in your luggage on October 2nd, 1975 [sic] ?
“A. Not to my knowledge. No.” Id., at 46.
Respondent Havens also denied having told a Government agent that the T-shirts found in his luggage belonged to McLeroth.
On rebuttal, a Government agent testified that Exhibit 9 had been found in respondent’s suitcase and that Havens claimed the T-shirts found in his bag, including Exhibit 9, belonged to McLeroth. Over objection, the T-shirt was then admitted into evidence, the jury being instructed that the rebuttal evidence should be considered only for impeaching Havens’ credibility.
The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20 (1925), and Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954). The court held that illegally seized evidence may be used for impeachment only if the evidence contradicts a particular statement made by a defendant in the course of his direct examination. 592 F. 2d 848 (CA5 1979). We reverse.
II
In Agnello v. United States, supra, a defendant charged with conspiracy to sell a package, of cocaine testified on direct examination that he had possessed the packages involved but did not know what was in them. On cross-examination, he denied ever having seen narcotics and ever having seen a can of cocaine which was exhibited to him and which had been illegally seized from his apartment. The can of cocaine was permitted into evidence on rebuttal. Agnello was convicted and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This Court reversed, holding that the Fourth Amendment required exclusion of the evidence. The Court pointed out that “[i]n his direct examination, Agnello was not asked and did not testify concerning the can of cocaine” and “did nothing to waive his constitutional protection or to justify cross-examination in respect of the evidence claimed to have been obtained by the search.” 269 U. S., at 35. The Court also said, quoting from Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920), that the exclusionary rule not only commands that illegally seized evidence “shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all.” 269 U. S., at 35.
The latter statement has been rejected in our later cases, however, and Agnello otherwise limited. In Walder v. United States, supra, the use of evidence obtained in an illegal search and inadmissible in the Government’s case in chief was admitted to impeach the direct testimony of the defendant. This Court approved, saying that it would pervert the rule of Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), to hold otherwise. Similarly, in Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), and Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714 (1975), statements taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and unusable by the prosecution as part of its own case, were held admissible to impeach statements made by the defendant in the course of his direct testimony. Harris also made clear that the permitted impeachment by otherwise inadmissible evidence is not limited to collateral matters. 401 U. S., at 225.
These cases were understood by the Court of Appeals to hold that tainted evidence, inadmissible when offered as part of the Government’s main case, may not be used as rebuttal evidence to impeach a defendant’s credibility unless the evidence is offered to contradict a particular statement made by a defendant during his direct examination; a statement made for the first time on cross-examination may not be so impeached. This approach required the exclusion of the T-shirt taken from Havens’ luggage because, as the Court of Appeals read the record, Havens was asked nothing on his direct testimony about the incriminating T-shirt or about the contents of his luggage; the testimony about the T-shirt, which the Government desired to impeach first appeared on cross-examination, not on direct.
It is true that Agnello involved the impeachment of testimony first brought out on cross-examination and that in Walder, Harris, and Hass, the testimony impeached was given by the defendant while testifying on direct examination. In our view, however, a flat rule permitting only statements on direct examination to be impeached misapprehends the underlying rationale of Walder, Harris, and Hass. These cases repudiated the statement in Agnello that no use at all may be made of illegally obtained evidence. - Furthermore, in Walder, the Court said that in Agnello, the Government had “smuggled in” the impeaching opportunity in the course of cross-examination. The Court also relied on the statement in Agnello, supra, at 35, that Agnello had done nothing “to justify cross-examination in respect of the evidence claimed to have been obtained by the search.” The implication of Walder is that Agnello was a case of cross-examination having too tenuous a connection with any subject opened upon direct examination to permit impeachment by tainted evidence.
In reversing the District Court in the case before us, the Court of Appeals did not stop to consider how closely the cross-examination about the T-shirt and the luggage was connected with matters gone into in direct examination. If these questions would have been suggested to a reasonably competent cross-examiner by Havens’ direct testimony, they were not “smuggled in”; and forbidding the Government to impeach the answers to these questions by using contrary and reliable evidence in its possession fails to take account of our cases, particularly Harris and Hass. In both cases, the Court stressed the importance of arriving at the truth in criminal trials, as well as the defendant’s obligation to speak the truth in response to proper questions. We rejected the notion that the defendant’s constitutional shield against having illegally seized evidence used against him could be “perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances.” 401 U. S., at 226. See also Oregon v. Hass, supra, at 722, 723. Both cases also held that the deterrent function of the rules excluding unconstitutionally obtained evidence is sufficiently served by denying its use to the government on its direct case. It was only a “speculative possibility” that also making it unavailable to the government for otherwise proper impeachment would contribute substantially in this respect. Harris v. New York, supra, at 225. Oregon v. Hass, supra, at 723.
Neither Harris nor Hass involved the impeachment of assertedly false testimony first given on cross-examination, but the reasoning of those cases controls this one. There is no gainsaying that arriving at the truth is a fundamental goal of our legal system. Oregon v. Hass, supra, at 722. We have repeatedly insisted that when defendants testify, they must testify truthfully or suffer the consequences. This is true even though a defendant is compelled to testify against his will. Bryson v. United States, 396 U. S. 64, 72 (1969); United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77 (1969). It is essential, therefore, to the proper functioning of the adversary system that when a defendant takes the stand, the government be permitted proper and effective cross-examination in an attempt to elicit the truth. The defendant’s obligation to testify truthfully is fully binding on him when he is cross-examined. His privilege against self-incrimination does not shield him from proper questioning. Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148, 154-155 (1958). He would unquestionably be subject to a perjury prosecution if he knowingly lies on cross-examination. Cf. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U. S. 115 (1980); Bryson v. United States, supra; United States v. Knox, supra; United States v. Wong, 431 U. S. 174 (1977). In terms of impeaching a defendant’s seemingly false statements with his prior inconsistent utterances or with other reliable evidence available to the government, we see no difference of constitutional magnitude between the defendant’s statements on direct examination and his answers to questions put to him on cross-examination that are plainly within the scope of the defendant’s direct examination. Without this opportunity, the normal function of cross-examination would be severely impeded.
We also think that the policies of the exclusionary rule no more bar impeachment here than they did in Walder, Harris, and Hass. In those cases, the ends of the exclusionary rules were thought adequately implemented by denying the government the use of the challenged evidence to make out its ease in chief. The incremental furthering of those ends by forbidding impeachment of the defendant who testifies was deemed insufficient to permit or require that false testimony go unchallenged, with the resulting impairment of the integrity of the factfinding goals of the criminal trial. We reaffirm this assessment of the competing interests, and hold that a defendant’s statements made in response to proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant’s direct examination are subject to otherwise proper impeachment by the government, albeit by evidence that has been illegally obtained and that is inadmissible on the government’s direct case, or otherwise, as substantive evidence of guilt.
In arriving at its judgment, the Court of Appeals noted that in response to defense counsel’s objection to the impeaching evidence on the ground that the matter had not been “covered on direct,” the trial court had remarked that “[i]t does not have to be covered on direct.” The Court of Appeals thought this was error since in its view illegally seized evidence could be used only to impeach a statement made on direct examination. As we have indicated, we hold a contrary view; and we do not understand the District Court to have indicated that the Government’s question, the answer to which is sought to be impeached, need not be proper cross-examination in the first instance. The Court of Appeals did not suggest that either the cross-examination or the impeachment of Havens would have been improper absent the use of illegally seized evidence, and we cannot accept respondent’s suggestions that because of the illegal search and seizure, the Government’s questions about the T-shirt were improper cross-examination. McLeroth testified that Havens had assisted him in preparing the T-shirt for smuggling. Havens, in his direct testimony, acknowledged McLeroth’s prior testimony that the cocaine “was taped or draped around his body and so on” but denied that he had “ever engage [d] in that kind of activity with Mr. McLeroth. . . .” This testimony could easily be understood as a denial of any connection with McLeroth’s T-shirt and as a contradiction of McLeroth’s testimony. Quite reasonably, it seems to us, the Government on cross-examination called attention to his answers on direct and then asked whether he had anything to do with sewing the cotton swatches on McLeroth’s T-shirt. This was cross-examination growing out of Havens’ direct testimony; and, as we hold above, the ensuing impeachment did not violate Havens’ constitutional rights.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Kagan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, a Federal District Court enjoined a state court from considering a plaintiff’s request to approve a class action. The District Court did so because it had earlier denied a motion to certify a class in a related case, brought by a different plaintiff against the same defendant alleging similar claims. The federal court thought its injunction appropriate to prevent relitigation of the issue it had decided.
We hold to the contrary. In issuing this order to a state court, the federal court exceeded its authority under the “relitigation exception” to the Anti-Injunction Act. That statutory provision permits a federal court to enjoin a state proceeding only in rare cases, when necessary to “protect or effectuate [the federal court’s] judgments.” 28 U. S. C. §2283. Here, that standard was not met for two reasons. First, the issue presented in the state court was not identical to the one decided in the federal tribunal. And second, the plaintiff in the state court did not have the requisite connection to the federal suit to be bound by the District Court’s judgment.
I
Because the question before us involves the effect of a former adjudication on this case, we begin our statement of the facts not with this lawsuit, but with another. In August 2001, George McCollins sued respondent Bayer Corporation in the Circuit Court of Cabell County, West Virginia, asserting various state-law claims arising from Bayer’s sale of an allegedly hazardous prescription drug called Baycol (which Bayer withdrew from the market that same month). McCol-lins contended that Bayer had violated West Virginia’s consumer protection statute and the company’s express and implied warranties by selling him a defective product. And pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (2011), MeCollins asked the state court to certify a class of West Virginia residents who had also purchased Baycol, so that the case could proceed as á class action.
Approximately one month later, the suit now before us began in a different part of West Virginia. Petitioners Keith Smith and Shirley Sperlazza (Smith for short) filed state-law claims against Bayer, similar to those raised in MeCollins’ suit, in the Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. And like MeCollins, Smith asked the court to certify under West Virginia’s Rule 23 a class of Baycol purchasers residing in the State. Neither Smith nor MeCollins knew about the other’s suit.
In January 2002, Bayer removed MeCollins’ case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332, 1441. The case was then transferred to the District of Minnesota pursuant to a preexisting order of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, which had consolidated all federal suits involving Baycol (numbering in the tens of thousands) before a single District Court Judge. See §1407. Bayer, however, could not remove Smith’s case to federal court because Smith had sued several West Virginia defendants in addition to Bayer, and so the suit lacked complete diversity. See § 1441(b). Smith’s suit thus remained in the state courthouse in Brooke County.
Over the next six years, the two cases proceeded along their separate pretrial paths at roughly the same pace. By 2008, both courts were preparing to turn to their respective plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. The Federal District Court was the first to reach a decision.
Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the District Court declined to certify McCollins’ proposed class of West Virginia Baycol purchasers. The District Court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps. The court first ruled that, under West Virginia law, each plaintiff would have to prove “actual injury” from his use of Baycol to recover. App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a. The court then held that because the necessary showing of harm would vary from plaintiff to plaintiff, “individual issues of fact predominate^]” over issues common to all members of the proposed class, and so the case was not suitable for class treatment. Id., at 45a. In the same order, the District Court also dismissed McCollins’ claims on the merits in light of his failure to demonstrate physical injury from his use of Baycol. McCollins chose not to appeal.
Although McCollins’ suit was now concluded, Bayer asked the District Court for another order based upon it, this one affecting Smith’s case in West Virginia. In a motion — receipt of which first apprised Smith of McCollins’ suit — Bayer explained that the proposed class in Smith’s ease was identical to the one the federal court had just rejected. Bayer therefore requested that the federal court enjoin the West Virginia state court from hearing Smith’s motion to certify a class. According to Bayer, that order was appropriate to protect the District Court’s judgment in McCollins’ suit denying class certification. The District Court agreed and granted the injunction.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In re Baycol Prods. Litigation, 593 F. 3d 716 (2010). The court noted that the Anti-Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings. But the court held that the Act’s relitigation exception authorized the injunction here because ordinary rules of issue preclusion barred Smith from seeking certification of his proposed class. According to the court, Smith was invoking a similar class action rule as McCollins had used to seek certification “of the same class” in a stdt alleging “the same legal theories,” id., at 724; the issue in the state court therefore was “sufficiently identical” to the one the federal court had decided to warrant preclusion, ibid. In addition, the court held, the parties in the two proceedings were sufficiently alike: Because Smith was an unnamed member of the class McCollins had proposed, and because their “interests were aligned,” Smith was appropriately bound by the federal court’s judgment. Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 561 U. S. 1057 (2010), because the order issued here implicates two circuit splits arising from application of the Anti-Injunction Act’s relitigation exception. The first involves the requirement of preclusion law that a subsequent suit raise the “same issue” as a previous case. The second concerns the scope of the rule that a court’s judgment cannot bind nonparties. We think the District Court erred on both grounds when it granted the injunction, and we now reverse.
HH HH
The Anti-Injunction Act, first enacted in 1793, provides:
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U. S. C. § 2283.
The statute, we have recognized, “is a necessary concomitant of the Framers' decision to authorize, and Congress’ decision to implement, a dual system of federal and state courts.” Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U. S. 140, 146 (1988). And the Act’s core message is one of respect for state courts. The Act broadly commands that those tribunals “shall remain free from interference by federal courts.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 282 (1970). That edict is subject to only “three specifically defined exceptions.” Id., at 286. And those exceptions, though designed for important purposes, “are narrow and are ‘not [to] be enlarged by loose statutory construction.’” Chick Kam Choo, 486 U. S., at 146 (quoting Atlantic Coast Line, 398 U. S., at 287; alteration in original). Indeed, “[a]ny doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed.” Id., at 297.
This case involves the last of the Act’s three exceptions, known as the relitigation exception. That exception is designed to implement “well-recognized concepts” of claim and issue preclusion. Chick Kam Choo, 486 U. S., at 147. The provision authorizes an injunction to prevent state litigation of a claim or issue “that previously was presented to and decided by the federal court.” Ibid. But in applying this exception, we have taken special care to keep it “strict and narrow.” Id., at 148. After all, a court does not usually “get to dictate to other courts the preclusion consequences of its own judgment.” 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4405, p. 82 (2d ed. 2002) (hereinafter Wright & Miller): ■ Deciding whether and how prior litigation has preclusive effect is usually the bailiwick of the second court (here, the one in West Virginia). So issuing an injunction under the relitigation exception is resorting to heavy artillery. For that reason, every benefit of the doubt goes toward the state court, see Atlantic Coast Line, 398 U. S., at 287, 297; an injunction can issue only if preclusion is clear beyond peradventure.
The question here is whether the federal court’s rejection of McCollins’ proposed class precluded a later adjudication in state court of Smith’s certification motion. For the federal court’s determination of the class issue to have this preclu-sive effect, at least two conditions must be met. First, the issue the federal court decided must be the same as the one presented in the state tribunal. See 18 Wright & Miller § 4417, at 412. And second, Smith must have been a party to the federal suit, or else must fall within one of a few discrete exceptions to the general rule against binding nonparties. See 18A id., § 4449, at 330. In fact, as we will explain, the issues before the two courts were not the same, and Smith was neither a party nor the exceptional kind of nonparty who can be bound. So the courts below erred in finding the certification issue precluded, and erred all the more in thinking an injunction appropriate.
A
In our most recent case on the relitigation exception, Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon, we applied the “same issue” requirement of preclusion law to invalidate a federal court’s injunction. 486 U. S., at 151. The federal court had dismissed a suit involving Singapore law on grounds of forum non conveniens. After the plaintiff brought the same claim in Texas state court, the federal court issued an injunction barring the plaintiff from pursuing relief in that alternate forum. We held that the District Court had gone too far. “[A]n essential prerequisite for applying the relitigation exception,” we explained, “is that the... issues which the federal injunction insulates from litigation in state proceedings actually have been decided by the federal court.” Id., at 148. That prerequisite, we thought, was not satisfied because the issue to be adjudicated in state court was not the one the federal court had resolved. The federal court had considered the permissibility of the claim under federal forum non conveniens principles. But the Texas courts, we thought, “would apply a significantly different forum non conveniens analysis,” id., at 149; they had in prior cases rejected the strictness of the federal doctrine. Our conclusion followed: “[W]hether the Texas state courts are an appropriate forum for [the plaintiff’s] Singapore law claims has not yet been litigated.” Ibid. Because the legal standards in the two courts differed, the issues before the courts differed, and an injunction was unwarranted.
The question here closely resembles the one in Chick Kam Choo. The class Smith proposed in state court mirrored the class McCollins sought to certify in federal court: Both included all Baycol purchasers resident in West Virginia. Moreover, the substantive claims in the two suits broadly overlapped: Both complaints alleged that Bayer had sold a defective product in violation of the State’s consumer protection law and the company’s warranties. So far, so good for preclusion. But not so fast: a critical question — the question of the applicable legal standard — remains. The District Court ruled that the proposed class did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule 23 (because individualized issues would predominate over common ones). But the state court was poised to consider whether the proposed class satisfied West Virginia Rule 23. If those two legal standards differ (as federal and state forum non conveniens law differed in Chick Kam Choo) — then the federal court resolved an issue not before the state court. In that event, much like in Chick Kam Choo, “whether the [West "Virginia] state cour[t]” should certify the proposed class action “has not yet been litigated.” 486 U. S., at 149.
The Court of Appeals and Smith offer us two competing ways of deciding whether the West Virginia and Federal Rules differ, but we think the right path lies somewhere in the middle. The Eighth Circuit relied almost exclusively on the near-identity of the two Rules’ texts. See 593 F. 3d, at 723. That was the right place to start, but not to end. Federal and state courts, after all, can and do apply identically worded procedural provisions in widely varying ways. If a State’s procedural provision tracks the language of a Federal Rule, but a state court interprets that provision in a manner federal courts have not, then the state court is using a different standard and thus deciding a different issue. See 18 Wright & Miller § 4417, at 454 (stating that preclusion is “inappropriate” when “different legal standards... masquer-ad[e] behind similar legal labels”). At the other extreme, Smith contends that the source of law is all that matters: a different sovereign must in each and every case “ ‘have the opportunity, if it chooses, to construe its procedural rule differently/ ” Brief for Petitioners 22 (quoting ALI, Principles of the Law, Aggregate Litigation §2.11, Reporters’ Notes, Comment b, p. 179 (2010)). But if state courts have made crystal clear that they follow the same approach as the federal court applied, we see no need to ignore that determination; in that event, the issues in the two cases would indeed be the same. So a federal court considering whether the relitigation exception applies should examine whether state law parallels its federal counterpart. But as suggested earlier, see supra, at 307, the federal court must resolve any uncertainty on that score by leaving the question of preclusion to the state courts.
Under this approach, the West Virginia Supreme Court has gone some way toward resolving the matter before us by declaring its independence from federal courts’ interpretation of the Federal Rules — and particularly of Rule 23. In In re W Va. Rezulin Litigation, 214 W. Va. 52, 585 S. E. 2d 52 (2003) (In re Rezulin), the West Virginia high court considered a plaintiff’s motion to certify a class — coincidentally enough, in a suit about an allegedly defective pharmaceutical product. The court made a point of complaining about the parties’ and lower court’s near-exclusive reliance on federal cases about Federal Rule 23 to decide the certification question. Such cases, the court cautioned, “ ‘may be persuasive, but [they are] not binding or controlling.’” Id., at 61, 585 S. E. 2d, at 61. And lest anyone mistake the import of this message, the court went on: The aim of “this rule is to avoid having our legal analysis of our Rules ‘amount to nothing more than Pavlovian responses to federal decisional law.’ ” Ibid, (emphasis deleted). Of course, the state courts might still have adopted an approach to their Rule 23 that tracked the analysis the federal court used in McCollins’ case. But absent clear evidence that the state courts had done so, we could not conclude that they would interpret their Rule in the same way. And if that is so, we could not tell whether the certification issues in the state and federal courts were the same. That uncertainty would preclude an injunction.
But here the case against an injunction is even stronger, because the West Virginia Supreme Court has disapproved the approach to Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement that the Federal District Court embraced. Recall that the federal court held that the presence of a single individualized issue — injury from the use of Baycol — prevented class certification. See supra, at 304. The court did not identify the common issues in the case; nor did it balance these common issues against the need to prove individual injury to determine which predominated. The court instead applied a strict test barring class treatment when proof of each plaintiff’s injury is necessary. By contrast, the West Virginia Supreme Court in In re Rezulin adopted an all-things-considered, balancing inquiry in interpreting its Rule 23. Rejecting any “rigid test,’’ the state court opined that the predominance requirement “contemplates a review of many factors.” 214 W. Va., at 72, 585 S. E. 2d, at 72. Indeed, the court noted, a “ ‘single common issue’ ” in a case could outweigh “‘numerous... individual questions.’” Ibid. That meant, the court further explained (quoting what it termed the “leading treatise” on the subject), that even objections to certification “ ‘based on... causation, or reliance’ ” — which typically involve showings of individual injury — “‘will not bar predominance satisfaction.’” Ibid, (quoting 2 A. Conte & H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions §4.26, p. 241 (4th ed. 2002)). So point for point, the analysis set out in In re Rezulin diverged from the District Court’s interpretation of Federal Rule 23. A state court using the In re Rezulin standard would decide a different question than the one the federal court had earlier resolved.
This case, indeed, is little more than a rerun of Chick Earn Choo. A federal court and a state court apply different law. That means they decide distinct questions. The federal court’s resolution of one issue does not preclude the state court’s determination of another. It then goes without saying that the federal court may not issue an injunction. The AwA-Injunetion Act’s re-litigation exception does not extend nearly so far.
B
The injunction issued here runs into another basic premise of preclusion law: A court’s judgment binds only the parties to a suit, subject to a handful of discrete and limited exceptions. See, e.g., 18A Wright & Miller.§4449, at 330. The importance of this rule and the narrowness of its exceptions go hand in hand. We have repeatedly “emphasize[d] the fundamental nature of the general rule” that only parties can be bound by prior judgments; accordingly, we have taken a “constrained approach to nonparty preclusion.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U. S. 880, 898 (2008). Against this backdrop, Bayer defends the decision below by arguing that Smith— an unnamed member of a proposed but uncertified class— qualifies as a party to the McCollins litigation. See Brief for Respondent 32-34. Alternatively, Bayer claims that the District Court’s judgment binds Smith under the recognized exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion for members of class actions. See id., at 34-39. We think neither contention has merit.
Bayer’s first claim ill-comports with any proper understanding of what a “party” is. In general, “[a] ‘party* to litigation is ‘[o]ne by or against whom a lawsuit is brought,’” United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U. S. 928, 933 (2009), or one who “become[s] a party by intervention, substitution, or third-party practice,” Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72, 77 (1987). And we have further held that an unnamed member of a certified class may be “considered a ‘party’ for the [particular] purpos[e] of appealing” an adverse judgment. Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U. S. 1, 7 (2002). But as the dissent in Devlin noted, no one in that case was “willing to advance the novel and surely erroneous argument that a nonnamed class member is a party to the class-action litigation before the class is certified.” Id., at 16, n. 1 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Still less does that argument make sense once certification is denied. The definition of the term “party” can on no account be stretched so far as to cover a person like Smith, whom the plaintiff in a lawsuit was denied leave to represent. If the judgment in the McCollins litigation can indeed bind Smith, it must do so under principles of non-party preclusion.
As Bayer notes, see Brief for Respondent 37, one such principle allows unnamed members of a class action to be bound, even though they are not parties to the suit. See Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U. S. 867, 874 (1984) (“[Ujnder elementary principles of prior adjudication a judgment in a properly entertained class action is binding on class members in any subsequent litigation”); see also Taylor, 553 U. S., at 894 (stating that nonparties can be bound in “properly conducted class actions”). But here Bayer faces a conundrum. If we know one thing about the McCollins suit, we know that it was not a class action. Indeed, the very ruling that Bayer argues ought to be given preclusive effect is the District Court’s decision that a class could not properly be certified. So Bayer wants to bind Smith as a member of a class action (because it is only as such that a nonparty in Smith’s situation can be bound) to a determination that there could not be a class action. And if the logic of that position is not immediately transparent, here is Bayer’s attempt to clarify: “[Ujntil the moment when class certification was denied, the McCollins case was a properly conducted class action.” Brief for Respondent 37. That is true, according to Bayer, because McCollins’’interests were aligned with the members of the class he proposed and he “act[ed] in a representative capacity when he sought class certification.” Id., at 36.
But wishing does not make it so. McCollins sought class certification, but he failed to obtain that result. Because the District Court found that individual issues predominated, it held that the action did not satisfy Federal Rule 23’s requirements for class proceedings. In these circumstances, we cannot say that a properly conducted class action existed at any time in the litigation. Federal Rule 23 determines what is and is not a class action in federal court, where McCollins brought his suit. So in the absence of a certification under that Rule, the precondition for binding Smith was not met. Neither a proposed class action nor a rejected class action may bind nonparties. What does have this effect is a class action approved under Rule 23. But McCollins’ lawsuit was never that.
We made essentially these same points in Taylor v. Stur-gell just a few Terms ago. The question there concerned the propriety of binding nonparties under a theory of “virtual representation” based on “identity of interests and some kind of relationship between parties and nonparties.” 553 U. S., at 901. We rejected the theory unanimously, explaining that it “would fiecogniz[e], in effect, a common-law kind of class action.’ ” Ibid. Such a device, we objected, would authorize preclusion “shorn of [Rule 23’s] procedural protections.” Ibid. Or as otherwise stated in the opinion: We could not allow “circumvent[ion]” of Rule 23’s protections through a “virtual representation doctrine that allowed courts to 'create de facto class actions at will.’ ” Ibid. We could hardly have been more clear that a “properly conducted class action,” with binding effect on nonparties, can come about in federal courts in just one way — through the procedure set out in Rule 23. Bayer attempts to distinguish Taylor by noting that the party in the prior litigation there did not propose a class action. But we do not see why that difference matters. Yes, McCollins wished to represent a class, and made a motion to that effect. But it did not come to pass. To allow McCollins7 suit to bind nonparties would be to adopt the very theory Taylor rejected.
Bayer’s strongest argument comes not from established principles of preclusion, but instead from policy concerns relating to use of the class action device. Bayer warns that under our approach class counsel can repeatedly try to certify the same class “by the simple expedient of changing the named plaintiff in the caption of the complaint.” Brief for Respondent 47-48. And in this world of “serial relitigation of class certification,” Bayer contends, defendants “would be forced in effect to buy litigation peace by settling.” Id., at 2,12; see also In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Prods. Liability Litigation, 333 F. 3d 763, 767 (CA7 2003) (objecting to “an asymmetric system in which class counsel can win but never lose” because of their ability to relitigate the issue of certification).
But this form of argument flies in the face of the rule against nonparty preclusion. That rule perforce leads to re-litigation of many issues, as plaintiff after plaintiff after plaintiff (none precluded by the last judgment because none a party to the last suit) tries his hand at establishing some legal principle or obtaining some grant of relief. We confronted a similar policy concern in Taylor, which involved litigation brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Government there cautioned that unless we bound nonparties a “ ‘potentially limitless’ ” number of plaintiffs, perhaps coordinating with each other, could “mount a series of repetitive lawsuits” demanding the selfsame documents. 553 U. S., at 903. But we rejected this argument, even though the payoff in a single successful FOIA suit— disclosure of documents to the public — could “trum[p]” or “subsum[e]” all prior losses, just as a single successful class certification motion could do. In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F. 3d, at 766, 767. As that response suggests, our legal system generally relies on principles of stare decisis and comity among courts to mitigate the sometimes substantial costs of similar litigation brought by different plaintiffs. We have not thought that the right approach (except in the discrete categories of cases we have recognized) lies in binding nonparties to a judgment.
And to the extent class actions raise special problems of relitigation, Congress has provided a remedy that does not involve departing from the usual rules of preclusion. In the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332(d), 1453 (2006 ed. and Supp. Ill), Congress enabled defendants to remove to federal court any sizable class action involving minimal diversity of citizenship. Once removal takes place, Federal Rule 23 governs certification. And federal courts may consolidate multiple overlapping suits against a single defendant in one court (as the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation did for the many actions involving Baycol). See § 1407. Finally, we would expect federal courts to apply principles of comity to each other’s class certification decisions when addressing a common dispute. See, e. g., Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co., 529 U. S. 193, 198 (2000) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936)). CAFA may be cold comfort to Bayer with respect to suits like this one beginning before its enactment. But Congress’s decision to address the relitigation concerns associated with class actions through the mechanism of removal provides yet another reason for federal courts to adhere in this context to longstanding principles of preclusion. And once again, that is especially so when the federal court is deciding whether to go so far as to enjoin a state proceeding.
* *
The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits the order the District Court entered here. The Act's relitigation exception authorizes injunctions only when a former federal adjudication clearly precludes a state court decision. As we said more than 40 years ago, and have consistently maintained since that time, “[a]ny doubts... should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed.” Atlantic Coast Line, 398 U. S., at 297. Under this approach, close cases have easy answers: The federal court should not issue an injunction, and the state court should decide the preclusion question. But this case does not even strike us as close. The issues in the federal and state lawsuits differed because the relevant legal standards differed. And the mere proposal of a class in the federal action could not bind persons who were not parties there. For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
.Reversed.
Justice Thomas joins Parts I and II-A of this opinion.
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 119 Stat. 4, which postdates and therefore does not govern this lawsuit, now enables a defendant to remove to federal court certain docs actions involving nondiveroo parties. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332(d), 1453(b); see also infra, at 317-318.
Although McCollins had originally sought certification under W. Va. Rule of Civ. Proc. 23 (2011), federal procedural rules govern a case that has been removed to federal court. See Skady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U. S. 393 (2010).
Compare In re Bay col Prods. Litigation, 593 F. 3d 716,723 (CA8 2010) (ease below) (holding that two eases involve the same iosuo when “[t]ho state and federal [elass] certification rules... are not significantly different”), with J. R. Clearwater Inc. v. Ashland Chemical Co., 93 F. 3d 176, 180 (CA5 1996) (holding that two caaes implicate different issues evon when “[the state rule] is modeled on... the Federal Rules” because a “[state] court might well exercise [its] discretion in a different manner”).
Compare 593 F. 3d, at 724 (“[T]he denial of elass certification is binding on unnamed [putative] class members” because they are “in privity to [the parties] in the prior action”), mid In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tiros Prods. Liability Litigation, 333 F. 3d 763, 768-769 (CA7 2003) (same), with In re Ford Motor Co., 471 F. 3d 1233, 1245 (CA11 2006) (holding that “[t]he denial of elass certification” prevents a court from “binding” anyone other than “the parties appearing before it”), and In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liability Litigation, 134 F. 3d 133, 141 (CA3 1998) (holding that putative “class memboro aro not partios” and so cannot be bound by a court’s ruling when “there is no class pending”).
That is especially so because an injunction is not the only way to correct a state trial court’s erroneous refusal to give preclusive effect to a federal judgment. As we have noted before, “the state appellate courts and ultimately this Court” can review and reverse such a ruling. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 287 (1970).
We have held that federal common law governs the preclusive effect of a decision of a federal court sitting in diversity. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U. S. 497, 508 (2001). Smith assumes that federal common law should here incorporate West Virginia’s preclusion law, see Brief for Petitioners 15-16, whereas Bayer favors looking only to federal rules of preclusion because of the federal interests at stake in this ease, see Brief for Respondent 18. We do not think the question matters here. Neither party identifies any way in which federal and state principles of preclusion law differ in any relevant respect. Nor have we found any such divergence. Compare, e. g., Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 153-154 (1979) (describing elements of issue preclusion), with State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 9, 459 S. E. 2d 114, 120 (1995) (same). We therefore need not decide whether, in general, federal common law ought to incorporate state law in situations such as this.
Because we rest our decision on the Anti-Injunction Act and the principles of issue preclusion that inform it, we do not consider Smith’s argument, based on Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U. S. 797 (1985), that the District Court’s action violated the Due Process Clause.
The District Court’s approach to the predominance inquiry is consistent with the approach employed by the Eighth Circuit. See In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., 522 F. 3d 836, 837-840 (2008) (holding that most commercial misrepresentation eases are “unsuitable for class treatment” because individual issues of reliance necessarily predominate). We express no opinion as to the correctness of this approach.
Bayer argues that In re Rezulin does not preclude an injunction in this ease because the West Virginia court there decided that common issues predominated over individual ioouco of damages, not over individual issues of liability (as exist here). See Brief for Respondent 25-26. We think Bayer is right about this distinction, but wrong about its consequence. Our point is not that In re Rezulin dictates the answer to the class certification question here; the two eases are indeed too dissimilar for that to be true. The point instead is that In re Rezulin articulated a general approach to the predominance requirement that differs markedly from the one the federal court used. Minor variations in the application of what is in essence the same legal standard do not defeat preclusion; but where, as here, the State’s courts “would apply a significantly different... analysis,” Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U. S. 140, 149 (1988), the federal and state courts decide different issues.
In support of its claim that Smith counts as a party, Bayer cites two cases in which we held that a putative member of an uncertified class may wait
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1978 the Secretary of Labor promulgated “interim regulations” to govern the processing of claims for black lung benefits filed between July 1, 1973, and April 1, 1980. See 20 CFR pt. 727 (1987). Section 203 of those regulations prescribes five ways in which a claimant may prove that he is entitled to an “interim presumption” of eligibility. The question in this case concerns the burden of proof that the claimant must satisfy to invoke the presumption. The Court of Appeals held, Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 785 F. 2d 424 (CA4 1986) (en banc), that a single item of qualifying evidence is always sufficient whereas the Secretary of Labor contends that his regulation requires the claimant to establish at least one of the five qualifying facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Because we are not persuaded that the Secretary has misread his own regulation, we reverse.
I
Although some aspects of the black lung benefits program are rather complex, its broad outlines and relevant statutory provisions can be briefly described. Prolonged exposure to coal dust has subjected hundreds of thousands of coal miners to pneumoconiosis — a serious and progressive pulmonary condition popularly known as “black lung.” The tragic consequences of this crippling illness prompted Congress to authorize a special program for the benefit of its victims in 1969. Because that program has been developed through several statutory enactments, different rules govern claims filed during different periods of time. Those filed prior to July 1, 1973, were processed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); when allowed, these “Part B” claims were paid from federal funds. “Part C” claims are those filed on or after July 1, 1973; they are paid by private employers or by a fund to which the employers contribute, and they are administered by the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (the Director) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary). Part C of the program includes two subparts: claims filed after April 1, 1980, which are governed by “permanent criteria,” and those filed prior to April 1, 1980, which are governed by the “interim regulations” at issue in this case. Despite the “interim” designation, these regulations are extremely important because they apply to about 10,000 pending claims.
There is no dispute about the Secretary’s authority to promulgate the interim regulations. Nor is there any suggestion that they violate any express statutory command. The statute does require the Secretary to establish criteria for eligibility that “shall not be more restrictive than” the criteria that the Secretary of HEW had established for the administration of the Part B program, but the Court of Appeals did not hold that § 203 violates this standard. The statute also requires that “all relevant evidence” shall be considered, but it is clear that the regulation is consistent with that requirement — the only dispute is over how much of the relevant evidence may be considered in determining whether the interim presumption shall be invoked. Thus, there is no need to parse statutory language to decide this case.
The Court of Appeals’ holding rests, at bottom, on two propositions: (1) the regulation’s plain language mandates that the presumption be invoked on the basis of a single item of qualifying evidence; and (2) the Secretary’s reading is not faithful to the purposes of the program as reflected in its legislative history. We shall consider each of these propositions after reviewing the substance of the regulation and the facts of the one case that presents the legal question we must decide.
II
Disability benefits are payable to a miner if (a) he or she is totally disabled, (b) the disability was caused, at least in part, by pneumoconiosis, and (c) the disability arose out of coal mine employment. All three of these conditions of eligibility are presumed if the claimant was engaged in coal mine employment for at least 10 years and if the claimant meets one of four medical requirements: (1) a chest X ray establishes the presence of pneumoconiosis; (2) ventilatory studies establish the presence of a respiratory or pulmonary disease — not necessarily pneumoconiosis — of a specified severity; (3) blood gas studies demonstrate the presence of an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the blood; or (4) other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasonable medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory impairment. It is noteworthy that only the first of the four alternative methods of invoking the presumption requires proof that the claimant’s disease is in fact pneumoconiosis. None of the methods requires proof of causation, and only the fourth requires proof of total disability.
The second paragraph in the regulation describes how the presumption may be rebutted. It first provides that in the adjudication of a claim, “all relevant medical evidence shall be considered. ” It then provides that the presumption is rebutted if the evidence establishes that the claimant is doing or is capable of doing his usual or comparable work, that his disability did not arise, even in part, out of coal mine employment, or that he does not have pneumoconiosis. Thus, in order to rebut the interim presumption the employer has the burden of proving that at least one of the three conditions of eligibility is not satisfied.
Ill
Respondent Ray filed a claim for disability benefits with the Secretary in 1976. At the hearing before the ALJ, he proved that he had 16 years of coal mine employment. The ALJ placed 47 exhibits from the Director’s file into evidence, and the employer introduced four additional exhibits. The record contained one qualifying X-ray interpretation, two qualifying ventilatory studies, and one qualifying physician’s opinion. The record, however, also included seven nonqualifying X-ray interpretations, four nonqualifying ventilatory studies, and five nonqualifying physicians’ opinions. After weighing the X-ray evidence, the ALJ concluded that it did not establish that Ray had pneumoconiosis, and after balancing all the ventilatory studies, he concluded that they did not establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease. Additionally, the ALJ found that the other medical evidence, including documented physicians’ opinions, did not establish the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. He therefore held that Ray was not entitled to the benefit of the interim presumption.
The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s order denying benefits. It first noted that Ray’s “contention that subsection (a)(1) must be invoked where the record contains a single positive X-ray has previously been considered and rejected,” and it agreed with the ALJ’s evaluation of the X-ray evidence and ventilatory studies. Finally, while disagreeing with some of the ALJ’s reasoning, the Board reviewed and approved the ALJ’s weighing of the physicians’ opinions in the employer’s favor.
The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings. It held that the interim presumption had been invoked under § (a)(2) by the two qualifying ventilatory studies and under § (a)(4) by the one qualifying physician’s opinion. The court did not rely on the positive X-ray interpretation because it was not sufficiently identified to satisfy the requirements for X-ray evidence under §718.102(c) of the Secretary’s regulation. The court reversed the Board’s denial of benefits and remanded for the ALJ to determine whether the presumption had been rebutted. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1029 (1987), to resolve the question presented by this case: whether one item of qualifying evidence is always sufficient to invoke the interim presumption and thereby shift the burden of persuasion to the employer.
IV
The Court of Appeals held that “the interim presumption under § 727.203(a)(1), (2), or (3) is established when there is credible evidence that a qualifying X-ray indicates the presence of pneumoconiosis, a single qualifying set of ventilatory studies indicates, pursuant to the regulatory standard, a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease, or a single qualifying set of blood gas studies indicates, pursuant to the regulatory standard, an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the blood.” 785 F. 2d, at 426. The principal basis for this holding was the court’s view that the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that a single positive X ray necessarily invokes the presumption. In advancing that view, however, the court did not pause to consider the significance of the word “establishes” in § (a)(1). It read § (a)(1) as though it merely required a chest X ray that constitutes evidence of the presence of pneumoconiosis rather than one that actually “establishes” the presence of the disease.
The Secretary’s regulations, however, recognize the difference between an X ray that tends to prove the presence of pneumoconiosis and one that can be said to establish it. Thus, in contrast to the use of the word “establishes” throughout § 727.203(a), the regulation defining the suitable quality of X-ray evidence refers to an X ray that “shall constitute evidence of the presence or absence of pneumoconiosis.” The Court of Appeals read § 203(a)(1) as though it merely required an X ray that “constitutes evidence of the presence of pneumoconiosis.” Had that been the Secretary’s intent, presumably he would have used that language as he did elsewhere to explain that meaning.
There is another reason why § (a)(1) cannot have been intended to refer to a single item of evidence. For the ordinary trier of fact — even an ALJ who has heard many black lung benefit cases — an X ray may well be meaningless unless it is interpreted by a qualified expert. What may be persuasive to the ALJ, then, is not just the X ray itself, but its interpretation by a specialist. And, of course, different experts may provide different readings of the same X ray. As Judge Posner has observed:
“Under the regulation it is not the reading, but the X-ray, that establishes the presumption. If one doctor interprets an X-ray as positive for black-lung disease but 100 equally qualified doctors interpret the same X-ray as negative for the disease, nothing in the regulation requires the administrative law judge to disregard the negative readings.” Cook v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 816 F. 2d 1182, 1185 (CA7 1987).
Thus, it seems perfectly clear that it is not the X ray in isolation that “establishes” the presence of the disease; rather, the regulation must, at a minimum, have reference both to the X ray itself and to other evidence that sheds light on the meaning and significance of the X ray. Just as the ALJ must weigh conflicting interpretations of the same X ray in order to determine whether it tends to prove or disprove the existence of pneumoconiosis, there would seem to be no reason why he must ignore all X rays in a series except one.
The Court of Appeals relied in large part on perceived internal inconsistencies in the Secretary’s interpretation. In the rebuttal section, the regulation provides that in “adjudicating a claim under this subpart, all relevant medical evidence shall be considered.” The Court of Appeals interpreted this statement as requiring all relevant evidence to be considered on rebuttal. Since the Secretary’s reading would make some evidence inadmissible for certain aspects of rebuttal, the Court of Appeals thought that reading violated the requirement that “all relevant medical evidence shall be considered.”
We disagree, for two reasons. First, nothing in the Secretary’s position prevents “all relevant medical evidence” from being considered at some point during the proof process. To understand why this requirement was inserted at the beginning of the rebuttal section, it is important to understand its derivation. After the SSA adopted its interim presumption, its claims approval rate increased, in part due, it is thought, to factfinders failing to consider all of the employers’ relevant medical evidence. To assure that this problem would not infect adjudications under the new Labor interim presumption, the requirement of 30 U. S. C. § 923(b) that all relevant medical evidence be considered in adjudicating SSA claims was explicitly carried over into the Labor presumption’s rebuttal section. Thus, that the “all relevant medical evidence” requirement appears at the beginning of the rebuttal section reflects the genesis of the concern and does not indicate that the drafters intended a more limited evidentiary battle at the invocation stage. As long as relevant evidence will be considered at some point by the AL J, the demand that the decision be made on the complete record is satisfied.
Second, the cited provision refers to “adjudicating a claim under this subpart,” and a “subpart” “may be used to group related sections in a part.” 1 CFR § 21.9(b) (1987). All of 20 CFR § 727.203 (1987), the interim presumption, is within subpart C of part 727. Thus, nothing in the regulation requires all relevant medical evidence to be considered at the rebuttal phase; such evidence must simply be admissible at some point during the proof process.
The Court of Appeals was persuaded as well that some of the rebuttal provisions would be superfluous under the Secretary’s reading. For instance, if the claimant invokes the presumption by establishing the existence of pneumoconiosis under § (a)(1), the employer may not try to disprove pneumoconiosis under § (b)(4). This limitation on rebuttal, according to the Court of Appeals, renders the Secretary’s position internally inconsistent.
Again, we are constrained to disagree. Nothing in the regulation requires each rebuttal subsection to be fully available in each case. As long as the employer can introduce, say, nonqualifying X rays at the invocation stage to oppose invocation under § (a)(1), it has been given the chance to show the nonexistence of pneumoconiosis. If the presumption is nonetheless invoked, the employer can still try to disprove total disability or causality.
Finally, there is some concern that the Secretary’s position might permit a single negative X-ray interpretation to carry the day for the employer, in violation of the statute’s mandate that “no claim for benefits... shall be denied solely on the basis of the results of [an X ray].” § 923(b) (made applicable to Part C adjudications through § 902(f)(2)). The easy answer was provided by the dissent below: “a single negative X-ray may not... be drawn upon either as the sole basis for finding the invocation burden under (a)(1) not carried nor as the sole basis for finding the rebuttal burden under (b)(4) carried.” 785 F. 2d, at 445 (emphases added). Furthermore, in weighing conflicting X-ray readings ALJs will undoubtedly keep in mind the character of the black lung disease:
“Since pneumoconiosis is a progressive and irreversible disease, early negative X-ray readings are not inconsistent with significantly later positive readings.... This proposition is not applicable where the factual pattern is reversed. In a situation... where the more recent X-ray evidence is negative and directly conflicting with earlier positive X-rays it may be weighed with less regard to timing in light of the recognized principle that negative X-ray readings are not a trustworthy indicator of the absence of the disease.” Elkins v. Beth-Elkhorn Corp., 2 BLR 1-683, 1-686 (Ben. Rev. Bd. 1979).
In sum, we find the Secretary’s interpretation of his own regulation entirely consistent with its text.
V
The Court of Appeals’ holding that a single item of qualifying evidence always suffices to carry a claimant’s invocation burden was based in part on its understanding of the legislative history of the black lung benefits statutes. 785 F. 2d, at 457-461. This conclusion is based on the clear congressional mandate for interim presumptions to reduce the number of benefit denials by both the SSA and Labor. While we agree that Congress did intend to ensure fewer benefit denials, we are not persuaded either that that goal has been frustrated by the Secretary’s interpretation of the regulation, or that Congress intended more specifically to require invocation of the presumption based solely on one item of a claimant’s proof.
In the early years of the benefits program, the SSA denied a high number of claims because of a perceived lack of proof of totally disabling pneumoconiosis due to coal mine employment. Congress mandated liberalized standards, and the SSA established an interim presumption to carry out this directive. § 410.490(b). In so doing, the SSA explained the problems with the prior scheme and the virtues of the new one:
“In enacting the Black Lung Act of 1972, the Congress noted that adjudication of the large backlog of claims generated by the earlier law could not await the establishment of facilities and development of medical tests not presently available to evaluate disability due to pneumoconiosis, and that such claims must be handled under present circumstances in the light of limited medical resources and techniques. Accordingly, the Congress stated its expectancy that the Secretary would adopt such interim evidentiary rules and disability evaluation criteria as would permit prompt and vigorous processing of the large backlog of claims consistent with the language and intent of the 1972 amendments and that such rules and criteria would give full consideration to the combined employment handicap of disease and age and provide for the adjudication of claims on the basis of medical evidence other than physical performance tests when it is not feasible to provide such tests. The provisions of this section establish such interim evidentiary rules and criteria. They take full account of the congressional expectation that in many instances it is not feasible to require extensive pulmonary function testing to measure the total extent of an individual’s breathing impairment, and that an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lung alveoli to cellular level can exist in an individual even though his chest roentgenogram (X-ray) or ventilatory function tests are normal.” § 410.490(a).
The SSA implemented this congressional desire to ease claimants’ proof burdens by promulgating the interim presumption that serves as the antecedent to the one at issue in this case. The presumption, applicable to claims filed with the SSA before July 1, 1973, provides that a miner is presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if two conditions are met: First, either “[a] chest... X-ray... establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis” or “[i]n the case of a miner employed for at least 15 years in underground or comparable coal mine employment, ventilatory studies establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease....” § 410.490(b)(1); second, “[t]he impairment established in accordance with [either of these medical requirements] arose out of coal mine employment.” § 410.490(b)(2). Additionally, “a miner who meets the [ventilatory studies] medical requirements... will be presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment... if he has at least 10 years of the requisite coal mine employment.” § 410.490(b)(3).
The SSA’s interim rules further provide that the presumption can be rebutted if either “[t]here is evidence that the individual is, in fact, doing his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work” or “[o]ther evidence, including physical performance tests..., establishes] that the individual is able to do his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work.” § 410.490(c).
As the SSA’s claims approval rate increased, Labor’s remained low, in large part because of the absence of an interim presumption by which a claimant would only have to prove one predicate fact. The interim presumption at issue in this case, promulgated as a result of congressional dissatisfaction with Labor’s low claims approval rate, is substantially similar to the SSA interim presumption. It satisfies Congress’ demand that Labor’s criteria “shall not be more restrictive than the criteria applicable to a claim filed on June 30, 1973,” 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(2), i. e., no more restrictive than the SSA’s interim presumption.
Since Labor’s interim presumption derived so directly from the SSA’s, if the Court of Appeals’ conclusion regarding single-item invocation were correct, one would expect to find SSA AL J decisions permitting invocation in such a manner, and federal court opinions indicating approval. Instead, federal court decisions routinely referred to SSA AL J invocation weighings without objection, and often with explicit approval. Thus, the legislative history of the Labor interim presumption does not establish that invocation must occur on a single piece of qualifying evidence.
VI
Under either the Court of Appeals’ or the Secretary’s interpretation of the regulation, a single item of qualifying evidence may be sufficient to invoke the presumption. Indeed, the authors of the regulation apparently expected that the presumption would regularly be invoked on the basis of a single item of qualifying evidence. Reasoning from that expectation, the Court of Appeals concluded that the presumption must be invoked whenever the record contains a single item of qualifying evidence. But as we have demonstrated above, that conclusion is compelled by neither the text nor the history of the regulation.
Nor is it compelled by the underlying basis for the presumption. For black lung benefits presumptions, no less than any presumption established or recognized in law, are the product of both factual understandings and policy concerns. As a matter of fact, Congress could reasonably have concluded that it is highly probable that a person who engaged in coal mine employment for over a decade is totally disabled as a result of pneumoconiosis arising from that employment if he or she can prove any of the medical requirements specified in the regulation. That degree of probability is not, however, present when the claimant is merely in a position to offer a single item of qualifying evidence that is overcome by more reliable conflicting evidence.
As a matter of policy, Congress was aware that it is difficult for coal miners whose health has been impaired by the insidious effects of their work environment to prove that their diseases are totally disabling and coal mine related, or that those diseases are in fact pneumoconiosis. Rather than merely providing a benefit for those miners who could prove each of the relevant facts by a preponderance of the evidence, Congress intended that those long-term miners who can show that they are truly diseased should have to prove no more. But if a miner is not actually suffering from the type of ailment with which Congress was concerned, there is no justification for presuming that that miner is entitled to benefits. For not only does that miner fall outside the class of those who need the assistance of an interim presumption, but he also is unlikely to be totally disabled from coal mine employment. By requiring miners to show that they suffer from the sort of medical impairment that initially gave rise to congressional concern, and then by requiring employers to shoulder the remainder of the proof burden, the Secretary’s reading of the interim presumption’s invocation burden satisfies both the purposes of the statute and the need for a logical connection between the proven fact and the presumed conclusion.
In the end, the Secretary’s view is not only eminently reasonable but also is strongly supported by the fact that Labor wrote the regulation. The agency’s interpretation, which is deserving of substantial deference “unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,” Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945), has been, with one exception, consistently maintained through Board decisions. Likewise, prior to the Court of Appeals decision in this ease, the Courts of Appeals had routinely reviewed for substantial evidence the factfinder’s invocation determination under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Accordingly, there is no reason to downgrade the normal deference accorded to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U. S. 29 (1983).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 792, 30 U. S. C. § 801 et seq., was amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 150, 30 U. S. C. §901 et seq., the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977, 92 Stat. 11, the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, 92 Stat. 95, the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981, 95 Stat. 1643, the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1981, 95 Stat. 1635, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99-272, § 13203(a)(d), 100 Stat. 312, 313.
Part B of the Act is codified at 30 U. S. C. § 921 et seq.
Part C is codified at 30 U. S. C. § 931 et seq.
See 20 CFR pt. 718 and § 725.4(a) (1987).
See 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(1). As the Court of Appeals noted:
“The statute... leaves to the Secretary how the presumption is to be triggered and rebutted and how the various burdens of persuasion and production are to be allocated between the claimant and the employer.” Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 785 F. 2d 424, 433 (CA4 1986) (en banc).
See 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(2).
The statute provides, in part:
“In carrying out the provisions of this part, the Secretary shall to the maximum extent feasible (and consistent with the provisions of this part) utilize the personnel and procedures he uses in determining entitlement to disability insurance benefit payments under section 223 of the Social Security Act [42 U. S. C. §423], but no claim for benefits under this part shall be denied solely on the basis of the results of a chest roentgenogram [X ray]. In determining the validity of claims under this part, all relevant evidence shall be considered, including, where relevant, medical tests such as blood gas studies, X-ray examination, electrocardiogram, pulmonary function studies, or physical performance tests, and any medical history, evidence submitted by the claimant’s physician, or his wife’s affidavits, and in the case of a deceased miner, other appropriate affidavits of persons with knowledge of the miner’s physical condition, and other supportive materials.” § 923(b) (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals was of the view that the regulation itself requires all relevant evidence to be considered on rebuttal, and that the Secretary’s reading violated this requirement. See infra, at 149. To the extent that the presumption is made irrebuttable under the Secretary’s reading, see infra, at 149-150, and n. 26, the court thought the statutory requirement that “all relevant evidence” shall be considered violated as well. See 785 F. 2d, at 434. This conclusion is clearly incorrect, for the same reasons that the court’s conclusion regarding the regulation is incorrect. See infra, at 149-150. In short, the opportunity, under the Secretary’s reading, to present relevant evidence at the invocation stage, satisfies the statutory requirement that “all relevant evidence” shall be considered.
The resolution of the legal question apparently will not affect two of the individual respondents. Even though the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that respondent Gerald R. Stapleton had properly invoked the interim presumption, he also concluded that it had been rebutted. The Court of Appeals majority agreed with that analysis, and the dissent, adopting the Secretary’s approach, agreed with the result on the ground that the presumption should not have been invoked. For respondent Glenn Cornett, the ALJ found that the presumption had been properly invoked and that it had not been rebutted. Both the majority and the dissent agreed with those conclusions. With respect to respondent Luke R. Ray, however, the majority disagreed with the ALJ’s determination that the presumption had not been properly invoked, and remanded for a determination whether the presumption was rebutted. The dissent agreed with the ALJ, and would have affirmed the denial of benefits.
We think it helpful at this point to add a note about the posture of the parties to this case. The petitioners, who filed a joint petition pursuant to this Court’s Rule 19.4, are Mullins Coal Co., the Old Republic Insurance Co., and Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. Mullins and Jewell Ridge employed, respectively, respondents Cornett and Ray, both of whom were victorious before the Court of Appeals, but only one of whom, Ray, has filed a brief in this Court. Old Republic is Mullins’ black lung benefits insurance carrier. In addition to Cornett and Ray, respondents are: the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, who administers the Department of Labor’s (Labor) black lung benefits program and whose brief lays out the Secretary’s position challenging the Court of Appeals’ conclusion regarding a claimant’s invocation burden; Gerald R. Stapleton, whose benefits denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, see Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., supra, and who attacks that judgment as a respondent pursuant to Rule 19.6; and Westmoreland Coal Co., who employed Stapleton and is thus happy with the result below, but who is unhappy with the ramifications of the Court of Appeals’ decision and has accordingly filed a brief in support of petitioners, also pursuant to Rule 19.6.
A fifth alternative, available in a death benefit claim, is not at issue in this case. See 20 CFR § 727.203(a)(5) (1987), quoted in n. 10, infra.
The full text of § 727.203(a) reads as follows:
“(a) Establishing interim presumption. A miner who engaged in coal mine employment for at least 10 years will be presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, or to have been totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis at the time of death, or death will be presumed to be due to pneumoconiosis, arising out of that employment, if one of the following medical requirements is met:
“(1) A chest roentgenogram (X-ray), biopsy, or autopsy establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis (see §410.428 of this title);
“(2) Ventilatory studies establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease (which meets the requirements for duration in § 410.412(a)(2) of this title) as demonstrated by values which are equal to or less than the values specified in the following table:
Equal to or less than—
FEV MW
2.3 92 67" or less.
2.4 96 68"...........
2.4 96 69"...........
2.5 100 70"...........
2.6 104 71"...........
2.6 104 72"...........
2.7 108 73" or more
“(3) Blood gas studies which demonstrate the presence of an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lung alveoli to the blood as indicated by values which are equal to or less than the values specified in the following table:
Arterial pCOz equal to or less than (mm.Hg.)
Arterial pO¡
30 or below.................................................. 70
31............................................................... 69
32............................................................... 68
33............................................................... 67
34..... 66
35..... 65
36..... 64
37..... 63
38..... 62
39..... 61
40-45 60
Above 45..................................................... Any value.
“(4) Other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasoned medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment;
“(5) In the case of a deceased miner where no medical evidence is available, the affidavit of the survivor of such miner or other persons with knowledge of the miner’s physical condition, demonstrates the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment.”
The full text of § 727.203(b) reads as follows:
“(b) Rebuttal of interim presumption. In adjudicating a claim under this subpart, all relevant medical evidence shall be considered. The presumption in paragraph (a) of this section shall be rebutted if:
“(1) The evidence establishes that the individual is, in fact, doing his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work (see § 410.412(a)(1) of this title); or
“(2) In light of all relevant evidence it is established that the individual is able to do his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work (see § 410.412(a)(1) of this title); or
“(3) The evidence establishes that the total disability or death of the miner did not arise in whole or in part out of coal mine employment; or
“(4) The evidence establishes that the miner does not, or did not, have pneumoconiosis.”
Petitioners agree that the employer’s rebuttal burden is one of proof as well as production. The Secretary also takes the position that the presumption should be invoked in cases of “true doubt” — that is, if the claimant’s and employer’s invocation evidence is of equal weight. Brief for Federal Respondent 33, 39. This position ensures that the employer will win, on invocation or rebuttal, only when its evidence is stronger than the claimant’s. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) “has consistently upheld the principle that, where true doubt exists, that doubt shall be resolved in favor of the claimant.” Lessar v. C. F. & I. Steel Corp., 3 BLR 1-63, 1-68 (1981).
Medical evidence is initially submitted to the Director by the claimant and the employer, and through examinations and tests ordered by the Director himself. See §§ 725.2(b) and 725.404 et seq. When a hearing is requested or ordered, all evidence previously submitted to the Director becomes part of the hearing record. See § 725.421(b)(4).
The Court of Appeals used the term “qualifying” to refer to positive medical evidence that would suffice, absent contrary evidence of the same type, to invoke the presumption. For example, an X ray that disclosed pneumoconiosis (§ (a)(1)) or ventilatory studies that revealed a respiratory or pulmonary impairment of sufficient magnitude (§ (a)(2)) would constitute qualifying evidence. Conversely, negative X-ray results or ventilatory studies that failed to reveal a great enough impairment would be deemed “nonqualifying” evidence.
That Ray did not object to the nonqualifying evidence contained in these exhibits is of no moment; what matters in this case is not whether nonqualifying evidence may be introduced into the record (all parties agree it may), but when that evidence may be considered. During Ray’s hearing, the ALJ simply admitted all relevant evidence and took testimony. It was only in his written decision that the ALJ revealed whether he considered nonqualifying evidence during invocation or only on rebuttal.
“I give greatest weight to the seven negative X-rays, three of which were read by qualified ‘B’ readers. (Dir. Exbs. 24, 25, 26) I conclude that the X-ray evidence does not establish that Claimant has
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Interstate Commerce Act (Act), 49 U. S. C. §10101 et seq. (1982 ed.), motor common carriers must file their rates with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission), and both carriers and shippers must adhere to these rates. This case requires us to determine the validity of a policy recently adopted by the ICC that relieves a shipper of the obligation of paying the filed rate when the shipper and carrier have privately negotiated a lower rate. We hold that this policy is inconsistent with the Act.
I
A
The ICC regulates interstate transportation by motor common carriers to ensure that rates are both reasonable and nondiscriminatory. See 49 U. S. C. §§ 10101(a), 10701(a), 10741(b) (1982 ed.). The Act provides that a “common carrier... may not subject a person, place, port, or type of traffic to unreasonable discrimination.” § 10741. In addition, the Act states that “[a] rate..., classification, rule, or practice related to transportation or service... must be reasonable.” § 10701(a). The ICC has primary responsibility for determining whether a rate or practice is reasonable. See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 440-442 (1907). The Commission may investigate the reasonableness of a rate “on its own initiative or on complaint.” § 11701(a). When the Commission determines that a rate or practice violates the statute, it “shall prescribe the rate... or practice to be followed.” § 10704(b)(1). Moreover, motor common carriers are liable “for damages resulting from the imposition of rates for transportation or service the Commission finds to be in violation” of the Act. 49 U. S. C. § 11705(b)(3) (1982 ed., Supp. V).
The Act requires a motor common carrier to “publish and file with the Commission tariffs containing the rates for transportation it may provide.” 49 U. S. C. § 10762(a)(1) (1982 ed.). The Act also specifically prohibits a carrier from providing services at any rate other than the filed (also known as the tariff) rate:
“Except as provided in this subtitle, a carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission... shall provide that transportation or service only if the rate for the transportation or service is contained in a tariff that is in effect under this subchapter. That carrier may not charge or receive a different compensation for that transportation or service than the rate specified in the tariff whether by returning a part of that rate to a person, giving a person a privilege, allowing the use of a facility that affects the value of that transportation or service, or another device.” § 10761(a).
Deviation from the filed rate may result in the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions on the carrier or shipper. See §§ 11902-11904.
As the Court has frequently stated, the statute does not permit either a shipper’s ignorance or the carrier’s misquotation of the applicable rate to serve as a defense to the collection of the filed rate. See Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U. S. 336, 352 (1982); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 97 (1915). In 1986, however, the ICC concluded that changes in the motor carrier industry “clearly warrant a tempering of the former harsh rule of adhering to the tariff rate in virtually all cases.” NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 3 I. C. C. 2d 99, 106 (1986) (Negotiated Rates I). Under the new policy, when cases are referred to the Commission, it “decid[es] if the collection of undercharges would be an unreasonable practice.” Id., at 100.
In Negotiated Rates I, the Commission adverted to a growing trend in the motor carrier industry whereby carriers and shippers negotiate rates lower than those on file with the ICC, and the shippers are billed for and remit payment at the negotiated rate. In many instances, however, the negotiated rate is never filed with the ICC. In some of those cases, the carrier subsequently files for bankruptcy and the trustee bills the shipper for the difference between the tariff rate and the negotiated rate, arguing that § 10761 compels the collection of the filed rather than negotiated rate. Id., at 99. The Commission concluded that, under such circumstances, “it could be fundamentally unfair not to consider a shipper’s equitable defenses to a claim for undercharges.” Id., at 103. The Commission reasoned that the passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which significantly deregulated the motor carrier industry, justified the change in policy, for the new competitive atmosphere made strict application of § 10761 unnecessary to deter discrimination. 3 I. C. C. 2d, at 106. Moreover, the Commission asserted that it had authority under § 10701 to determine whether the collection of the undercharge in a particular case would constitute an unreasonable practice. Id., at 103.
The ICC clarified its new policy in NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 5 I. C. C. 2d 623 (1989) (Negotiated Rates II). The Commission explained that its policy did not recognize “equitable defenses” but rather applied the “affirmative statutory requirement] and obligatio[n]” of § 10701 that a carrier’s practices be reasonable. Id., at 631, n. 18. “[T]he Commission is finding to be an unreasonable practice... a course of conduct consisting of: (1) negotiating a rate; (2) agreeing to a rate that the shipper reasonably relies upon as being lawfully filed; (3) failing, either willfully or otherwise, to publish the rate; (4) billing and accepting payment at the negotiated rate for (sometimes) numerous shipments; and (5) then demanding additional payment at higher rates.” Id., at 628, n 11.
B
This case involves the application of the Commission’s new Negotiated Rates policy. It arises from an action by petitioner Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. (Maislin), to recover freight undercharges for 1,081 interstate shipments performed for a shipper, respondent Primary Steel (Primary), by petitioner’s subsidiary, Quinn Freight Lines (Quinn). From 1981 to 1983, Quinn, a motor common carrier certificated by the ICC, privately negotiated rates with Primary that were lower than Quinn’s rates then on file with the ICC. Quinn never filed the negotiated rates with the ICC.
In 1983, Maislin filed for bankruptcy, and a postpetition audit of its accounts revealed undercharges of $187,923.36 resulting from billing Primary at the negotiated, rather than filed, rates. The agents of the bankrupt estate, pursuant to the authorization of the Bankruptcy Court, issued balance due bills to Primary for these undercharges. When Primary refused to pay the amounts demanded, the estate brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under 49 U. S. C. § 11706(a) (1982 ed.) for the difference between the filed rates and the negotiated rates.
In its answer, Primary alleged that since the parties had negotiated lower rates, rebilling at the tariff rates would constitute an unreasonable practice in violation of §10701; that the tariff rates themselves were not “reasonable” within the meaning of § 10701; and that the asserted tariff rates were otherwise inapplicable to the shipments at issue. The District Court, finding these matters to be within the primary jurisdiction of the ICC, stayed the proceeding at Primary’s request and referred the case to the Commission. App. 6-8.
The ICC ruled in Primary’s favor, rejecting Maislin’s argument that the Commission lacked the statutory power to release a shipper from liability for such undercharges. Relying on Negotiated Rates I, the ICC reiterated that § 10701 authorized it to “consider all the circumstances surrounding an undercharge suit” to determine whether collection of the filed rate would constitute an unreasonable practice. App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. In the Commission’s view, its role was “to undertake an analysis of whether a negotiated but unpublished rate existed, the circumstances surrounding assessment of the tariff rate, and any other pertinent facts.” Id., at 36a. With respect to the instant controversy, the ICC concluded that Quinn and Primary had negotiated rates other than the tariff rates' and that Primary had relied on Quinn to file the rates with the ICC. “Primary reasonably believed that the amounts quoted and billed by Quinn were the correct total charges for the transportation services it performed, that the amounts were reached as the result of negotiations between Primary and Quinn, and that, since full payment was made by [Primary],” Maislin was not entitled to recover the filed rates. Id., at 43a.
The case returned to the District Court where both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for Primary, rejecting Maislin’s argument that the ICC’s new policy was, in effect, an impermissible recognition of equitable defenses to the application of the filed rate. The District Court concluded that the ICC’s policy of determining case by case whether the collection of undercharges would be an unreasonable practice under § 10701 was based on a permissible construction of the Act. 705 F. Supp. 1401, 1405-1406 (1988). The court also determined that the ICC’s finding that Maislin had engaged in an unreasonable practice was supported by substantial evidence. Id., at 1406-1407.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the approach taken by the ICC was consistent with the Act. The court reasoned that “[s]ection 10761(a), which mandates the collection of tariff rates, is only part of an overall regulatory scheme administered by the ICC, and there is no provision in the [Act] elevating this section over section 10701, which requires that tariff rates be reasonable.” 879 F. 2d 400, 405 (1989). The court concluded: “[T]he proper authority to harmonize these competing provisions is the ICC.... The approach taken by the ICC does not abolish the filed rate doctrine, but merely allows the ICC to consider all of the circumstances, including equitable defenses, to determine if strict adherence to the filed rate doctrine would constitute an unreasonable practice.” Ibid, (citation omitted). Because the Courts of Appeals have disagreed on the important issue whether the ICC’s Negotiated Rates policy is consistent with the Act, we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 1041 (1990).
II
The Act requires a motor common carrier to publish its rates in a tariff filed with the Commission. 49 U. S. C. § 10762 (1982 ed.). This Court has long understood that the filed rate governs the legal relationship between shipper and carrier. In Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 166, 163 (1922), the Court explained:
“The legal rights of shipper as against carrier in respect to a rate are measured by the published tariff. Unless and until suspended or set aside, this rate is made, for all purposes, the legal rate, as between carrier and shipper. The rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by either contract or tort of the carrier.... This stringent rule prevails, because otherwise the paramount purpose of Congress — prevention of unjust discrimination-might be defeated.” (Citations omitted.)
See Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409, 415-417 (1986); Abilene Cotton Oil, 204 U. S., at 439; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 245 (1906); Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 101 (1895). The duty to file rates with the Commission, see § 10762, and the obligation to charge only those rates, see § 10761, have always been considered essential to preventing price discrimination and stabilizing rates. “In order to render rates definite and certain, and to prevent discrimination and other abuses, the statute require[s] the filing and publishing of tariffs specifying the rates adopted by the carrier, and ma[kes] these the legal rates, that is, those which must be charged to all shippers alike.” Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 284 U. S. 370, 384 (1932).
Given the close interplay between the duties imposed by §§ 10761-10762 and the statutory prohibition on discrimination, see § 10741, this Court has read the statute to create strict filed rate requirements and to forbid equitable defenses to collection of the filed tariff. See Mugg, supra, at 245; Hefley, supra, at 101. The classic statement of the “filed rate doctrine,” as it has come to be known, is explained in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94 (1915). In that case, the Court held that a passenger who purchased a train ticket at a rate misquoted by the ticket agent did not have a defense against the subsequent collection of the higher tariff rate by the railroad.
“Under the Interstate Commerce Act, the rate of the carrier duly filed is the only lawful charge. Deviation from it is not permitted upon any pretext. Shippers and travelers are charged with notice of it, and they as well as the carrier must abide by it, unless it is found by the Commission to be unreasonable. Ignorance or misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or charging either less or more than the rate filed. This rule is undeniably strict and it obviously may work hardship in some cases, but it embodies the policy which has been adopted by Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce in order to prevent unjust discrimination.” Id., at 97.
This rigid approach was deemed necessary to prevent carriers from intentionally “misquoting” rates to shippers as a means of offering them rebates or discounts. See S. Rep. No. 46, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 181, 188-190, 198-200 (1886). As the Commission itself found: “[P]ast experience shows that billing clerks and other agents of carriers might easily-become experts in the making of errors and mistakes in the quotation of rates to favored shippers, while other shippers, less fortunate in their relations with carriers and whose traffic is less important, would be compelled to pay the higher published rates.” Poor v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 418, 421-422 (1907); see also Western Transp. Co. v. Wilson & Co., 682 F. 2d 1227, 1230-1231 (CA7 1982). Despite the harsh effects of the filed rate doctrine, we have consistently adhered to it. See, e. g., Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U. S. 533, 535 (1983); Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 456 U. S., at 343-344; Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 307 U. S. 478, 484-485 (1939); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U. S. 59, 65 (1924).
The filed rate doctrine, however, contains an important caveat: The filed rate is not enforceable if the ICC finds the rate to be unreasonable. See Maxwell, supra, at 97 (filed rate applies “unless it is found by the Commission to be ■unreasonable”) (emphasis added); see also Keogh, supra, at 163 (“The legal rights of shipper as against carrier in respect to a rate are measured by the published tariff. Unless and until suspended or set aside, this rate is made, for all purposes, the legal rate”) (emphasis added). The filed rate doctrine, therefore, follows from the requirement that only filed rates be collected, as commanded by §§ 10761 and 10762, the requirement that rates not be discriminatory, see § 10741, and the requirement of § 10701 that carriers adopt reasonable rates and practices. As we explained in Arizona Grocery, supra, although the filed rate is the legal rate, the Act
“did not abrogate, but [rather] expressly affirmed, the common-law duty to charge no more than a reasonable rate.... In other words, the legal rate was not made by the statute a lawful rate — it was lawful only if it was reasonable. Under [the Act] the shipper was bound to pay the legal rate; but if he could show that it was unreasonable he might recover reparation.
“The Act altered the common law by lodging in the Commission the power theretofore exercised by courts, of determining the reasonableness of a published rate. If the finding on this question was against the carrier, reparation was to be awarded the shipper, and only the enforcement of the award was relegated to the courts.” Id., at 384-385 (footnote omitted).
In the instant case, the Commission did not find that the rates were unreasonable," but rather concluded that the carrier had engaged in an unreasonable practice in violation of § 10701 that should preclude it from collecting the filed rates. The Commission argues that under the filed rate doctrine, a finding that the carrier engaged in an unreasonable practice should, like a finding that the filed rate is unreasonable, disentitle the carrier to collection of the filed rate. We have never held that a carrier’s unreasonable practice justifies departure from the filed tariff schedule. But we need not resolve this issue today because we conclude that the justification for departure from the filed tariff schedule that the ICC set forth in its Negotiated Rates policy rests on an interpretation of the Act that is contrary to the language and structure of the statute as a whole and the requirements that make up the filed rate doctrine in particular.
Under the Negotiated Rates policy, the ICC has determined that a carrier engages in an unreasonable practice when it attempts to collect the filed rate after the parties have negotiated a lower rate. The ICC argues that its conclusion is entitled to deference because § 10701 does not specifically address the types of practices that are to be considered unreasonable and because its construction is rational and consistent with the statute. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984).
We disagree. For a century, this Court has held that the Act, as it incorporates the filed rate doctrine, forbids as discriminatory the secret negotiation and collection of rates lower than the filed rate. See supra, at 126-128. By refusing to order collection of the filed rate solely because the parties had agreed to a lower rate, the ICC has permitted the very price discrimination that the Act by its terms seeks to prevent. See 49 U. S. C. § 10741 (1982 ed.). As we stated in Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 81 (1908):
“If the rates are subject to secret alteration by special agreement then the statute will fail of its purpose to establish a rate duly published, known to all, and from which neither shipper nor carrier may depart.... [The Act] has provided for the establishing of one rate, to be filed as provided, subject to change as provided, and that rate to be while in force the only legal rate. Any other construction of the statute opens the door to the possibility of the very abuses of unequal rates which it was the design of the statute to prohibit and punish.”
Congress has not diverged from this interpretation and we decline to revisit it ourselves. See California v. FERC, 495 U. S. 490, 499 (1990) (recognizing the respect “this Court must accord to longstanding and well-entrenched decisions, especially those interpreting statutes that underlie complex regulatory regimes”). Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning. Labeling the carrier’s conduct an “unreasonable practice” cannot disguise the fact that the ICC is justifying deviation from the filed rate purely on the ground that the carrier and shipper have privately negotiated a lower rate. Stripped of its semantic cover, the Negotiated Rates policy and, more specifically, the Commission’s interpretation of “unreasonable practices” thus stand revealed as flatly inconsistent with the statutory scheme as a whole, cf. Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA, 495 U. S. 641, 645 (1990); Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 32 (1990), and §§10761 and 10762 in particular.
Nor can the Negotiated Rates policy be justified as a remedy for the carrier’s failure to comply with § 10762’s directive to file the negotiated rate with the ICC. See Negotiated Rates I, 3 I. C. C. 2d, at 103. The Commission argues that the carrier should not receive a windfall, i. e., the higher filed rate, from its failure to comply with the statute. See Brief for Federal Respondent 25-27. But § 10761 requires the carrier to collect the filed rate, and we have never accepted the argument that such “equities” are relevant to the application of §10761. See, e. g., Maxwell, 237 U. S., at 97. Indeed, strict adherence to the filed rate has never been justified on the ground that the carrier is equitably entitled to that rate, but rather that such adherence, despite its harsh consequences in some cases, is necessary to enforcement of the Act. See supra, at 126-128.
Compliance with §§ 10761 and 10762 is “utterly central” to the administration of the Act. Regular Common Carrier Conference v. United States, 253 U. S. App. D. C. 305, 308, 793 F. 2d 376, 379 (1986). “Without [these provisions]... it would be monumentally difficult to enforce the requirement that rates be reasonable and nondiscriminatory,... and virtually impossible for the public to assert its right to challenge the lawfulness of existing proposed rates.” Ibid, (citations omitted). Although the ICC argues that the Negotiated Rates policy does not “abolis[h] the requirement in section 10761 that carriers must continue to charge the tariff rate,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a, the policy, by sanctioning adherence to unfiled rates, undermines the basic structure of the Act. The ICC cannot review in advance the reasonableness of unfiled rates. Likewise, other shippers cannot know if they should challenge a carrier’s rates as discriminatory when many of the carrier’s rates are privately negotiated and never disclosed to the ICC. Thus, although we agree that the Commission may have discretion to craft appropriate remedies for violations of the statute, see ICC v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 467 U. S. 354, 364-365 (1984), the “remedy” articulated in the Negotiated Rates policy effectively renders nugatory the requirements of §§ 10761 and 10762 and conflicts directly with the core purposes of the Act.
The ICC maintains, however, that the passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (MCA), Pub. L. 96-296, 94 Stat. 793, justifies its Negotiated Rates policy. The MCA substantially deregulated the motor carrier industry in many ways in an effort to “promote competitive and efficient transportation services.” Pub. L. 96-296, §4, formerly codified at 49 U. S. C. § 10101(a)(7) (1976 ed., Supp. V). In addition to loosening entry controls, see §5, codified at 49 U. S. C. §10922 (1982 ed.), the MCA also created a zone of reasonableness within which carriers can raise rates without interference from the ICC. See §11, codified at 49 U. S. C. §10708 (1982 ed.). More importantly, the MCA also allows motor carriers to operate as both common carriers and contract carriers. See § 10(b)(1), amending 49 U. S. C. § 10930(a) (1982 ed.). A contract carrier transports property under exclusive agreements with a shipper, see § 10102(14), and the Commission has exempted all motor contract carriers from the requirements of §§ 10761 and 10762. See Exemption of Motor Contract Carriers from Tariff Filing Requirements, 133 M. C. C. 150 (1983), aff’d sub nom. Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Assn., Inc. v. United States, 244 U. S. App. D. C. 226, 757 F. 2d 301, cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1019 (1985). The Commission has also relaxed the regulations relating to motor common carriers, most significantly, by allowing decreased rates to go into effect one day after the filing of a tariff. See Short Notice Effectiveness for Independently Filed Rates, 1 I. C. C. 2d 146 (1984), aff’d sub nom. Southern Motor Gamers Rate Conference v. United States, 773 F. 2d 1561 (CA11 1985). In Negotiated Rates I and II, the Commission concluded that in light of the more competitive environment, strict adherence to the filed rate doctrine “is inappropriate and unnecessary to deter discrimination today.” Negotiated Rates I, 3 I. C. C., at 106. According to the Commission, “ ‘the inability of a shipper to rely on a carrier’s interpretation of a tariff is a greater evil than the remote possibility that a carrier might intentionally misquote an applicable tariff rate to discriminate illegally between shippers.’” Ibid., quoting Seaboard System R. Co. v. United States, 794 F. 2d 635, 638 (CA11 1986).
We reject this argument. Although the Commission has both the authority and expertise generally to adopt new policies when faced with new developments in the industry, see American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 397, 416 (1967), it does not have the power to adopt a policy that directly conflicts with its governing statute. Nothing in the MCA repeals §§ 10761 and 10762 or casts doubt on our prior interpretation of those sections. Generalized congressional exhortations to “increase competition” cannot provide the ICC authority to alter the well-established statutory filed rate requirements. As we said in Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., with respect to a similarly longstanding judicial interpretation of the Act:
“Congress must be presumed to have been fully cognizant of this interpretation of the statutory scheme, which had been a significant part of our settled law for over half a century, and... Congress did not see fit to change it when Congress carefully reexamined this area of the law in 1980. [Respondent has] pointed to no specific statutory provision or legislative history indicating a specific congressional intention to overturn the longstanding... construction; harmony with the general legislative purpose is inadequate for that formidable task.” 476 U. S., at 420 (footnotes omitted).
See also California v. FERC, 495 U. S., at 498, 499-500. Even before the passage of the MCA, Congress had allowed the Commission to exempt motor contract carriers from the requirement that they adhere to the published tariff, see 49 U. S. C. § 10761(b) (1982 ed.), demonstrating that Congress is aware of the requirement and has deliberately chosen not to disturb it with respect to motor common carriers.’ If strict adherence to §§ 10761 and 10762 as embodied in the filed rate doctrine has become an anachronism in the wake of the MCA, it is the responsibility of Congress to modify or eliminate these sections.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Act states that when reviewing the reasonableness of a carrier's rates, the Commission “shall authorize revenue levels that are adequate under honest, economical, and efficient management to cover total operating expenses... plus a reasonable profit." 49 U. S. C. § 10701(e) (1982 ed.).
Section 11902 provides that a shipper who knowingly receives a rebate or offset against the filed rate is liable to the Government for a civil penalty in an amount equal to three times the rebate. Section 11903(a) states that any person who “knowingly offers, grants, gives, solicits, accepts, or receives” service at less than the filed rate “shall be fined at least $1,000 but not more than $20,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.” A carrier who willfully fails to file and publish its tariffs is subject to the same penalty. See § 11903(b); see also § 11904 (corporate liability).
The Commission stated that its new policy did not "abrogate Section 10761. Rather, we emphasize that carriers must continue to charge the tariff rate, as provided in the statute. The issue here is simply whether we have the authority to consider all the circumstances surrounding an undercharge suit.” NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 3 I. C. C. 2d 99, 103 (1986) (citations omitted). The Commission rejected a proposal by the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) that would have declared the negotiated rate to be the maximum reasonable rate. The Commission concluded that the proposal conflicted with § 10761 because it created a “per se determination that, as a matter of law, the negotiated rate would apply.” Id., at 102.
The Commission stated: “[0]ur Negotiated Rates policy does not represent a relaxed interpretation of § 10761, but rather a separate determination under § 10701. But even if it were viewed as a reinterpretation of a previously strict construction of § 10761, it would be... well within this agency’s authority (and indeed duty) to reinterpret the Interstate Commerce Act, based on upon experience gained and changing circumstances.” NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 5 I. C. C. 2d 623, 631 (1989) (citing American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 397, 416 (1967)).
Section 11706(a) provides:
“A common carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission... must begin a civil action to recover charges for transportation or service provided by the carrier within 3 years after the claim accrues.”
See App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a-38a. The Commission relied primarily on two “rate sheets” to find that negotiated rates existed. According to the Commission, a three-page rate sheet prepared by Primary in 1981 demonstrated that Quinn, through its agent James McGowan, had negotiated a five percent across-the-board increase in rates above those in Quinn's tariff on file with the ICC. Sometime in 1982, when Primary notified Quinn that it would need relief from the rates in order to continue using Quinn, the parties orally negotiated a decrease in the rates. Primary prepared a new rate sheet which was sent to all the relevant individuals. Subsequently, whenever rates were needed for destinations other than those shown on the rate sheet, McGowan would set a new rate based on the mileage involved. The ICC concluded that “there is evidence of offers, acceptances, and approvals by the involved parties” before each of the shipments in question. Id., at 36a; see also id., at 38a.
See id., at 43a. This finding was based on the fact that McGowan represented that his superiors had approved the rates on the written rate sheets. See id., at 40a. The Commission noted that Primary’s representative was never given an actual tariff documenting that the agreed-upon rates had been filed with the ICC and that Primary’s representative had no training with respect to tariffs, but the Commission concluded that the representative “understood that Quinn would do whatever was necessary to implement the agreed upon rates. ” Id., at 32a. The Commission specifically found that “[wjhile Quinn may not have taken appropriate steps to legalize the quoted rates, it has not been demonstrated that this occurred as a result of any intent to engage in unlawful conduct." Id., at 42a.
Compare In re Caravan Refrigerated Cargo, Inc. (Supreme Beef Processors), 864 F. 2d 388 (CA5 1989), with Delta Traffic Service, Inc. v. Transtop, Inc., 902 F. 2d 101 (CA1 1990); Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Zenith Electric Corp., 899 F. 2d 642 (CAT 1990); West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 893 F. 2d 1016 (CA9 1990); Delta Traffic Service, Inc. v. Appco Paper & Plastics Corp., 893 F. 2d 472 (CA2 1990).
See also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U. S. 59, 65 (1924) (“No contract of the carrier could reduce the amount legally payable; or release from liability a shipper who had assumed an obligation to pay the charges. Nor could any act or omission of the carrier (except the running of the statute of limitations) estop or preclude it from enforcing payment of the full amount by a person liable therefor”); Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 653 (1913) (“Neither the intentional nor accidental misstatement of the applicable published rate will bind the carrier or shipper. The lawful rate is that which the carrier must exact and that which the shipper must pay. The shipper’s knowledge of the lawful rate is conclusively presumed”).
The ICC did not determine whether the tariff rates were unreasonable even though primary respondent requested such a determination. We therefore must assume, for purposes of our decision today, that the rates were
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners, six Negroes, were convicted of violating Louisiana’s breach-of-the-peace statute, La. Rev. Stat., 1950, § 14:103.1, and were given fines and jail terms by the state court. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review their convictions, and the case is here on petition for a writ of certiorari which we have granted.
Four of the six petitioners went into the waiting room customarily reserved for white people at the Trailways Bus Depot in Shreveport, Louisiana, in order to take a bus to Jackson, Mississippi. The Chief of Police of Shreveport approached the four and asked them why they were in the station. They told him they were interstate passengers and wished to purchase tickets and obtain travel information. The Chief told them they could do this in the colored waiting room and ordered them to move on. When the four refused to leave, stating again that they were interstate passengers and asserting their rights under federal law, they were ordered to leave or be arrested. The spokesman of the group then said, “We have no choice; go ahead and arrest us.” The police thereupon arrested the four of them. The other two petitioners were then arrested, while sitting nearby in the automobile which had brought the six to the bus station.
At the trial there was testimony that immediately upon petitioners’ entry into the waiting room many of the people therein became restless and that some onlookers climbed onto seats to get a better view. Nevertheless, respondent admits these persons moved on when ordered to do so by the police. There was no evidence of violence. The record shows that the petitioners were quiet, orderly, and polite. The trial court said, however, that the mere presence of Negroes in a white waiting room was likely to give rise to a breach of the peace. It held the mere presence of the Negroes in the waiting room, as part of a preconceived plan, was sufficient evidence of guilt. It accordingly held that the four had violated the state breach-of-the-peace statute and that the other two had counseled and procured the others to commit the crime.
Here, as in Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, the only evidence to support the charge was that petitioners were violating a custom that segregated people in waiting rooms according to their race, a practice not allowed in interstate transportation facilities by reason of federal law. Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454, 459-460. And see Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U. S. 877 (public beaches); Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 350 U. S. 879 (municipal golf courses); Gayle v. Browder, 352 U. S. 903 (bus); New Orleans Park Assn. v. Detiege, 358 U. S. 54 (municipal golf course and park). The judgments of conviction must therefore be
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Harlan would grant certiorari and set the case for argument.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In relevant part, §14:103.1 provides: "A. Whoever with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) crowds or congregates with others ... in or upon . . . any . . . public place or building . . . and who fails or refuses to disperse and move on, or disperse or move on, when ordered so to do by any law enforcement officer of any municipality ... in which such act or acts are committed, or by any law enforcement officer of the state of Louisiana . .. shall be guilty of disturbing the peace.”
“That there exists a serious and difficult problem arising from a feeling of race hostility which the law is powerless to control, and to which it must give a measure of consideration, may be freely admitted. But its solution cannot be promoted by depriving citizens of their constitutional rights and privileges.” Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 80-81.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is granted, and the judgment dismissing petitioner’s appeal to that court is reversed. The time limited by 28 U. S. C. § 2107 and Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 73 for the filing of the notice of appeal from the judgment appealed from was 30 days. However, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6 (a), as amended, provides that in computing the period, “[t]he last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday.” Since the thirtieth day following entry of the judgment appealed from was Saturday and the notice of appeal was filed the following Monday, we hold that the filing of the notice of appeal was timely. The provision of Rule 6 (a) was not made inapplicable by the order of the Court of Appeals directing that the District Court Clerk’s offices be open for business on Saturday mornings. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspecifiable
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_decisiondirection
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.